[Dan]

(I would dispute some of his conclusions -- particularly the bumbling idiot comment -- has he never attempted to develop a theory and apply it in a particular field within a set of principles or doctrines-- it is not an easy task particularly given the magnitude of the attempt).

Me:

Your friend is assuming too much. I was making a general comment regarding the general conclusions one would be led to. I truly wonder if "friend" really has seen all of the known quotes related to AG, and not just the ones from the Journal of Discourses.

Also, the idea that BY's statements were largely consistent but the differences, as are recorded, are a result of the editorial process is the same argument used by Elder Mark E. Petersen in contending that BY never even advanced the theory.

Me:

Oh, please do not lump me into the Mark Petersen denials which were made KNOWING that BY had expounded this concept (just as Widtsoe, BRM, JFS, and others KNEW). It is not at all the same. The point about editorial errors was not that it accounted for _all_ of the 'contradictions'. Not hardly. I am sure it accounts for a few here and there. But what accounts for most of the 'contradictions' IMO, is the lack of full context from which BY made comments (not just including the context of the talk itself), intent for dual meaning by BY, BY expounding one level of understanding at one point and the next day expounding a deeper level of understanding which would appear to 'contradict', which in reality they do not as they are merely forming a paradox of truth.

Also, I am unaware of any evidence (other than hearsay) that Joseph Smith ever taught the doctrine. Moreover, the doctrine is losing influence by WW and LS. It was being taught in public with much less frequency.

Me:

True, after BY, the concept was not pushed heavily and by Joseph F. Smith ceased to be stressed, though it continued at the lecture at the veil until into the 1900s (but only by a little).

It is clear that Orson Pratt rejected the theory in total. Moreover, President Young could never get the entire Quorum to accept it. He tried too, but all I know is that they refused to propound it as an official church doctrine. Given Orson's acquiesce on other matters when he was the only member of the Quorum to have a contrary opinion (e.g. particularly the reorganization of the First Presidency and his back and forth acceptance and rejection of Brigham's claim that we worship the Father as an individual being for who he is as opposed to OP's contention that we worship his attributes), I strongly doubt that Elder Pratt was the only one who disagreed.

Me:

Orson is the only one who held out. The others were pretty unanimous. If your friend has something to the contrary, I do not remember seeing it.

Also, it is quite clear by the Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency of the Father and the Son of 1916 that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had rejected the theory by that time. For example, they make it very clear who is Eloheim, Jehovah, and Adam and their relationship to each other. Clearly, after this official pronouncement (one which BY could never get) it is absolutely clear that Eloheim is the Father of Jesus Christ and not Adam as contended by those adhering to the Adam God Theory. Moreover, it more fully defines their roles. The official pronouncement is completely contrary to the Adam God theory. One cannot accept Exposition and the Adam God Theory as propounded by President Young. They are completely inconsistent.

Me:

I am sorry, but your friend overstates this a little too much. That is a whole separate discussion, and I am actually NOT trying to uphold the validity of BY's teachings, just that he truly did expound them. But to say the document "clearly" does all of the things he says it does misses the boat from the standpoint of the practical impact it had on the concept after that point. If it "clearly" did all he said it did, then it "clearly" would have cleared everything up, now wouldn't it? But it didn't.

This confusion over who was who may have added or even been the genesis to BY's theory. Van Hale wrote a paper analyzing the use of names of Eloheim and Jehovah during the end of the 19th Century in general conference reports. What is clear is that OP and GQC (I believe but it was one other Apostle) were the only Brethren to consistently refer to Jehovah as the Son. We take it for granted today that we simply know the name titles for the deities but it is clear that up until the 1916 Declaration their was significant disagreement or misunderstanding about the situation.

Me:

Certainly there is confusion. But two things are 'clear'. 1. BY said he got it from Joseph. 2. BY testified in the name of the Lord that it was true. Funny how Van Hale should be mentioned. Van Hale also wrote a paper on AG in which he admitted he had no other conclusion but that BY taught and believed the concept. The Jehovah identity was very jumbled. Look at the D&C alone and you can see Joseph himself referring to God the Father as Jehovah. But this is a whole separate issue. And yes, the church authorities started censuring people for teaching AG openly shortly after the turn of the century and it was removed from the lecture at the veil. There was specific emphasis to NOT teach it after that time.

In sum, the Church and Brethren as a whole, had moved away or at least largely moved away from the theory by the twentieth century.

Me:

Undoubtedly. There is no arguing that point. But all I have been trying to explain is that BY did teach it and it was wideheld belief by church heirarchy and many members until it was deemphasised.