I haven't read the talks in nearly ten years, so I followed your advice and googled them. After reviewing a few of the googled sites, I would have to say that I have no idea what Brigham was talking about.
I think he was pretty clear. And in fact, given the ideas that God was once a man, that he progressed to be a God and that many gods are out there creating their worlds and peopling them it makes sense, at least for LDS theology at the time.
Here is what he is saying. Adam is the father of all the spirits of this world. He made the spirits with his wives, He was had lived another mortal life, was not exalted and in the process of creating this world. It would be peopled with his spirit children. So the earth is created and Adam, comes to this earth with one of his wives, Eve-now this is where it gets sticky-and they eat of the fruit of hits world and it corrupts their perfect exalted bodies so they become mortal again and can start the human race by creating bodies for their spirit children.
How this parlays into having been mortal, becoming an exalted God, becoming mortal again, dying, and being resurrected again is rather confusing.
But this is basically what he taught.
It is apparent that he was not referring to Adam being Elohim. He clearly makes a distinction, but he is under the impression that Adam was the Father of Christ, which is wrong.
Yep he Said Adam was Jesus Father. So if he was wrong then he got it wrong about who God was and he was a false prophet. If he was then how can his successors be true prophets and why can we trust them any better then him? I mean don't you really think that this is a pretty BIG thing to be wrong about?
The whole thigh is very odd, and I do not understand it,
It is damn odd and what is even odder is you, me or anyone can take the stance that you take below.
but I do understand that our modern prophets have spoken out against it. And that is the end of that.I stand with the modern prophets on the matter.
I understand how you think this way. I used to as well. But Gaz, why are they right and is he wrong? What if he was right and they are wrong. Maybe they are all wrong! Who knows. But this approach, at least for me, has become so irrational and subjective. It is a moving target.
If you are fine with this I am happy for you. I wish I could no this like I used. It just does not work for me anymore. But the modern prophets have essetnially delcared that the second prophet of God in this dispensation taugh false doctrine about who God is and it was not an obscure few remarks. He taught it regularly and frequently till from 1852 till his death. He believed it enough to include it as part of teh endowment. But hey, that is a moving target as well so I guess we should not be surprised,.
One last sort of off the topic remark. I do not have a problem per say with evolving doctrine that may give more light and knowledge. I think that is good. But I do expect that newly revealed doctrine would enhance prior doctrine not over turn or revoke it. I think the ideas about God in LDS doctrine did not follow this course. They seemed to add significant innovations that changed and revoked previous revelations about God and then the Church even pack peddled. Today we seem to believe in a God that is more in line with pre 1835 LDS theology save that God is tangible and they are very distinct and separate. The Church seems to want to distance itself from the post 1835 to 1878 theology and even down plays the idea that we can become Gods and the God was once a man. To me knowing who God is, based on what Joseph taught about it being the first principle of salvation, is important and this moving target is troubling.