So has anybody discussed the Adam God theory recently?

[Dan]

... AG can be a little different in certain aspects from group to group, or from person to person for that matter.

[Archaea]

direct spoke revelation and most by whisperings of the Spirit.

That leaves ground for the whole story not being revealed or understood.

It could be AG has validity but we just don't want to discuss it now. I'm okay with that, and won't teach it as theory, doctrine or otherwise, just that it was discussed in the past.

[Dan]

Archaea,

You hit the nail on the head from my perspective when you said:

It could be AG has validity but we just don't want to discuss it now. I'm okay with that, and won't teach it as theory, doctrine or otherwise, just that it was discussed in the past.

[SteelBlue]

Mike Waters wrote:

Also my understanding is that many of the Q12 in David o. McKay's time were in favor of rescinding it (including DOM), but they were not unanimous.

Again, I have to refer you all to the new David O. McKay book. The chapter on blacks and the priesthood reveals much of what went on in the first presidency and the Q12 on this issue. It appears that the vast majority of the Q12 and first presidency were NOT in favor of changing the policy at all. The one man who pushed in the direction of a change was Hugh B. Brown.

There was much debate on whether the issue was one of doctrine or policy. On that issue McKay seems to have fallen on the policy side while others like Benson, Lee, Smith, McConkie felt very strongly that it was doctrine. While McKay believed it was policy, he also believed that it would require a revelation to change that policy. Apparently he took the issue to the Lord many times but never felt he received a revelation to change the policy.

Anyway it is absolutely worth the purchase for that chapter in the book alone. Dan, have you read it yet?

[Dan]

I may have to add it to my queue of "books to read".

[MikeWaters]

steel it looks interesting.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

On amazon, you can look at the first few pages and the index.

[MikeWaters]

Here's more from my friend, who replies to Dan's reply. "Quote" is my friend. "Me" is Dan. "Reply" is my friend.
===================

Quote:
(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.

Response:

Interesting response. Not sure I understand the response to the quote. Why the question about whether I have read anything. Its not even in the Quote. Nonetheless, I am not aware of any other statements by BY on the theory. The most comprehensive collection is, of course, the one just put out by Briney (I believe a fundamentalist) entitled Understanding Adam God. He collects not only BY but many others. There is also a very good Master's thesis by Rodney Turner on the issue. The thesis covers a broad range of sources including journals, deseret news, tribune, millen. star, and JD. But I readily admit I have not read everything on the matter. Its not a hobby for me but I have read a good deal and I have not come across any new BY quotes. Some of the best statements come from Wilford Woodruff's Journals (now while I haven't read all nine volumes--just got them last summer) I have read sufficient to see where it was clearly taught by Brigham and others.

He also says I am assuming too much. Question, about what? I did not refer to President Young as a "bumbling idiot." Moreover, it is a valid question. Developing a theory, particularly on the magnitude that BY was attempting to do, is no small task when he was confined to the restoration framework as propounded by Joseph. Thus, I don't fault President Young for changing his approach or theory. All theorists must. You test it. That's what I think he was doing. Did he believe what he was teaching -- most certainly. I think it is difficult to characterize BY as an insincere man. I discuss this because I believe this explains changes to his teachings, which if read separately just show inconsistencies. This leads to the next point.

Quote:
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.

Response:

He seems disappointed to be lumped with Elder Peterson. Maybe it would help if he was also lumped with Alvin R. Dyer (member of the First Presidency) who set out the same argument. I would have no problem being lumped with them. But I certainly did not lump him with them, but just pointed out that the same argument is used by those who attempt to say BY never taught such principles. I think it is interesting that same argument is used now to explain away the inconsistencies. If the editors erred or were inconsistent couldn't Elder Petersen and President Dyer be correct? Or can we take anything to be accurate? Who decides what is accurately edited and not? I will stick with what is written. At least there is a common place to start from. Unless, of course, there is study that shows the inaccuracies in the editing of his statements about the theory. (Actually this would be an excellent dissertation project for a History student). Assuming, we still have the shorthand accounts and can understand the various methods of shorthand used.

Now with respect to the last half of the comment concerning the dual meaning. It is beautifully phrased and very academic sounding, but must admit I not sure I understand the argument. Apparently, President Young's inconsistencies can be explained (in addition to editorial errors, which have in this response been somewhat minimized) in that BY was expounding one level of understanding one day and a deeper another day which appear to contradict but in reality form a "paradox of truth." Absolutely beautiful! What, however, is this paradox of truth? And please, let it be explained. I have read several scholars' attempts to analyze the theory and none have been able to explain the contradictions or distinctions. If there is a work that has synthesized President Young's statements, I would be fascinated to read it. Nevertheless, until I see something else I have to rely on my own conclusions (an other's analysis on the matter) and conclude that there are contradictions, which just do not fit.

I don't think President Young was stupid. To the contrary, his adjustments and changes show me a mind that is seeking a certain level of consistency with other principles he knew to be true and he was willing to change his ideas when he tested his theory/hypothesis and found it to be lacking or inconsistent with other gospel principles. That is intellectual integrity. I have no doubt that Brigham Young was seeking after truth but just unable to completely square it.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.


Response:

I will look to see if some of the other Brethren rejected the theory. I believe the thesis discusses that point. But as I said earlier, Elder Pratt generally went along if he was the lone dissenter. And he caught much more heat over other issues than this one. This leads me to believe that either he was not the only apostle uncomfortable with the teaching or BY did not care as much about this point as he did about others.


Quote:
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.

Response:

I don't understand what is overstated. The issue is not whether BY's teaching is attempting to be upheld, but instead, how long the Brethren and Church in general accepted the doctrine and when it was repudiated. I believe that it is clear that as of the 1916 Exposition the Brethren and Church no longer accepted the theory. It simply can't be squared with President Young's thesis. The Exposition leaves no question that as to whether Adam is the father of Jesus Christ. This in my book is repudiation. Granted, it does not come out and say "the Adam God teachings as taught by President Young are incorrect" but would we expect them to. Instead, they fulfilled their divinely appointed role and set forth the will of God as revealed to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. But, then again, maybe this is simply a "paradox of truth" which I don't understand.

It would also be interesting to read some of the other pronouncements by the First Presidency during that time like the Origin of Man, which just based on a hunch would also likely be doctrinally inconsistent with the Adam God Theory.

Also, if I remember correctly (but I haven't checked) one of the first comments was that the principle was clearly taught until Joseph F. Smith, the reason I include these comments is because I do not believe the historical record supports such a conclusion. Was it taught until JFS -- Yes (somewhat and was rapidly declining). Was it taught after JFS -- Yes by certain fundamentalists. Is it still being taught today -- Yes by certain fundamentalists.

The point I attempted to make and maybe it did not come through clearly was the after President Young died so did the espousal of the principle within the overall membership of the Church and the Brethren. It did not happen overnight but by WW and LS it is not appearing nearly as much. Further, I am not aware of a statement made by either of these Prophets, while President of the Church, that espouses the theory (but I should check Briney on that). And I place the final repudiation of the principle in 1916 with the Doctrinal Exposition. There are no sermons after that date that I am aware of by a member of the 12 were the principle was taught. There were a great many to the contrary firmly, asserting that Eloheim who was the Father, was the Father of Jesus and the Father of our spirits, which is admittedly inconsistent with the theory. Must one come out and say its false doctrine before it is repudiated or is it sufficient to propound a very important Exposition to the contrary and never mention it again in conference while preaching just the opposite. I call this a repudiation but that is up for you to do decide.

However, if we take a clear statement "it is false doctrine" I suppose we still accept that men live on the moon. Who knows, maybe they do?

Quote:
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.

Response:

BY did say he got it from Joseph but exactly what did he get from him. Did he get from him the contradictions and inconsistencies? Or just an idea that Adam may have been the father of Jesus Christ? Or maybe just that Adam was placed here from another world? The question is what did he get from Joseph? Did he understand what Joseph was saying? I am unaware of President Young ever detailing exactly what Joseph told him but I am aware he said that Joseph taught it. Well that is really the problem with hearsay, we don't really know what was said just one version of it, and unfortunately no one (as far as I know ever cross examined BY on what exactly Joseph told him in relation to this matter. But if there is something along those lines I would like to see it.

Also, the Adam portion of the lecture was removed from the instruction at the veil during the first decade of the twentieth century. If there is a specific emphasis not to teach it after that time in conjunction with the other statements by the Brethren and the Exposition, is this not a repudiation? I don't understand how then we can take it all the way to President Kimball until the theory is officially repudiated.

Quote:
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.

Response: Agreed, Brigham did teach it. If I correctly understand what he was attempting to teach then it is inconsistent with the known gospel as taught by Joseph (with of course the vague, and conclusory hearsay attributions) and the Standard Works. Do I fault him for it -- No. I don't think he understood exactly what he was trying to teach as evidenced by his inconsistencies. Is this troubling -- No. Many of the Brethren speculated and BY did on many other topics as well. But I do wish he would could have taken care of the contradictions, but with the issuance of the Doctrinal Exposition I believe it is clear why he was not able to explain his theory sufficiently. Do I wish he would not have tried to teach it -- Yes. Because I could get more billable hours and not feel the need to be drawn into such discussion, but I have to admit it has been quite interesting. I have never exchanged any type of emails like this. I usually just read on my own and only discuss these matters when a member of the ward asks.

In sum, he taught it. It was inconsistent. It was rejected (in total by the Brethren and Church) within a few decades after his passing, but the theory declined rapidly after his passing so by the time it was officially repudiated it was rarely mentioned. And most important it is FALSE.

[Dan]

I won't try to put all of the comments I am specifically responding to into quotes, as they are based on responses to responses, and a simple quote wont due in most cases. But Ii will quote where feasible.

There are plenty who have concluded BY is a bumbling fool based on his apparent contradictions on this issue and many others. I do not feel that way, BTW. But that is not an uncommon belief by people who delve into LDS history as deep as it currently allows. Not many orthodox LDS feel that way.

There are a lot of recycled links to sources of AG quotes from all of the resources "Friend" commented on (... why do I feel like I am speaking to the unseen man behind the curtain ... :cry: ) You Tholson, etc. as well. Lots of the same recycled stuff. Most go off the same lists of quotes anymore. There may be a new quote here and there that a given "author" pulls out from somewhere, but id does not change the fact of what was taught. And yes, the WW stuff is some of the best. It is funny how so many are so gung ho about most of his stuff, but when it comes to the AG stuff and the polygamy revelations, etc., it is avoided like the plague by orthodoxy.

I too agree that BY was developing something deep. But look, what I said was that if what BY was teaching was flat out false (the current church position), then I do not see any way around the conclusion that BY was bumbling around with this "false" doctrine. I do not necessarily think it is false. Nor do I neccesarily think it is true. But there is no way to deny that BY was teaching this in general conference and that he pronounced it true in the name of the Lord. And now we say he was dead wrong. So let's see ... the guy stresses this concept in terms of it being one of the fundamental concepts and most important (and this is life eternal, to know God ... sorry for the paraphrase). He said stronger things than this about the concept. Yet we say he was wrong all along, and way off base he must have been when you look at the decisive and repeated rhetoric on the topic. Sure it was a complex theology that evolved, but if one thinks it is false, how can one avoid thinking he was not bumbling around speaking in the name of the Lord about it?

Even Joseph (at least a pretty good case can be made) evolved in his ideas about God. The early reports of the first vision, the Lectures on Faith, and later more open polythieistic expositions (which seemed to begin with much more rigor when Neibar came on the scene). A very strong case can be made that the first vision, for example, was not meant to teach God the father had a body of flesh and bone, yet we claim it does today. Even if Joseph's theology expanded and evolved, it does not mean it was false. It could well have been 'true' based on then existent understanding, and his thoughts along the way were necessary precursers to later belief developments. But that does not mean someone like Joseph was bumbling around with it. But with BY, the current claim is that BY was just flat wrong (as well as John Taylor, Wilford, Snow, etc., etc.). The conclusion has to be different, IMO.

Let me also clarify that I do not believe the 'inconsistencies' of BY's theology were mainly the product of editorial error. I think that may have been a minor part. Just wanted to clarify that.

And my disappointment to be lumped in with Mark Ppetersen, et. al. is regarding is purposeful obfuscation of the truth on the AG issue. That is what I was addressing. If you would like to be lumped with them on that issue of purposeful lying, that is fine by me, "Friend". But to be charitable, I realize that is not the context in which you made your comment, so I would hope you will not incorrectly bend my words to make it appear I would not like to be lumped with the men in general. On the issue of lying about AG, no I wouldn't. Petersen's claims about BY and AG were knowingly false, and then showed to be demonstrably false when his star witness (was it Charles Rich?) was not even in town to hear a lecture and make notes, which notes were the emphasis of one of his main arguments.

Now with respect to the last half of the comment concerning the dual meaning. It is beautifully phrased and very academic sounding, but must admit I not sure I understand the argument. Apparently, President Young's inconsistencies can be explained (in addition to editorial errors, which have in this response been somewhat minimized) in that BY was expounding one level of understanding one day and a deeper another day which appear to contradict but in reality form a "paradox of truth." Absolutely beautiful! What, however, is this paradox of truth?

Uhh, thanks for the compliment "Amigo" ... I guess. :? . Sorry, but I am one who believes in multiple layers of meaning, especially in creation/adam and eve/parables. What can be explained at one time on one level can be explained another time on another level and appear to be completely separate contexts regarding the same scriptural accounts.

Regarding the "Paradox of Truth", let me see if I can help out my good ol' "friend" ...

"Paradox" = A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true

"of" = Composed or made from

"truth" = Conformity to fact or actuality

So to sum up the "Paradox of Truth", it would be Something that appears contradictory and unable to co-exist as truth (i.e., apparent contradictions by BY re AG), which in reality are truthful statements; and the way the contradictory statements 'coexist' as truth is that they are actually true in their own sphere or level upon which they are taught. For example, Adam is an individual man who lived thousands of years ago. yet adam is also all of mankind. Yet Adam is also each one of us. Etc. It depends on which level it is being addressed. That is a simple example, but as you get more involved in a complex theology, the depth and complexity of the example and the paradox involved is intensified as well. The temple, for example is loaded with one paradox after another, meant to jar us awake and begin to learn higher truth. Perhaps BY was trying to do the same thing? I do not know, but maybe.

As to my comment about Friend's overstatement, I like his new comment better ... that to Friend's belief it is clear. One's belief can be clear, but when the first comment was made it appeared more of an absolute comment, which I took issue with. And again, I am not arguing that the church did not move away from AG, so I do not feel a need to defend that position.

[quote]Also, if I remember correctly (but I haven't checked) one of the first comments was that the principle was clearly taught until Joseph F. Smith, the reason I include these comments is because I do not believe the historical record supports such a conclusion. Was it taught until JFS -- Yes (somewhat and was rapidly declining). Was it taught after JFS -- Yes by certain fundamentalists. Is it still being taught today -- Yes by certain fundamentalists.

JFS was in line with AG. It was the correlation committee recommendation with GQC that was instilled by JFS. Maybe JFS didn't believe it the few decades prior. But there is no record that he didn't. Any nearly all fundamentalists believe in some conglomeration of AG. It is practically an article of faith for them all. That is one reason they are fundamentalists, as they thing the main church has strayed away from a true, revealed understanding of the very person of God.

BY did say he got it from Joseph but exactly what did he get from him. Did he get from him the contradictions and inconsistencies? Or just an idea that Adam may have been the father of Jesus Christ? Or maybe just that Adam was placed here from another world? The question is what did he get from Joseph? Did he understand what Joseph was saying?

I love it. This is great stuff. BY claims he got AG from Joseph. BY speaks in the name of the Lord that God revealed it to him too, and in the name of the Lord that it is a true doctrine. Yet, are we now going to split hairs about what aspect came from here or there and did he really understand. Look, if the concept is false, would you have a problem if people concluded he is a false prophet? If the concept is true, then what does that say about subsequent church leadership who has repudiated it and strayed from true knowledge. Now there is a potential "paradox of truth" (LOL, I can't help but think of the "paradox of truth" along the vein of the "circle of trust". For some reason I just started thinking of the circle of trust throughout this reply).

If I correctly understand what he was attempting to teach then it is inconsistent with the known gospel as taught by Joseph (with of course the vague, and conclusory hearsay attributions) and the Standard Works.[quote]

LOL, "Friend's" parenthetical creates the problem that unwinds the beginning of his comment. That problem is do we REALLY know what Joseph taught on these things. I would guess not really, understanding how his quotes came down to us in general. I [sarcastic mode on] love the cherry-picking that is done in second and third hand accounts that form our history and the teaching of Joseph and others [sarcastic mode off]. But you have to live with things as they are I guess.

Friend concludes that AG is "FALSE". He wouldn't be the first. I neither believe nor disbelive (yikes, does that make me the dreaded lukewarm, ready to be spewed out ??). I do give more pause to the issue when to claim that it is flat out FALSE, you are in essence saying that the Lord's prior annointed who spoke in the name of the Lord that AG was true, must have, well, been wrong. For me the jury is still out. I may not find out until I am on the other side, and I guess I can live with that just fine.

[MikeWaters]

Mike,

I am afraid this will have to be my last response to Dan. It is taking too much time. Yet, I find it exhilarating. So please send me any response he gives. Thanks for the opportunity....frankly, I am concerned that we as individuals are becoming doctrinal and historical dumbos.
=================================

Response:

Still did not take up and address the question of WW and LS teaching the theory as Presidents of the Church but merely says WW has some of the best stuff. Dodges the issue. In fact, after having a chance to review the available quotations from the newest most comprehensive collection of statements on the issue, it is remarkable how few remarks are made after the death of President Young. The best I could find was a statement recorded by Nuttall of John Taylor: "Adam is the father of our bodies. Who is to say he is not the father of our spirits." 1/13/1880. This was the last statement attributed to an apostle or president of the Church publicly teaching the theory (and what is he really saying). In addition, there is a conversation between GQC and AC (father and son), as recorded in Abraham's Journal on 6/23/1889, recording that GQC believed that Adam is the father of Christ. Yet a mere two years later the Diary of Charles Lowell Walker records "Pres Cannon said it was not necessary that we should or endorse the doctrine that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ." (seems like GQC made this statement long before he was put on a correlation committee by JFS) 2:11:1892 (6/11/1892). I am quite surprised to see the utter dearth of material after President Young. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, I made an incorrect assumption that President Taylor stuck with it longer. But the fundamentalists have not marshaled any public teachings to the contrary. The reason I refer the fundamentalists (and I am in no way insinuating that Dan is because from his comments it is reasonable to surmise he is not) is that they try to point out to mainstream church that this was taught by many of the Brethren and so they go out of their way to find the latest and greatest. Thus, I am left to conclude, after reviewing my source material, that after the death of President Young it really is not taught publicly by the Brethren. And certainly by the presidencies of WW and LS it is not being taught, which is something that has previously been maintained.

Potential Research Point: It seems the bulk (but clearly not all BY still propounded it after) of the theory was actually taught during the life of Heber C. Kimball (died in 69). I wonder it there is a causal relation (another interesting research project). Could it be that BY and HCK comprised an Adam God think-tank? Any research would have to control for the factor of age as well because BY was getting older and so you would have to look at how many sermons he preached.

With respect to the "bumbling" remark. I guess we just differ on what he was doing. I see President Young as attempting to develop and propound a principle (on an enormous theological scale) that he believed was true. Now, after his teachings do not fit within the accepted understanding of Mormon doctrine, and have been rejected by the Church I am still not willing to say he was "bumbling". Searching, reasoning, hypothesizing, yes. Bumbling to me indicates that he was absolutely lost and not knowing what he was doing. This sheds too negative a light on what I believe he was attempting to do. If we use bumbling to explain an attempt to develop a theory, hypothesis, or doctrine, then we can apply it to any who have used the scientific method and a theory turned out to be incorrect. I believe he was attempting to make it fit within the doctrinal framework that existed. This, for me, explains the inconsistencies. Moreover, there are several statements that have been preached by the Brethren over the years that would be considered false doctrine within the accepted understanding today, but again I would not characterize such attempts as bumbling. These men are intelligent. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they had good intentions and would not just throw out a remark for no reason. And maybe this my attitude comes from having to attempt to develop and defend a hypothesis in an organized field of study. It is no small feat and requires intensive and rigorous thought, which in my case changed my thoughts and opinions. In addition, (as Dan seemed to indicate) if you accept the "bumbling" phrase to explain what was going on, it leads to the conclusion that either President Young's teachings were correct (and then apparently he was not bumbling) or the Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency of 1916 and subsequent prophets and apostles are "bumbling" because they have rejected the Adam God Theory and taught doctrines inconsistent with the same. (Unless of course this is a paradox of truth, which is somewhat difficult because at one time Adam is the father of Christ and our spirits and just a few short years later he is not -- I would not call this a paradox of truth but simply that such truth is relative) This would also lead to the conclusion that if one did not know whether one side was correct and the other incorrect, then that person would be bumbling. Thus, the reason I don't like the phrase bumbling. I don't think it gives any of us a chance unless we can accept the principle that we are all bumbling, which I hope is not the case. Now, this strong defense and acquiescence could be based on being uncomfortable to admit that Brigham Young as the President of the Church taught some things that have subsequently been rejected and declare false. I, however, am not uncomfortable admitting that not all of President Young's teachings are correct and consistent with further light and knowledge and clarification. It does not effect my firm conviction that he was a prophet of God and held the priesthood keys on the earth. Some may find that incredible but I have resolved the issue long ago. Moreover, Dan questions whether there would be a problem with believing that Brigham was a false prophet. Of course not! I have no problem with anyone who believes that Brigham Young was a false prophet or Joseph Smith, or for that matter I don't have a problem with people believing that Jesus Christ was not the Son of God. I disagree with them but they can believe what they want. Isn't that all part of the great plan.

There seems to be a further confusion on the evolution of ideas and the development of truth. Joseph's development of the concept of God is used. It is indicated (and it seems likely) that when Joseph left the grove, he did not know God the Father had a body of flesh and bone or that the Son did for that matter. There is no record of any type of physical contact. Thus, how could he know unless he was told? And there is no record of that either. However, he did leave knowing that the deities were separate personages (unless you reject the accounts where two beings appeared). It seems likely that Joseph's understanding did evolve but he did not teach something that was inconsistent or cannot be squared with his later revelation in D&C 130 and teachings. For example, the Lectures on Faith teach that the Son has a body of flesh and bone and the Father has a spiritual body (not the exact phrase). However, he does not say that the Father did not have a body of flesh but just taught he had a spiritual body, which of course is true (all resurrected beings are filled with spirit as opposed to blood and have often been referred to as spiritual such numerous times since D&C 130). Apparently, however, this is not bumbling because Joseph was correct? Also, Joseph did not go back and forth as evidenced in President Young's teachings on AG.

Also, Joseph's teachings did vary concerning children who die in their infancy. First he said they would be resurrected as infants and remain in the same state throughout eternity and then a few years later he said they would grow in the resurrection to maturity. One apostle explained that the first statement was made without revelation on the matter and the second was made after revelation. Is this a paradox of truth? I don't see how it can be. One statement is inconsistent with the other. Unless of course, infants who died from 1840 to 1842 will be resurrected and remain as infants but those who die after 1842 will grow to maturity in the resurrection. Then both statements can be true. Indeed, this would truly be a paradox! Now I hope Dan does not want to discuss whether Joseph was a "bumbling idiot" because one statement cannot be reconciled with the other, and may I say the first statement is false. But if he wants to draw the "bumbling idiot" conclusion so be it.

Now, apparently Dan does not like the fact that I ask what did BY get from Joseph. BY said he got it from JS but there are many aspects of Joseph's Nauvoo teachings concerning Adam he could have received, and there are also many aspects to BY's AG theory. Let me give an example, by way of Helen Mar Whitney (plural wife of Joseph). She said "BY did not happen to be the author of (Adam God), and to prove the truth of my assertion, I will produce some of the Prophet's teachings, given May 16, 1841." ... copied by Clayton, from whom she copied ... "The copy I have retained, and, this is what the prophet said upon this subject, commencing with the Priesthood: 'The First Presidency was first given to Adam -- he obtained the First Presidency and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the creation, before the world was formed...He had dominion given him over every creature; he is Michael, the Archangel spoken of in the scriptures. Then Noah who is Gabriel -- he stands next in authority to Adam in the priesthood. He was called of God to this office and was the first on earth and then in heaven. The priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God through all eternity. When the keys have been brought from heaven -- it is by Adam's authority. When the saints first heard this doctrine advanced it looked strange and unnatural to them; it was strong meat and required a little time before it could be digested... When I was able to comprehend it, it appeared quite consistent. There is something in this doctrine that is very home like, grand and beautiful to reflect upon, and it is very simple and comprehensive." 9/20/ 1882.
Sister Whitney uses this teaching of Joseph to support the claim that Joseph was the author of the Adam God theory but where in this quote is one able to draw the conclusion that Adam was the father of Jesus or that Adam was the father of our spirits as BY taught. Nowhere! Indeed, if Joseph would have said so why didn't she or William Clayton record it. In fact, we still quote this teaching quite often today to show the hierarchy in the priesthood. These are the type of statements that beg the question just what did Joseph teach? Was it this and similar doctrinal statements about Adam during Joseph's Nauvoo ministry most of which are found in the Words of Joseph Smith (Ehat & Cook) that led to the conclusion Joseph was the author of the theory? If so, there is still a logical leap needed to put Adam as the father of Christ and our spirits. Did Joseph provide the logical connection? It seems unlikely. Statements attempting to show that he taught AG are similar to the one cited above. Hence the question of what exactly he taught!

[MikeWaters]

so have we officially beat this one to death yet?

I consider it a special treat to be able to listen to these two accomplished men discuss this topic that I previously knew very little about.

Thanks Dan for your input on this.