According to Jason's summary, BY taught that Adam and God the Father were one and the same, and that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ.
It doesn't appear that Jason took all of BY's statements into account, just the ones commonly cut and paste in support of the non existent Adam-God theory.
According to Jason's summary, BY taught that Adam and God the Father were one and the same, and that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ.
It doesn't appear that Jason took all of BY's statements into account, just the ones commonly cut and paste in support of the non existent Adam-God theory.
Then, by all means, put it into context, stating your complete source.
It doesn't appear that Jason took all of BY's statements into account, just the ones commonly cut and paste in support of the non existent Adam-God theory.
Then, by all means, put it into context, stating your complete source.
BC, I appreciate the link. I will have to study it when I have time. There is a lot of material there, and I'm not prepared to comment on what I am not familiar with.
Since I have a lot of work issues to deal with today, I'll have to come back to this thread when I have more time.
I know some who put it in a position of prominence on fairwiki. It has good listed strengths and the weaknesses listed have little to do with it's content.....
The ideas that Watson proposes are nonsensical. If BY meant there was an Adam and Eve Jr and Sr why not just say so? In not one remark that I have seen did he ever imply that this was the case.
Having reviewed the extant quotations from Brigham Young, together with the paper by Elden Watson, I am one of the apologists in low places that agrees with everything Jason said.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
consiglieri wrote:Having reviewed the extant quotations from Brigham Young, together with the paper by Elden Watson, I am one of the apologists in low places that agrees with everything Jason said.
I have read Watson's paper at least four times. As badly as I want him to be right I just cannot get there.
How so? To take only the JoD statements and leave out those from, say, the WWJ, seems pretty nonsensical to me. On top of that, there are other statements in the JoD that show the same relationship between the Father, Adam, and Jesus Christ as modern LDS doctrine. Did BY forget to cover his tracks or was he simply alluding to a deeper opinion he held? I think the later is far more likely.
It doesn't appear that Jason took all of BY's statements into account, just the ones commonly cut and paste in support of the non existent Adam-God theory
Jason has read extensively on Adam God. Jason used to argue the nonsensical idea that BC argues-BY did not really teach this, look at what else he had to say, was he talking about Adam Sr of Adam Jr. Finally Jason realized how silly such arguments were in light of all the times BY taught Adam was our God as well as the journal entries by his listeners that concluded the same thing as well as the lecture at the veil of the St George Temple taught it as well.