All Activity

I agree with you. This is a really interesting post. Thank you!

You still haven't provided any links to specific examples. You made the claim. You need to back it up. But let's assume you're correct (you could be). That is by no means an indication. I'll give you an example. Did you know that for many years people thought Joseph had the First Vision at 15 (16th year of age) rather than 14? True. This was because of a side note that the scribe (Fredrick G. Williams) wrote as a superscript in the 1832 account. As far as we know, Joseph never spoke those words. Yet that version was widely circulated saying "15 years old." Virtually everyone believed it and everyone repeated it. But with so many other versions (which were less popular for a while) saying 14 years, it was eventually corrected among the common membership. So, mistakes can happen en masse a lot more often than people like to admit. Just look at mainstream Christianity. And, yes, it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was. And, of course, there is one more test for valid revelation: What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation? You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words. I'm aware of people quoting him, but not adding their witness of the Spirit to Young's words. Show the links.

I'm pretty sure they were. But the subtle changes of the artist's hand were just enough to give the "hyper-ideal" figures some qualities that simply wouldn't exist in a real human being.

I think you mean Camp 2.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/sites-released-for-three-temples-in-florida-and-utah

These are my personal observations. Take them for what they seem worth to you. There are two types of men: Those that understand women on an emotional level Those that do not understand women, but naively assume that women are emotionally pretty much like men, only more prone to tears The second group is far larger than the first. Most temple-worthy Latter-day Saint men find themselves in Camp 2. Your husband is statistically likely to be a Camp Twoer. Men can also be divided (roughly) into two camps along another axis, namely, how they feel toward women: Those that respect women Those that do not truly respect women as people, but see them as things to be used to achieve their own ends. Call these Camp A and Camp B. Curiously, at least in my experience, Camp A seems at least as large as Camp B, and probably larger, both inside and outside the Church. To hear women talk about it, you would never guess that to be the case, but I think it is. Some men call themselves "pick-up artists". These men are usually from Camp 1 and almost always from Camp B. Women find these guys irresistable. Why? In part at least, it's because they are from Camp 1 and understand women. And because these men are also from Camp B, they use their understanding of women to get into their panties. For them, that's the game. They are expert flirts. For women, flirting is a game to see if they (the women) can garner external validation. For men (at least for the PAs), flirting is a game to see if they (the men) can successfully seduce the women. This is a dangerous, volatile situation. The women involved in flirting may not consciously be looking for a sexual "hook-up", and may even believe they want to avoid that. But they are craving that emotional validation, and the men (at least the PAs) know exactly how to feed that hunger. Many women have found themselves in bed with a man they don't know and/or don't even like because they "followed their heart" (meaning their emotions) into the bedroom. Odds are that you would not follow through and cheat on your husband. But let's be clear: You're playing with fire and stand a nonzero chance of getting burned. If you view your marriage through a gospel lens, you will consider it of infinite importance, and would not risk its integrity to get some attention any more than you would risk your child's life to get some thrills. Whether or not the other guy was a PA is beside the point, at least as far as that goes. (By the way, women divide into the same two sets of camps as men. Like men, most women dwell in Camp 2, which is why women so often naively and wrongly claim that men are "emotionally stunted" or some nonsense of the sort; they expect men to be women that shave their faces. However, my observation is that women are pretty equally divided between Camps A and B, and if anything tend more toward Camp B. Men are and always have been viewed by women as caretakers. As a result, women view men quite dispassionately—many men would say ruthlessly—as to what the men can offer to the woman. This is most obvious when talking with young women in their late teens and twenties. If Carb had listened to his sister's friends much longer, he likely would eventually have heard conversation that would have included the women objectifying men, including their husbands, to a shocking degree. Not all women do this, of course; my wife never does. But if men stay quiet and pay attention to what women say in public and in private, many of them will be amazed at what they hear. Women are not the people we men often think they are. More to the point, women are not the people we men have been taught that they are.)

I've seen actual photos of the process being done. They're floating around somewhere, but I don't have the links handy. Let's just say that the people they brought on board as references for He-Man and Skeletor were pretty beefed up by the standards of the early 1980s.

If the entire movie had been up to the standard of that scene it would have been awesome indeed!

If you're gonna use anything from that film as an example, you must use this scene where Gandalf scares Sam just because he can:

None of us here really have enough information to judge how much repentance you might need other then it does not appear you need the bishop. For me, the standard I try to use and I recommend is the Golden Rule... aka Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. In this case the application is pretty simple. Imagine your husband doing everything you did... feeling everything you felt... Are you OK with that? If you would be upset, angry or hurt if your husband did it to you... then you have got some work to do. But ultimately that is between you the Lord and possibly your husband. We really do not have enough to say anymore about it. Now you have been shown a weakness. This is great because you can't deal with things you do not know about. You have been shown a need and want that you have. There is nothing wrong with what you want. But there very much can be something wrong with how you go about getting what you want. So talk to your husband, tell him what you want. Odds are he wants it too. Once you guys are both aware of the issue you can make plans to deal with it. It most likely require the two of you investing time, money and effort into your relationship... Don't worry to much about that, because investing in your eternal marriage is one of the best investments you can make.

Oh, right. I got side-tracked. Nevermind. Sorry.

Agreed. I’ll start one later today, unless someone else would like to start one sooner.

How do you know that we don’t have a complete record of the discourse in question? And what about the dozens of similar statements by Brigham Young and others over the next 25+ years?

At this juncture, maybe it would be appropriate to open a new topic addressing Adam/God?

That doesn't answer the initial question I had. Why is the record speech the way it is? That simply isn't a complete record. And without the complete record, any snippets,. secondhand quotes, etc. simply are not sufficient for us to figure out what the heck he was saying. I'd hate to think what people might think about many things I said without proper background.

I believe that this very unlikely. Multiple witnesses heard it the same way it was published. And Brigham Young and his contemporaries made similar Adam-God statements many times over the next 25 years and beyond.

Not really. I was looking for (as Mav claimed) specific examples of Young's tendency to jump back and forth between topics without preamble or segue. I've read through the JoD and never noticed this tendency anywhere besides the A-G theory. It was so unusual that I distinctly remember the first time I ever read it, thinking,"This is really strange. Where did that come from? It has nothing to do with the topic he was just talking about. It came out of left field." Then when he was done with that, he seemed to pickup right where he left off. Literally, if you plucked A-G out of the discourse, it would seem like a perfectly seamless discourse. No other changes required. I have seen many times that speakers (incl. Young) would make a statement that he would give a little background that was tangentially related. And that background was necessary to understand the next section of the original topic. To some, this seems like jumping around. I don't because that is the way I do some discourses myself. But none of the discourses I've seen was as stark as A-G. None of them made me get whiplash from simply reading it. A-G did. That is why I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.

This one seems more useful: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

You’re welcome. 😉

I'll tell you two stories: 1. I was at school and found a girl sitting alone. I started up a conversation with her. We did some nice flirting for a while. It was fun. After a while, another guy came up and asked if she was ready to go. From their interactions, I gathered they were married (calling her "hon" and so on). I felt kind of embarrassed and disappointed. She was cute. 2. My sister had a few friends over to her apartment. All of them had husbands. One of them talked about "dressing sexy." I don't know if those were the exact words they used. But that is how I remember it. Because I was very quiet and "the hostess's brother" most of the ladies were very free with their speech. They indicated that it was not just the normal "competing with other women." It was about attracting other guys. I eventually interjected,"But aren't you all married?" "Yeah. But that doesn't mean we don't like attention from other men." I kind of looked at them with a quizzical look. "It's flattering to get hit on by a guy. And it's completely safe when all you have to do is lift up your hand and show your ring." I still don't know whether this is good behavior or not. But I do know that you are not alone in wanting to feel pretty and desirable.

Uhmm... Gee... Thanks...

Uh-huh. I'm sure there was no artistic license on the crafting of the features for animation.

Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings was another example. Although Bakshi's movie is a mess, I think this scene was way better than Peter Jackson's. It is much closer to the book, and Annette Crosby has the perfect voice for Galadriel.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/Brigham_Young

We actually do the four questions and go over the plagues of Egypt on Easter Sunday. We eat the traditional Paschal foods for Easter dinner and talk about links between the deliverance of the Israelites from Egypt and the deliverance of man from sin.