Consequences of Talmage being wrong

[erichard]

As far as I know, Elder James E. Talmage was the first church Apostle to have a PhD from a university. While a church Apostle, which in scripture is to be a traveling council, he wrote many theological books on church teachings, including his famous, "Jesus the Christ".

He was tasked by President Joseph F. Smith to formulate a dissertation on the subject of the Godhead. On June 29, 1916, Elder Talmage submitted a final draft of this dissertation to the First Presidency. It was accepted, and on the following day it was issued out as an official declaration to the church at large.

Officially this paper was entitled: "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve". This “Doctrinal Exposition” of course was not a Word of the Lord revelation, but a theological writing by a highly educated theologian.

Billed as a "clarification" of long-standing church doctrine, this paper was, in fact, the first time that "Elohim" -- the Father of Jehovah and Michael in the endowment ceremony – was officially recognized as the Father of Jesus, and Jesus as Jehovah. This Exposition also said that Elohim alone was to be seen as "God the Father" – the Father to Jesus, as well as Father of the spirits of all mankind.

Brigham had taught that Jehovah was God the Father and the Father of Jesus. Brigham never brought forth a Word of the Lord revelation that supported his doctrines about God. However, he was the one that prepared the Endowment ceremony with Joseph in Nauvoo, and by himself out West. Nevertheless, It surely was correct that the church laid aside his Adam-God teachings until revelation resolves the matter. Article of Faith 9 promises such revelation.

I have found a multitude of evidences that support the Brigham doctrine that Jesus was NOT the creation and OT Jehovah, but only became a Jehovah AFTER his resurrection.

What are the consequences of Talmage being wrong, and Brigham being right?

[Pazooka]

As far as I know, Elder James E. Talmage was the first church Apostle to have a PhD from a university. While a church Apostle, which in scripture is to be a traveling council, he wrote many theological books on church teachings, including his famous, "Jesus the Christ".

He was tasked by President Joseph F. Smith to formulate a dissertation on the subject of the Godhead. On June 29, 1916, Elder Talmage submitted a final draft of this dissertation to the First Presidency. It was accepted, and on the following day it was issued out as an official declaration to the church at large.

Officially this paper was entitled: "The Father and the Son: A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Twelve". This “Doctrinal Exposition” of course was not a Word of the Lord revelation, but a theological writing by a highly educated theologian.

Billed as a "clarification" of long-standing church doctrine, this paper was, in fact, the first time that "Elohim" -- the Father of Jehovah and Michael in the endowment ceremony – was officially recognized as the Father of Jesus, and Jesus as Jehovah. This Exposition also said that Elohim alone was to be seen as "God the Father" – the Father to Jesus, as well as Father of the spirits of all mankind.

Brigham had taught that Jehovah was God the Father and the Father of Jesus. Brigham never brought forth a Word of the Lord revelation that supported his doctrines about God. However, he was the one that prepared the Endowment ceremony with Joseph in Nauvoo, and by himself out West. Nevertheless, It surely was correct that the church laid aside his Adam-God teachings until revelation resolves the matter. Article of Faith 9 promises such revelation.

I have found a multitude of evidences that support the Brigham doctrine that Jesus was NOT the creation and OT Jehovah, but only became a Jehovah AFTER his resurrection.

What are the consequences of Talmage being wrong, and Brigham being right?

Excellent question. IMO, it really wouldn’t have mattered if Talmage had written that or not. The members, having already rejected the fulness, were bound to take up whatever fantasy was needed to fill that void.

Have you seen the following?:

In 1896, Edward Stevenson, one of the Seven Presidents of Seventy, had "a deep talk" with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God doctrine. Afterwards, Stevenson wrote in his diary concerning the temple creation gods: "Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd Jehovah, 3rd Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come.... Then Who is Jehovah? The only begotten [sic] Son of Heloheim on Jehovah's world." (Edward Stevenson Diary, 3 March and 28 February 1896, Church Archives)

[TheChristian]

If Jesus of Nazerath was not the Almighty God, the everlasting or eternal Father, that God whom claimed to be our only God, our only King, our only Redeemer and only Saviour, the Alpha and Omega, then His sacrifice apon the Cross avails us nothing................
But I rejoice in the sure knowlegde that Jesus of Nazerath is that Almighty God of the Old testament and that His sacrifice apon the Cross avails us of salvation to the uttermost..........
For only God Himself could do for us what we his children could not do for ourselves.................

[Redpilled Mormon]

Brigham was definitely wrong, but that doesn't mean Talmage was right.

I'm still sorting out in my mind what Joseph wrote about the true nature of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

[Amonhi]

D&C 88
45 The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God.
46 Unto what shall I liken these kingdoms, that ye may understand?
47 Behold, all these are kingdoms, and any man who hath seen any or the least of these hath seen God moving in his majesty and power.
48 I say unto you, he hath seen him; nevertheless, he who came unto his own was not comprehended.
49 The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not; nevertheless, the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him.
50 Then shall ye know that ye have seen me, that I am, and that I am the true light that is in you, and that you are in me; otherwise ye could not abound.

We have all seen God, but we didn't comprehend God. When we do comprehend God, then we will know that we have seen God and that we are in Him and He is in us. I have seen God and comprehended God. I testify this is true.

Peace,
Amonhi

[onefour1]

JST, Exodus 34:14
Jehovah is one name by which the Old Testament people know the Lord Jesus Christ.

[darknesstolight]

And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:
18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints,
19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power,
20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.

...

[Mindfields]

"However, he was the one that prepared the Endowment ceremony with Joseph in Nauvoo, and by himself out West." So say's Brigham Young. I say he, Brigham, created the entire temple endowment ceremony out of whole cloth.

[JLHPROF]

I'm still sorting out in my mind what Joseph wrote about the true nature of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

By Joseph you mean Sidney Rigdon?

[erichard]

Brigham was definitely wrong, but that doesn't mean Talmage was right.

I'm still sorting out in my mind what Joseph wrote about the true nature of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

Joseph Smith did not write the Lectures on Faith, although he may had helped. Sidney Rigdon did. There are good quotes in them, but they are mainly ideas of Rigdon, not the Word of the Lord to Joseph.

"Joseph Smith explicitly declared in Nauvoo that his concept of the Godhead HAD NEVER CHANGED, and he had ALWAYS TAUGHT the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were SEPARATE ENTITIES."

"It was common knowledge in the 19th century that the lectures were [mainly] written by Sidney Rigdon, but by the mid-twentieth century it was thought that the Prophet Joseph Smith had penned them."

https://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/07 ... res-faith/

[erichard]

JST, Exodus 34:14
Jehovah is one name by which the Old Testament people know the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Jehovah of the Old Testament commanded the Israelites to worship Him. But while Christ was on earth, he never told His disciples to worship him, but rather taught them to worship the Father. Why would Jehovah stop being the God that Israel was to worship just because he came to earth as a mortal? However, if Jehovah was the Father of Jesus then it makes perfect sense that Jesus in the New Testament would refer to Him about 170 times and direct all to worship Him.

The New Testament contains no evidence that Jesus ever taught his disciples of a God superior to Jehovah, the God of Israel. In light of Jesus’ desire to bear witness of the Father, and to advocate his true worship (John 4:23; 17:3), it would seem peculiar that he did not instruct the Jews to worship a God superior to Jehovah if he considered himself to be, in fact, Jehovah. On the contrary, he consistently advocated the worship of the God of Israel by citing the Old Testament commandment:

“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God (Jehovah thy Elohim), and him only shalt thou serve”
– Matt. 4:10 compare: Deut. 10:20

[Baurak Ale]

JST, Exodus 34:14
Jehovah is one name by which the Old Testament people know the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul clarifies that the law was delivered by an angel, not Jehovah himself. When Jesus says to the Nephites that he gave the law, he is identifying himself with the angel of the Lord.

[erichard]

Here is a file with posts from a FB group. These posts present scriptural and other evidences that Jesus was not the creation and OT Jehovah, but only became a Jehovah after his resurrection.

https://www.2bc.info/pdf/2Thrones.pdf

The last post in this file presents my understanding of Brigham's Adam-God teachings-- showing that they do not necessarily contradict scripture. I do agree however that the matter must be resolved by Word of the Lord revelation and not by accepting the discourses of Brigham or the theological writings of Talmage-- neither of which are Word of the Lord revelations.

Here is an example from the above file:

"Salvation is for a man to be saved from all his
enemies; for UNTIL A MAN CAN TRIUMPH
OVER DEATH, HE IS NOT SAVED. A knowledge
of the priesthood alone will do this.
The spirits in the eternal world are like the
spirits in this world. When those have come into
this world and received tabernacles, then died
and again have risen and received glorified
bodies, they will have an ASCENDENCY over the
SPIRITS WHO HAVE RECEIVED NO BODIES, or
kept not their first estate, like the devil."
--HC 5:403

How can these teachings of Joseph be true, and it
also be true that Jesus as a Spirit was Jehovah, the
"Most High God" of the creation and Old
Testament?

So Jehovah had not yet triumphed over death-- and
thus was not fully SAVED-- and ALL of the
resurrected Angels in heaven had ASCENDENCY
over Jehovah as a Spirit -- and yet somehow we are
supposed to accept Jehovah as the Most High God?

My point is that there is not only no Bible reason,
but also no "teaching of Joseph" reason to reject
what Brigham taught: that Jehovah and Michael
when they created our earth under the direction of
the Elohim were RESURRECTED Beings from a
previous earth.

[Baurak Ale]

Brigham was definitely wrong, but that doesn't mean Talmage was right.

I'm still sorting out in my mind what Joseph wrote about the true nature of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

Brigham was actually correct, and he got his teaching from Joseph Smith.

Joseph said that the word Elohim should always be expressed in the plural, a la Abraham 4—“Gods.”

Jehovah means creator, and is a title Jesus did not apply to himself until after his resurrection, and which referred to others of the Elohim (Gods) before that, most usually God the First, the Father.

Michael is God the first and got humanity started by transgressing the law that would have kept his body celestial but which was necessary to break in order to have blood children.

Those keys should be enough to unlock all the issues at hand.

[ParticleMan]

Brigham was actually correct, and he got his teaching from Joseph Smith.

Joseph said that the word Elohim should always be expressed in the plural, a la Abraham 4—“Gods.”

Jehovah means creator, and is a title Jesus did not apply to himself until after his resurrection, and which referred to others of the Elohim (Gods) before that, most usually God the First, the Father.

Michael is God the first and got humanity started by transgressing the law that would have kept his body celestial but which was necessary to break in order to have blood children.

Those keys should be enough to unlock all the issues at hand.

Yes.

This is one instance where Church doctrine does not reflect further light that is otherwise known, at least in part. It seems that, by necessity, the doctrine of the Church is adapted to the conditions of the members and the world now as it has always been. Few can withstand further light and not fly to pieces. The scriptures teach what they teach, despite much havinig been lost and much having been restored. Many mysteries remain, includiing the issue at hand, which cause some to "fly to pieces like glass."

And there are traditions of Israelite concerning Eloheim, prior to the monotheistic (and more) corruptions in Judaism, which Margaret Barker has explored in detail.

[Baurak Ale]

Brigham was actually correct, and he got his teaching from Joseph Smith.

Joseph said that the word Elohim should always be expressed in the plural, a la Abraham 4—“Gods.”

Jehovah means creator, and is a title Jesus did not apply to himself until after his resurrection, and which referred to others of the Elohim (Gods) before that, most usually God the First, the Father.

Michael is God the first and got humanity started by transgressing the law that would have kept his body celestial but which was necessary to break in order to have blood children.

Those keys should be enough to unlock all the issues at hand.

Yes.

This is one instance where Church doctrine does not reflect further light that is otherwise known, at least in part. It seems that, by necessity, the doctrine of the Church is adapted to the conditions of the members and the world now as it has always been. Few can withstand further light and not fly to pieces. The scriptures teach what they teach, despite much havinig been lost and much having been restored. Many mysteries remain, includiing the issue at hand, which cause some to "fly to pieces like glass."

And there are traditions of Israelite concerning Eloheim, prior to the monotheistic (and more) corruptions in Judaism, which Margaret Barker has explored in detail.

I'm glad you brought up Margaret Barker. I'm a big fan of her work.
Here's a blog post I worked on that cites some of her work: https://theology.science.blog/2020/04/2 ... in-heaven/

[Juliet]

Heavenly Father and Adam are two different people. It was the Pagans who took those with Nephilim dna (Adam and Eve were the first humans to get mixed up with alien DNA or serpent dna and became fallen) and made them into gods. Adam was not a god in a true sense, but he would have been a pagan god. The movie the Lion King is essentially the pagan view of Lucifer who was Scar and Mufassa who was the sun god Ra. I will go with Ra being a reference to Adam, the patriarch of our human family.

The Illuminati also love to tell the story of Ra's supposed to be wife, although they never did figure out their marriage all that well. The recent star wars movies feature a girl named "Ray" who was the great granddaughter of a really bad dude. Sumerian texts talk about Innana as the great granddaughter of Lucifer or Enki, god of the earth. According to legend while having the dna of the really bad dude, she also was of the royal bloodline because she was also the daughter of Enlil, god of the sky... Who would have either been Jesus or Adam, that I don't know (However they both were the same line). Hence in the Star Wars movie, Ray takes on the name Skywalker.... This would reference the true royal bloodline as the Skywalkers were royalty.

Brigham didn't have to be revelatory, he just had to be pagan to say Adam was god. All of Egyptian and Greek history would agree with him. Good luck getting me to agree with any of those ancient gods and goddesses actually being divine.

You can also check out the marval movies with Thor and Loki, these are yet another reference to Enlil and Enki.. Who also had a half sister. So according to the Marvel movies we have a really bad half sister. According to the Star Wars movies we have a really good sister Ray. So I can't figure that one out. Is one of these Lilith and the other Eve? As it is, all these productions are giving us the pagan view of things so it is what it is worth.

[creator]

I'm still sorting out in my mind what Joseph wrote about the true nature of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

By Joseph you mean Sidney Rigdon?

Joseph made journal entries indicating he was also involved in creating the Lectures on Faith and preparing them for publication. Do people try to attribute them solely to Sidney Rigdon to make it easier to dismiss the LoF and discard them from their scriptures?

[JLHPROF]

I'm still sorting out in my mind what Joseph wrote about the true nature of the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith.

By Joseph you mean Sidney Rigdon?

Joseph made journal entries indicating he was also involved in creating the Lectures on Faith and preparing them for publication. Do people try to attribute them solely to Sidney Rigdon to make it easier to dismiss the LoF and discard them from their scriptures?

No, people attribute them MOSTLY to Rigdon because they reflect limited light and knowledge and an early academic understanding that Joseph later moved beyond.
However some of it actually did come from Joseph - the tone and content of Lecture 6 for instance is pure Joseph.

[JLHPROF]

This thread is fascinating.
It shows exactly where on the theological spectrum people land concerning the Godhead.

You've got those leaning traditional Christian and liking the Trinity, those stuck in the Kirtland period who like the LoF version and less of the King Follett, you've got the TBM's who believe the Talmage version, and those who lean fundamentalist supporting Brigham's version.

Who says we suffer from groupthink?

[creator]

..those stuck in the Kirtland period who like the LoF version and less of the King Follett..

Those are just your perspectives on it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can like the LoF version, and the King Follett version, and have an expanded view even beyond that (which I do), and find harmony in it all.

[erichard]

Heavenly Father and Adam are two different people. ...

Do you believe that D&C 136 is an authentic "Word of the Lord" revelation? If you do, should you not at least consider that his other claims to revelation were correct? Maybe you just do not understand exactly what he was teachings. Which, of course, is true for about everyone, including me.

Brigham also taught this:

“It is true that the earth was organized by three
distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah,
and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as
in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing
element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” --JD 1:51

So Brigham taught that Adam (Michael) was the s "distinct" Being from Elohim and Jehovah. Right?

[Sarah]

Heavenly Father and Adam are two different people. ...

Do you believe that D&C 136 is an authentic "Word of the Lord" revelation? If you do, should you not at least consider that his other claims to revelation were correct? Maybe you just do not understand exactly what he was teachings. Which, of course, is true for about everyone, including me.

Brigham also taught this:

“It is true that the earth was organized by three
distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah,
and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as
in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing
element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” --JD 1:51

So Brigham taught that Adam (Michael) was the s "distinct" Being from Elohim and Jehovah. Right?

Sounds like he is equating Adam to the Holy Ghost.

This thread reminds me of a thread we saw here recently, and many others like it on LDSFF! viewtopic.php?f=63&t=64198

[Juliet]

Heavenly Father and Adam are two different people. ...

Do you believe that D&C 136 is an authentic "Word of the Lord" revelation? If you do, should you not at least consider that his other claims to revelation were correct? Maybe you just do not understand exactly what he was teachings. Which, of course, is true for about everyone, including me.

Brigham also taught this:

“It is true that the earth was organized by three
distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah,
and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as
in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing
element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” --JD 1:51

So Brigham taught that Adam (Michael) was the s "distinct" Being from Elohim and Jehovah. Right?

I don't know for sure. If we had a leader who had perfect knowledge from God about everything and had the perfect ability to relay that knowledge so people could understand it, then I would argue that under such circumstances we would have no poor among us. (Of course I guess we can just blame the people for being wicked in-spite of a leader's infallibility).

[Baurak Ale]

Heavenly Father and Adam are two different people. ...

Do you believe that D&C 136 is an authentic "Word of the Lord" revelation? If you do, should you not at least consider that his other claims to revelation were correct? Maybe you just do not understand exactly what he was teachings. Which, of course, is true for about everyone, including me.

Brigham also taught this:

“It is true that the earth was organized by three
distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah,
and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as
in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing
element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” --JD 1:51

So Brigham taught that Adam (Michael) was the s "distinct" Being from Elohim and Jehovah. Right?

Sounds like he is equating Adam to the Holy Ghost.

'Perfectly represented' does not necessarily mean "they are the same as." I take that to mean that the structure of the Godhood (Deity) of this world is reflected in that of the Deity of creation. This very simply and grammatically resolves the contradiction of asserting that Brigham here says Michael is the Holy Ghost while at other times plainly teaching he is the Father.

To understand Adam-God, it's important to understand that there are two presidencies or quorums that both contain Michael, though in one he is a councilor and in another he is the president:
Presidency of Creation:

• Elohim (gods)
• Jehovah
• Michael

Presidency of Earth:

• Michael
• Christ
• Holy Ghost