From: owner-gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com (gdm-digest) To: gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: gdm-digest V2 #12 Reply-To: gdm-digest Sender: owner-gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-gdm-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk gdm-digest Thursday, October 29 1998 Volume 02 : Number 012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 20:39:00 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" Subject: ---> The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: [Sections related to Adam God.] The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera* Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41 Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities. Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q. Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he recorded in his journal, after Young's death, [footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to Adam-God equalled his own. As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God. No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854: [W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture, [gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.) On several occasions the President declared that his words were as legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now, when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD 13:264).] Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78 [footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331. 78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor, Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.] While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become liable to official church censure.80 [Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.] Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not 'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83 [footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106. 82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively. 83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See, Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD 26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.] Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely vindicated in modern research.85 [footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City: Associated Research Consultants, 1977). 85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy" (Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969), No. 3, p. 391). Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42 Perry http://pobox.com/~plporter - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:00:05 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" Subject: ---> The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: [Sections related to Adam God.] The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera* Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41 Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities. Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q. Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he recorded in his journal, after Young's death, [footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to Adam-God equalled his own. As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God. No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854: [W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture, [gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.) On several occasions the President declared that his words were as legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now, when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD 13:264).] Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78 [footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331. 78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor, Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.] While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become liable to official church censure.80 [Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.] Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not 'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83 [footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106. 82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively. 83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See, Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD 26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.] Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely vindicated in modern research.85 [footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City: Associated Research Consultants, 1977). 85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy" (Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969), No. 3, p. 391). Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42 - --------------------------------------- [I found the following interesting letters to the editor.] - ---------- [I was looking for quotes on A-G and stumbled onto this. It appears from Bergera's research that it is clear that A-G was once considered worthy of a controversy rather than an excuse as it is often attributed as a misquote by Brigham Young.] The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera* Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41 Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities. Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q. Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he recorded in his journal, after Young's death, [footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to Adam-God equalled his own. As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God. No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854: [W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture, [gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.) On several occasions the President declared that his words were as legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now, when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD 13:264).] Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78 [footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331. 78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor, Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.] While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become liable to official church censure.80 [Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.] Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not 'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83 [footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106. 82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively. 83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See, Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD 26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.] Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely vindicated in modern research.85 [footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City: Associated Research Consultants, 1977). 85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy" (Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969), No. 3, p. 391). Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.5 Gary Bergera's timely study of the doctrinal conflicts between Orson Pratt and President Brigham Young was an important addition to the available information on the Adam-God dilemma. He apparently found himself squeezed between what the source materials reveal and what the Church has reported on their contents in semi-official statements. His article slaughtered several sacred cows. The words of many leaders cum historians were sacrificed. Take for example Joseph Fielding Smith's unequivocal statement that, "President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. (Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions, A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums, 1972-73, page 22.) Similar sentiments have been expressed in the apologetic treatise by Mark E. Petersen entitled "Adam; Who Is He?" Both of these men had access to the source documents that Bergera quotes, especially Brother Smith. Did these brethren not know better? Bergera's study opens the can of worms so wide that we are faced with the fact the Brigham did, indeed, believe it and taught it against all odds. He did not, however, claim it as his own doctrine but said that he learned it at Luke Johnson's home before 1838 from the lips of Joseph Smith as a secret doctrine. Those who deny that Joseph taught Adam-God must explain the enormous credit Joseph gave to Adam. The following list can be made simply by reading pages 157, 158, 167, and 168 of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Adam (1) presides over the spirits of all men, (2) reveals the keys of the Priesthood to men, (3) holds dominion over every creature, (4) all who hold keys must answer to him, (5) holds the keys of the Universe, (6) organized the spirits of all men in creation, (7) is the head, (8) held the keys first and gives them to all others, (9) reveals Christ unto men, (10) holds the keys of ALL dispensations, (11) is the first and father of all, (12) is the Ancient of Days, (13) reveals ordinances from heaven, and (14) angels are subject to his dominion. These facts are apparent even before we begin to look into the book of Daniel and compare the attributes and actions of the Ancient of Days with Adam. Joseph, of course, shocked theologians of other religions by establishing Adam as the Ancient of Days. From the tremendous glory of his person as told by Daniel and John the Revelator, all other religions, including the Jews, equated the Ancient of Days with Jehovah or Christ. After reviewing Joseph's teachings, one must admit that Joseph could have taught that Adam was God. According to Presidential secretary L. John Nuttall, Joseph himself called Brigham Young to organize and systematize the temple endowment ceremonies. He did so and he finalized the veil lecture which was used in temples from 1877 until the first decade of the 1900s. In this lecture Brigham taught Adam-God in great clarity. (See L. John Nuttall Journal, February 8, 1877, and the entire lecture, printed in Unpublished Revelations by Fred C. Collier, pages 113-118). Assuming Joseph authored both the temple endowment and the translation of the Book of Abraham, a comparison of the two tells us something about Adam-God. We are taught that Elohim, Jehovah and Michael (Adam) were the three who created the world. Abraham 4:1 says, "And then the Lord said: "Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Temple goers will clearly see that Michael (Adam) is here referred to as a God. Denying the possibility that Joseph was the originator of the Adam-God doctrine, Bergera attributes it to "a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Joseph Smith's earlier teachings about Adam." (See article footnote 51). This releases Bergera from simply calling Brigham a liar to merely accusing him of doctrinal heresy due to ignorance. One would think that a prophet of God like Brigham, whom God personally affirmed by miraculous vision to a congregation of members seeking a new leader, would certainly not be allowed by that God to teach the Church a false God for twenty-five years. Bergera finds Brigham guilty of that charge. To do otherwise would bring modern Church doctrines into question. Has the modern Church, after all, found its second prophet guilty of heresy and exonerated Orson Pratt? Joseph said that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball (another Adamist) were the only two who did not "lift their heel" against him. (DHC 5:411). Pratt, on the other hand, was excommunicated in August of 1842, may have attempted suicide (See ibid. 5:60, 61, 138), opposed the selection of Brigham Young as Church President in 1847, and continued in conflict with him for years thereafter. It appears that the Church has finally adopted most of Pratt's speculations on the Godhead. T. Edgar Lyon’s observation that Orson Pratt did more to formulate the Mormon's idea of God .. . than any other person in the Church, with the exception of Joseph Smith," may be a total understatement. If, as Brigham claimed three times, Joseph did teach Adam-God, Orson did more than Joseph Smith in that area. Merle H. Graffam Palm Desert, California Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.6 - ---------------------------------- Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.5 The article by Buerger on Adam-God was very good but a more thorough examination is in Culley Christensen's The Adam-God Maze ($14.95, Independent Publishers, Box 8375, Scottsdale, Arizona 85252). ... There seems to be some expectation that if Joseph Smith had believed in Adam-God he would have made that clear. Assuming that he grasped the full implications of the idea it is doubtful, however, that he would have treated this differently than other "advanced" matters such as polygamy or the endowment and he certainly would have sensed that it would have been too explosive--especially given the other problems be was experiencing. Even Brigham admitted that even in the confines of Utah he probably had revealed too much about the nature of God. While the article mentions that Brigham, Ben Johnson, and Helen Kimball (one of Joseph's wives) attested to Joseph's preaching of Adam-God it failed to note that Eliza R. Snow, John Taylor, and Anson Call, among others, also offered evidence for the doctrine's origin with Joseph. (See Christensen's book). Gradually the matter was treated as an advanced mystery and eventually when the associates of Brigham passed away, general ignorance set in so that leaders sincerely believed that Brigham had never said such things. [I have a heard time imaging this being a credible possibility, they had access to the JD's and would have grown up hearing about AG.] One could make an analogy with the death of the apostles in early Christianity and the loss of the vital oral tradition Nibley, Search, and others have documented. Today it is clear that unless they are knowledgeable but, like the authorities at the turn of the century, trying not to "cast pearls before swine," contemporary Church leaders are uninformed on the subject. It is doubtful that they would approach the subject with open and prayerful minds because the concept is so radical and there would doubtless be great resistance to having to eat words, as happened when the revelation on priesthood was received. Before anyone embraces the critics of Adam-God too quickly, the accuracy of Charles W. Penrose, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Mark E. Petersen, among others, should be contemplated as to historical and theological issues. Their blatant errors would suggest that we should not dismiss Adam-God as so much speculation. The real question is simply whether Brigham was right. He declared in no uncertain terms that Adam-God was doctrine and revelation and few things have been declared such so clearly. To reject his words would be to raise serious questions about prophetic reliability. I suggest that Brigham knew whereof he spoke and the rest of us need to catch up. (Name withheld) Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.6 - --------------------------- Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6 Father's Testimony I received the Spring 1982 DIALOGUE yesterday, and read with great interest the history of the Adam-God Doctrine by David John Buerger. I was born November 1915 so this doctrine has been part of the mainstream of my life. I had a father who studied scriptures and shared them with his family. I was his youngest living child and did much writing for him of his compilations of references in support of this concept--Michael, Jehovah, and Eloheim, representing the Father, Son, and Spirit. For me, it is unthinkable to depart from or forsake so many evidences of eternal truth which these references contain. In addition to my father's testimony, I have found many Christian evidences before Mormonism, of the Eloheim (in Hebrew) being the divine Spirit that directed the work of Creation. Jehovah is the Redeemer and Beloved Son Jesus Christ. The Ancient of Days is the Father and God of the human family! In an age when leaders are exempt from making mistakes, I believe it is important to rely on the evidence of truth, more than what a few leaders approve, because their denouncements do not give intelligent answers to anyone's positive questions. As members of the Church we are required to sit and listen, and respond with undoubting and unquestioning trust in whoever is chosen to lead us. With no voice and no choice, is this being true to one's self? I do not believe it is! Rhoda Thurston Hyde Park, Utah Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6 Perry http://pobox.com/~plporter - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 05:00:05 -0700 From: "Perry L. Porter" Subject: ---> The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: [Sections related to Adam God.] The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera* Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41 Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities. Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q. Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he recorded in his journal, after Young's death, [footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to Adam-God equalled his own. As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God. No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854: [W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture, [gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.) On several occasions the President declared that his words were as legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now, when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD 13:264).] Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78 [footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331. 78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor, Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.] While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become liable to official church censure.80 [Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.] Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not 'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83 [footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106. 82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively. 83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See, Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD 26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.] Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely vindicated in modern research.85 [footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City: Associated Research Consultants, 1977). 85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy" (Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969), No. 3, p. 391). Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42 - --------------------------------------- [I found the following interesting letters to the editor.] - ---------- [I was looking for quotes on A-G and stumbled onto this. It appears from Bergera's research that it is clear that A-G was once considered worthy of a controversy rather than an excuse as it is often attributed as a misquote by Brigham Young.] The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868 Gary James Bergera* Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.41 Brigham Young's speculations on Adam-God continued to be the center of no small controversy among church members. His belief77 that Adam was at once the spiritual as well as the physical father of all persons born on this world, including Jesus Christ, was never completely accepted during his lifetime despite frequent reference to it by various church authorities. Even within the presiding quorums, it appears that Pratt was not alone in his discomfort with Young's theological innovation. Apostle George Q. Cannon, counselor to Young, may have been alluding to Adam-God when he recorded in his journal, after Young's death, [footnote:77 Young maintained that the doctrine of Adam-God was revealed to him by God. See the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308. He was to also assert that he was merely espousing what had been earlier revealed to him by Joseph Smith. See note 51. There exists, however, no reliable evidence contemporary to Smith's lifetime which lends support to such a view. The more likely candidate is his First Counselor, Heber C. Kimball. Both Stenhouse (op cit., p. 561 footnote) and Pratt (note 53) attributed the initial creation of Adam as God to Kimball. With his death in 1868 Young lost perhaps the only church authority whose personal committment to Adam-God equalled his own. As mentioned, Young also claimed to have received this teaching from God. No amount of research can prove (or disaprove) the personal nature of revelation, divine or otherwise. Yet whether Young attributed Adam-God to Joseph Smith or revelation, the church President was not above inventing support for beliefs where none existed previously. Consider his comments to fellow Mormons on 8 October 1854: [W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss, he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture, [gentlemen] and read It for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will venture to make a little. (Speech, 8 October 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.) On several occasions the President declared that his words were as legitimate as any found in the standard works of Mormon canon: "I say now, when they [Young's sermons] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible" (Discourse, 6 October 1870, in JD 13:264).] Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed and yet they dared not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such quarters.... [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.78 [footnotes: 79 For the unpopularity of Adam-God among rank-and-file members during Young's lifetime, see the Deseret News, 18 June 1873, p. 308; LDSMS, Vol. 16, p. 482; and JD 5:331. 78 Journal of George Q. Cannon, 17 January 1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon--Relations with Brigham Young," The Instructor, Vol. 80 (June 1945), p. 259.] While plural marriage enraged the American populace, Young's ill-fated Adam-God doctrine exerted a similar, though less intense effect within Mormon Israel.79 The unpopular doctrine declined in official espousal during the succeeding administrations of John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, and church faithful today who entertain such a heretical notion become liable to official church censure.80 [Footnote: 80 Most treatments of Adam-God am severely marred by their authors' personal beliefs. Fred C. Collier has compiled a useful collection of statements relating to Young's speculations, entitled "The Mormon God" (1974) (unpublished). Rodney Turner's 1953 master of Arts thesis, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint's Scripture and Theology," is perhaps the most balanced, though incomplete.] Several of Pratt's unpopular ideas have now found acceptance among such influential twentieth century church exegetes as Joseph Fielding Smith. Elder Pratt would have no doubt agreed with Smith's doctrine: "I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect, not 'relative.' I have never seen or heard of any revealed fact to the contrary. I believe that our Heavenly Father and his Son Jesus Christ are perfect. I offer no excuse for the simplicity of my faith." [Emphasis in original]81 Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine shows a kindred debt to Pratt's theories in his sections on "God," the "Godhead," and "Eternal Progression."82 Reliance on Pratt is strong and surprising.83 [footnotes: 81 Joseph Fielding Smith, op cit., 1:8. Smith's views on Adam-God also parallel those of Pratt. See ibid., pp. 96-106. 82 See Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1966), pp. 317-21, and 238-9, respectively. 83 Several of Pratt's theories on the attributes of godliness and omnipresence of the Holy Spirit were adapted by later church writers. See, Charles W. Penrose, Discourse, Salt Lake City, 16 November 1884, in JD 26:18-29; B. H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Third Year, The Doctrine of Diety (1910), p. 198; and Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man and the Universe (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, Inc., 1968), pp. 109-43.] Recent studies of Joseph Smith's "inspired translation" of the Bible have contributed to a much greater Utah appreciation of the Prophet's efforts.84 The Church's 1979 publication of the King James version, with Joseph Smith's amendations, unquestionably helped lay to rest the majority of Brigham Young's reservations. Even Lucy Mack Smith has been largely vindicated in modern research.85 [footnotes: 84 See Robert J. Matthews, "A Plainer Translation": Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible--A History and Commentary (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1975); and Stephen R. Knecht, The Story of Joseph Smith's Bible Translation--A Documented History (Salt Lake City: Associated Research Consultants, 1977). 85 In Richard L. Anderson's opinion, "Lucy Smith's memories of the early years of the rise of Mormonism have a demonstrable degree of accuracy" (Richard L. Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision Through Reminiscences," Brigham Young University Studies, Vol. 9 (Spring 1969), No. 3, p. 391). Dialogue, Vol.13, No.2, p.42 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.5 Gary Bergera's timely study of the doctrinal conflicts between Orson Pratt and President Brigham Young was an important addition to the available information on the Adam-God dilemma. He apparently found himself squeezed between what the source materials reveal and what the Church has reported on their contents in semi-official statements. His article slaughtered several sacred cows. The words of many leaders cum historians were sacrificed. Take for example Joseph Fielding Smith's unequivocal statement that, "President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. (Selections from Answers to Gospel Questions, A Course of Study for the Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums, 1972-73, page 22.) Similar sentiments have been expressed in the apologetic treatise by Mark E. Petersen entitled "Adam; Who Is He?" Both of these men had access to the source documents that Bergera quotes, especially Brother Smith. Did these brethren not know better? Bergera's study opens the can of worms so wide that we are faced with the fact the Brigham did, indeed, believe it and taught it against all odds. He did not, however, claim it as his own doctrine but said that he learned it at Luke Johnson's home before 1838 from the lips of Joseph Smith as a secret doctrine. Those who deny that Joseph taught Adam-God must explain the enormous credit Joseph gave to Adam. The following list can be made simply by reading pages 157, 158, 167, and 168 of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Adam (1) presides over the spirits of all men, (2) reveals the keys of the Priesthood to men, (3) holds dominion over every creature, (4) all who hold keys must answer to him, (5) holds the keys of the Universe, (6) organized the spirits of all men in creation, (7) is the head, (8) held the keys first and gives them to all others, (9) reveals Christ unto men, (10) holds the keys of ALL dispensations, (11) is the first and father of all, (12) is the Ancient of Days, (13) reveals ordinances from heaven, and (14) angels are subject to his dominion. These facts are apparent even before we begin to look into the book of Daniel and compare the attributes and actions of the Ancient of Days with Adam. Joseph, of course, shocked theologians of other religions by establishing Adam as the Ancient of Days. From the tremendous glory of his person as told by Daniel and John the Revelator, all other religions, including the Jews, equated the Ancient of Days with Jehovah or Christ. After reviewing Joseph's teachings, one must admit that Joseph could have taught that Adam was God. According to Presidential secretary L. John Nuttall, Joseph himself called Brigham Young to organize and systematize the temple endowment ceremonies. He did so and he finalized the veil lecture which was used in temples from 1877 until the first decade of the 1900s. In this lecture Brigham taught Adam-God in great clarity. (See L. John Nuttall Journal, February 8, 1877, and the entire lecture, printed in Unpublished Revelations by Fred C. Collier, pages 113-118). Assuming Joseph authored both the temple endowment and the translation of the Book of Abraham, a comparison of the two tells us something about Adam-God. We are taught that Elohim, Jehovah and Michael (Adam) were the three who created the world. Abraham 4:1 says, "And then the Lord said: "Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Temple goers will clearly see that Michael (Adam) is here referred to as a God. Denying the possibility that Joseph was the originator of the Adam-God doctrine, Bergera attributes it to "a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of Joseph Smith's earlier teachings about Adam." (See article footnote 51). This releases Bergera from simply calling Brigham a liar to merely accusing him of doctrinal heresy due to ignorance. One would think that a prophet of God like Brigham, whom God personally affirmed by miraculous vision to a congregation of members seeking a new leader, would certainly not be allowed by that God to teach the Church a false God for twenty-five years. Bergera finds Brigham guilty of that charge. To do otherwise would bring modern Church doctrines into question. Has the modern Church, after all, found its second prophet guilty of heresy and exonerated Orson Pratt? Joseph said that Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball (another Adamist) were the only two who did not "lift their heel" against him. (DHC 5:411). Pratt, on the other hand, was excommunicated in August of 1842, may have attempted suicide (See ibid. 5:60, 61, 138), opposed the selection of Brigham Young as Church President in 1847, and continued in conflict with him for years thereafter. It appears that the Church has finally adopted most of Pratt's speculations on the Godhead. T. Edgar Lyon’s observation that Orson Pratt did more to formulate the Mormon's idea of God .. . than any other person in the Church, with the exception of Joseph Smith," may be a total understatement. If, as Brigham claimed three times, Joseph did teach Adam-God, Orson did more than Joseph Smith in that area. Merle H. Graffam Palm Desert, California Dialogue, Vol.14, No.1, p.6 - ---------------------------------- Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.5 The article by Buerger on Adam-God was very good but a more thorough examination is in Culley Christensen's The Adam-God Maze ($14.95, Independent Publishers, Box 8375, Scottsdale, Arizona 85252). ... There seems to be some expectation that if Joseph Smith had believed in Adam-God he would have made that clear. Assuming that he grasped the full implications of the idea it is doubtful, however, that he would have treated this differently than other "advanced" matters such as polygamy or the endowment and he certainly would have sensed that it would have been too explosive--especially given the other problems be was experiencing. Even Brigham admitted that even in the confines of Utah he probably had revealed too much about the nature of God. While the article mentions that Brigham, Ben Johnson, and Helen Kimball (one of Joseph's wives) attested to Joseph's preaching of Adam-God it failed to note that Eliza R. Snow, John Taylor, and Anson Call, among others, also offered evidence for the doctrine's origin with Joseph. (See Christensen's book). Gradually the matter was treated as an advanced mystery and eventually when the associates of Brigham passed away, general ignorance set in so that leaders sincerely believed that Brigham had never said such things. [I have a heard time imaging this being a credible possibility, they had access to the JD's and would have grown up hearing about AG.] One could make an analogy with the death of the apostles in early Christianity and the loss of the vital oral tradition Nibley, Search, and others have documented. Today it is clear that unless they are knowledgeable but, like the authorities at the turn of the century, trying not to "cast pearls before swine," contemporary Church leaders are uninformed on the subject. It is doubtful that they would approach the subject with open and prayerful minds because the concept is so radical and there would doubtless be great resistance to having to eat words, as happened when the revelation on priesthood was received. Before anyone embraces the critics of Adam-God too quickly, the accuracy of Charles W. Penrose, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and Mark E. Petersen, among others, should be contemplated as to historical and theological issues. Their blatant errors would suggest that we should not dismiss Adam-God as so much speculation. The real question is simply whether Brigham was right. He declared in no uncertain terms that Adam-God was doctrine and revelation and few things have been declared such so clearly. To reject his words would be to raise serious questions about prophetic reliability. I suggest that Brigham knew whereof he spoke and the rest of us need to catch up. (Name withheld) Dialogue, Vol.15, No.3, p.6 - --------------------------- Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6 Father's Testimony I received the Spring 1982 DIALOGUE yesterday, and read with great interest the history of the Adam-God Doctrine by David John Buerger. I was born November 1915 so this doctrine has been part of the mainstream of my life. I had a father who studied scriptures and shared them with his family. I was his youngest living child and did much writing for him of his compilations of references in support of this concept--Michael, Jehovah, and Eloheim, representing the Father, Son, and Spirit. For me, it is unthinkable to depart from or forsake so many evidences of eternal truth which these references contain. In addition to my father's testimony, I have found many Christian evidences before Mormonism, of the Eloheim (in Hebrew) being the divine Spirit that directed the work of Creation. Jehovah is the Redeemer and Beloved Son Jesus Christ. The Ancient of Days is the Father and God of the human family! In an age when leaders are exempt from making mistakes, I believe it is important to rely on the evidence of truth, more than what a few leaders approve, because their denouncements do not give intelligent answers to anyone's positive questions. As members of the Church we are required to sit and listen, and respond with undoubting and unquestioning trust in whoever is chosen to lead us. With no voice and no choice, is this being true to one's self? I do not believe it is! Rhoda Thurston Hyde Park, Utah Dialogue, Vol.15, No.4, p.6 Perry http://pobox.com/~plporter - - ------------------------------ End of gdm-digest V2 #12 ************************