GoodK

Where can I read about the many others? Who said loss of sleep can cause poor spiritual reception? (can you hear me now) I don't expect this to be founded in doctrine, but maybe something. Anything. Besides Mormon folklore. Please.

Ironically, it is also the anniversary of the landmark U.S Supreme Court decision in the civil rights case Loving v. Virgina

First, what "books and pamplets of doctrine" are considered doctrine? Please feel free to just give me a list, or say everything that has ever been written by a general authority, or say you don't know. As you know by now, I am very reserved when it comes to calling modern trends, counsel, "procedure", or opinions "Church" doctrine. Second, I was not challenging a doctrine, per se, I was challenging something being called a "doctrine" that has still not been demonstrated to be an official church doctrine. Third, I would be more than glad to find some doctrine supported by "many apostles" - that is no longer considered doctrine or literally true. I was going one at a time, starting with the Adam-God theory, because skalenfehl wanted some time to review and pray about it before he commented. There are many more examples to come. No, not at all. I think I provided the quote from JFS about it here or some other thread. In fact, you seem to be saying that they are always acting as apostles and prophets. Otherwise, how would you infer that I am confused with my reference to what Brigham Young taught many times, in the Journal of Discourses, no less. But, and I can't stress this enough, it does not mean it was official church doctrine. The church is very specific about what it calls official church doctrine and what isn't officially doctrine. Wow. One of us has a big problem if that is really what you took away from this. Either I write horribly, and should find a new career, or you didn't read carefully or comprehend what I wrote. I have not seen any mention of the approach you speak of. Please clarify.

I think I may have confused you, unless you just were quoting my post and not really responding it, or perhaps I misunderstand your post. Either way, let me say a few things. First, I was speaking of a "persecution complex" - basically the attitude that some members display both on LDS discussion boards and in real life. I don't think members are persecuted, attacked, or treated with hostility 90% of the time they say they are. Some members seem to be conditioned to view any sort of criticism, disagreement, or the telling of a different version of Church history as anti-Mormon, an attack, persecution, etc... This is what I mean by a persecution complex. When someone, before even hearing or seeing an argument, begins to discredit it as anti-Mormon. That is what happened in the original post I replied to. Perhaps you can't prove to someone an actual feeling because feelings aren't tangible, but you can certainly prove how you feel with your actions. If you love your wife, you are likely to act in a way that other people, who don't love their wife do. But I don't really see how proving anything relates to my post that you responded to, but then again I'm guessing you might not have been responding specifically to my post. Did this happen on this thread, or are you speaking in generalities? I'm glad I helped you define something, although I'm not quite sure what itis. I agree, telling someone what they believe is like when EV's try and tell people who and who isn't a Christian.

Yes. Take a look, folks. Look like GoodK was correct in his assumption that not everything a church leader says is considered doctrine. I'll pose a question to the boad: Is wearing a white shirt and tie while passing the sacrament a commandment, doctrine, suggestion, or what?

Does this make sense to anyone else? Can someone translate for me?

You know how old I am. Now answer the question, if you don't mind. You have witnessed a resurrection? I am godsmacked by this...

I don't see how one thing has to do with another. Don't you think that if God wanted to reveal something to us, no matter how "impaired" we are, he would be able to get through to us? I think these sort of drugs are over-prescribed and a bit dangerous, but I don't see the difference in taking Zoloft for depression and taking an anti-biotic for an infection.

You have witnessed resurrection, eh? I didn't know that was happening yet.

And here I thought I'd never get to use this

What about when church leaders disagree with things "old and dead prophets" say? Like when McConkie and Kimball "disagree" with Brigham Young? Does that remove their validity? How about when the First Presidency says that the Hill Cumorah was in New York state, and then later ammend that statement? There are so many things that have been said by prophets. It's really about what YOU WANT to believe. I'd be careful before I agreed to shackle myself to EVERYTHING our church leaders have said.

It's sad you think this way, really. There is nothing wrong with finding out answers. Not all the answers will come from a "worthy LSD apologist" Or LDS apologists. I initiated the discussion regarding the Adam - God theory. Are you calling me an anti-Mormon? Being informed and frank regarding our church's past is anti-Mormon? I was using this "doctrine" to illustrate a point. No one here seems to want to acknowledge the point. I suggest reading the Journal of Discourses to familiarize yourself with this theory. Adam-God theory is discussed at length, in about 20 different places. I'd say more, but I don't want you to call me an anti-Mormon. Give me a break folks! You are posting on a public forum for the world to see! If an investigator stumbled upon this thread, imagine what they might derive from these posts.

You might have a point, if I was relying solely or even partially on an "anti-LDS organization" (whatever that is). But I have never done that. In fact, I simply quoted two people. Brigham Young and Bruce R. McConkie. Now I know that we are conditioned to believe that criticism, even careful examination of the church, is merely anti-Mormon, lies and half truths promulgated by our enemies - but this is getting ridiculous. Come on people!

What does this mean? What is an anti- LDS organization? And who brought up anything anti? Jump the gun, eh? I assume you are conditioned to interpret criticism as "anti" but your statement does not relate to the original post or topic at all.

Huh? We can't converse on this very topic. I have tried, but to no avail. You change directions faster than I can keep up, and you don't even bother to respond to points I make, and when things are looking grim, you tell me I don't know God or Jesus or the Holy Ghost well enough. Why don't you inform yourself a little more before engaging in apologetics. What do you mean they can't be supproted at this time on record? A prophets daughter, eh? Well without getting into the credibility of your story (and the resemblance it bears with other pieces of LDS folklore) I guess I have to point out to you (a 49 year old adult) that your story says nothing about Jesus not having time to do something. All your story demonstrates is that someone thought that Jesus was busy. Wow. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out. And apparently you don't understand my position (yet you have no reservations attacking it) because prophets and apostles have said a lot of things that aren't considered church doctrine. Cafeteria Mormons don't get to decide what is doctrine. (more flagrant typos - I wouldn't complain because God knows my posts aren't free of them - but please try a little harder. I'm trying to follow along, and since you are already all over the road, this is just making it more difficult) A dear friend said this on another board when asked to write the brethren - The brethren have asked the rank and file members to not send them letters regarding doctrinal issues. I'm sure you would love to put the burden on me and run away from the things you said earlier, but that won't do the trick. There is dignity in ammending a faulty statement.

I have read it, silly boy/girl. I even linked to a page that quotes it. Holy smokes... you certainly take a unique approach, don't ya? But you just don't get it, do you? The point is the church does not accept everything a prophet says as "doctrine" - as evidenced by many things. The first example I have to support this belief is the Brigham Young Adam-God theory. That is the topic. Feel free to follow along and participate, or start your own thread on why people are apostates, anti's, blah blah blah... adults are talking here.

Translation: I have run out of gas. So sad. It's funny how you personify the Savior has someone who has "time" to do anything. Seems to me he would have all the time in the world... but it's clear you are just holding on to some folklore or something you heard in primary. To date no one has supported your claim. Not even you.

I'm sure it would be extremely beneficial to you if I was able to do all your homework for you, but unfortunately I cannot. If you do not care to read things in context - or even an entire thread from beginning to end - why even participate in the discussion? To vent? To express your distasted for other posters? So please, my attention seeking brother/sister, stop beating up that straw man. Apparently you are too eager to post your opinion to see the quote from Elder Mconkie saying that what BY taught regarding Adam-God was not true. Please, take some time to catch up and then get back to us. In regular size and color font.

I think it is a bit demonstrative of a persecution complex that any sort of critcisim, scrutiny, or call for evidence is considered an "attack on your beliefs". It is a red herring, a good way to avoid whatever the issue is.

He cited the JOD, for crying out loud. Who cares what server is hosting the information. This sort of "apologetics" is shameful. Address the issues, stop attacking sources. That sort of tactic is better reserved for posters at CARM.

When I see loud, big, colorful font - I usually learn to avoid those posters. Those posters seem to have the least amount to contribute, at least they think so. Otherwise they wouldn't try so hard to grab our attention.

You said: Is this your explanation for why Jesus sometimes finds himself a little busy? Because I don't understand the Godhead? In case it is not painfully obvious, you have yet to even try and support that theory, that Jesus has too much on his plate at times. And the crickets chirping here lead me to believe that not too many others agree with you. If I understood, we would be in agreement. You can't be serious. What an arrogant way to think! Like I said earlier, I really doubt I'm dealing with a 49 year old educated adult when you make statements like that.

You are running away from your earlier statement, that Jesus can be too busy. Care to expound on that, or have you realized that this is a silly thing to say, whether or not one believes in Jesus Christ or not?

Thank you for being honest. I'll save my efforts for those that are moved by logic.

Let's take it piece by piece. Forgive me for relying on the internet, I am at my office and don't have the resources on my bookshelf I would normally turn to. I'll start with the Brigham Young Adam-God theory: "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal." Brigham Young, "Discourse," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt (9 April 1852), Vol. 1 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1854), 50–51. "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works." Bruce R. McConkie, letter to Eugene England, (19 February 1981): 6. Adam-God - FAIRMormon