Thought I'd start a new thread because this is important.
I certainly do not wish to mischaracterize either modern LDS teaching or Brigham Young's teaching on this matter.
The other thread can be found here.
The rub is that I say that Brigham Young, 2nd President and Prophet of the LDS church, taught that God the Father was/is Adam. I base this on recorded sermons where he says that Adam is God. I also base this on other evidence such as LDS elder Bruce McConkie admitting that Brigham Young taught the doctrine in 1988.
DJ, Groove and Diamond4 have all denied that Brigham Young taught the doctrine, contrary to what Elder McConkie believed.
Regardless, I admit that the LDS does not teach this doctrine. The question for me is a matter of prophecy. If Young did teach this doctrine it would clearly make him a false prophet wouldn't it?
I found a good article on this from an LDS source that we are all familiar with, Meridian Magazine.
From the article:
Question: Why would Orson Pratt have 'heated conversations' with Brigham Young about it if Young did not teach it???
The article goes on to give several explanations to explain Brigham Young's teaching. Some say that a scribe simply miscopied Young's sermon (like Diamdon4). If that is the case than why did he have heated discussion on the matter with Orson Pratt!!
I prefer another explanation offered in the Meridian Magazine article. Its the only explanation that is honest with history and not obviously attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole. This explanation is championed by some LDS scholarship (McConkie, Van Hale and others.)
In short, this explanation is that Brigham Young was simply wrong.
OK.
So how does one reconcile the office of first presidency and prophet/seer etc and Brigham Young being wrong and publically preaching such a false doctrine?
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 4/28/2009 2:14p).]
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 4/28/2009 2:14p).]
I certainly do not wish to mischaracterize either modern LDS teaching or Brigham Young's teaching on this matter.
The other thread can be found here.
The rub is that I say that Brigham Young, 2nd President and Prophet of the LDS church, taught that God the Father was/is Adam. I base this on recorded sermons where he says that Adam is God. I also base this on other evidence such as LDS elder Bruce McConkie admitting that Brigham Young taught the doctrine in 1988.
DJ, Groove and Diamond4 have all denied that Brigham Young taught the doctrine, contrary to what Elder McConkie believed.
Regardless, I admit that the LDS does not teach this doctrine. The question for me is a matter of prophecy. If Young did teach this doctrine it would clearly make him a false prophet wouldn't it?
I found a good article on this from an LDS source that we are all familiar with, Meridian Magazine.
From the article:
quote:
Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses , the Deseret Evening News , and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Many of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while some have engendered controversy.
He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.
Brigham claimed to have received these beliefs by revelation, and, on at least three occasions, claimed that he learned it from Joseph Smith. While this doctrine was never canonized, Brigham expected other contemporary Church leaders to accept it, or at least not preach against it. (Orson Pratt did not believe it, and he and Brigham had a number of heated conversations on the subject.)
Question: Why would Orson Pratt have 'heated conversations' with Brigham Young about it if Young did not teach it???
The article goes on to give several explanations to explain Brigham Young's teaching. Some say that a scribe simply miscopied Young's sermon (like Diamdon4). If that is the case than why did he have heated discussion on the matter with Orson Pratt!!
I prefer another explanation offered in the Meridian Magazine article. Its the only explanation that is honest with history and not obviously attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole. This explanation is championed by some LDS scholarship (McConkie, Van Hale and others.)
In short, this explanation is that Brigham Young was simply wrong.
OK.
So how does one reconcile the office of first presidency and prophet/seer etc and Brigham Young being wrong and publically preaching such a false doctrine?
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 4/28/2009 2:14p).]
[This message has been edited by Seamaster (edited 4/28/2009 2:14p).]