mordorbund

It’s so late this year.
I love to celebrate it the Thursday before Easter but it’s supposed to be celebrated beginning at sundown on Monday, April 22 thru sundown on Tuesday, April 30.
What are yall doing?  This will be our family’s 4th year to partake of the Seder.

FTFY

What can you do with an elephant on the freeway?
   Almost 21 miles an hour.
How do you know if you just passed an elephant?
  The toilet won’t flush.
 
The Traveler

Matthew and Mark both record the following statement by Jesus Christ while he hung suffering on the cross:
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
I believe this shows that his Father in Heaven had left him to suffer alone without his support, at least for this part of the atonement. 
 

I'm just glad Bo Jackson's okay.

No, I am looking for you to test your various hypotheses with documented instances and occurrences, not bias, opinion and possibilities. It might help if you list your questions with the facts you have gathered that can be used to answer them. I've asked for this before ( Posted Friday at 06:29 PM ) and you insisted a hypothesis was a "textbook example" -- which are far from the same things. If you don't understand the distinction, as indicated in the subsequent exchanges, maybe we can flesh that out, though with a little work you can get up speed on your own. Thank you.

Not really. 
 
The most likely explanation is this was an opinion strongly held by Brigham Young that was never canonized because it was an opinion strongly held by Brigham Young.
 
 

Why limit the choice to 2? How about simple fallibility, misunderstanding and miscommunication, or practice with councils and group revelation and continuing revelation in council, or expediency in the Lord changing priorities and emphasis to best convey His plan of redemption?

I think we can agree on two things; 1) that the Adam-God theory was once taught in the church and 2) now it is not being taught in the church. I'm not sure, from those two facts, whether we can reliably come to the conclusion that it was a) taken away from the church and b) the reason for that presumed taking away was because of the wickedness of the church.

Indeed. In reviewing your answer, I didn't see any response to the question of what it is we're supposed to do, which is why I asked again.

No. Rather, it suggests a teaching given for those who have ears to hear.
Today's prophets have declared the Adam-God teaching to be false. That could be because it's false in its very nature, or it could be that we today do not have the keys of understanding needed for it, and therefore we interpret it falsely. So to us, i tmay be false, but to someone with the correct key to knowledge, it might well be true and enlightening.
Clearly you consider yourself one with understanding. That may be the case. But if it is, how is it that you seek to parade your superior status and shame those who do not have that key? Why would you come out in apparent open defiance of the teachings of recent prophets? Just to show your superiority, how much smarter and more spiritually mature you are than the rest of us? Or do you seek to undermine confidence in the words of our leaders, so that we doubt and wonder whom to follow and when? I'm struggling to see how your actions lead anyone to a good end, even if we assume you are actually correct in what you say.

C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

A for effort! A as is beetles, that is.

This system will allow you to classify each specimen into its correct genus and species.
1. If it looks like Paul McCartney then it's Paul McCartney.
2. If it has small round tinted glasses and you can imagine it standing next to a Japanese woman with long dark hair, and it looks like John Lennon then it's John Lennon.
3. If its playing the drums then the chances are it's Ringo.
4. If it doesn't fit any of the above categories then you can safely label it George Harrison.
Another minute wasted with Jamie123! 😝

As I said before, you came here with a question and several answers were given. None of these seem satisfactory to you, which tells me that you're at least implicitly using a model that's different from the rest of your responders. I'm not intending an interrogation but rather a discovery of what your model is. Your model is baked into your question, but we're all just dancing in the dark here if you don't tell us what it is. I rather suspect that you may not even be aware of what model you're working with, which is another reason I wanted to focus on your thoughts and not mine since your thoughts will be more relevant to the general discussion you yourself started.
If you don't want to engage, I wish you the best in your search for understanding.
 

An aha moment came just this morning as I finished Jacob 5. This is a note a quickly took on my phone:
"If the roots are the eternal covenant made with Abraham and his descendants, and the roots are in danger of dying if the branches aren't bearing good fruit- this points to temple work. The Abrahamic covenant can only preserve roots (ancestors) and branches (descendants) if they are joined together through temple work!!! Otherwise the earth would be totally wasted and cursed at the coming of the Lord (the Master of the Vineyard)."
The theme of Jacob 5 is Temple work. The principle work the servant (Joseph Smith Jr.) and those his brings with him (succeeding presidents of the Church) is facilitating the work for the dead and joining families and dispensations together so the covenant won't die, and leave this earth "without form, and void".

So far two new things have stuck out to me in my reading. 1) Nephi never really leaves the theme of the Tree of Life dream. 2) In the last year I learned that when governments are corrupt it seems as if the very environment is out to punish the society. I could have learned the same lesson through King Noah.

If using the "voice of the Lord" in recording revelations signals the wording is accurate and precise, then does that mean Joseph Smith was in error when he edited his revelations?
I stated exactly what I wanted to suggest with my questions. Just what exactly are your assumptions about the nature of revelation and the transmission of revelations to the membership. I think your above statement about accuracy and precision has uncovered one of them. Please continue.
I appreciate this clarification about seeking confirmation, but I'm still not following the first part. What is it about "The Lord said, 'call Dallin H. Oaks'" that instills more confidence than "The Lord instructed me to call Dallin H. Oaks"?

Not natural, but they were surrounded by marauding Lamanites. Zeniff seems to have them under control. Noah diverted resources from prevention and became the hero of a crisis -- but the infrastructure already existed to prevent such a crisis (reading between the lines, I think the tower was one of Noah's building projects (even if it wasn't it doesn't change the corruption and neglect), but he never staffed it).

If using the "voice of the Lord" in recording revelations signals the wording is accurate and precise, then does that mean Joseph Smith was in error when he edited his revelations?
I stated exactly what I wanted to suggest with my questions. Just what exactly are your assumptions about the nature of revelation and the transmission of revelations to the membership. I think your above statement about accuracy and precision has uncovered one of them. Please continue.
I appreciate this clarification about seeking confirmation, but I'm still not following the first part. What is it about "The Lord said, 'call Dallin H. Oaks'" that instills more confidence than "The Lord instructed me to call Dallin H. Oaks"?

Apparently my previous posts came off as defensive and perhaps even insecure. Hopefully this and future correspondence will be more avuncular.
I would encourage you to take some time to really consider JAG's questions here. Just how precise is the wording of a dictated revelation? If the same revelation was given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would the wording be the same? If a revelation comes through the still small voice, can this be recorded as a "thus saith the Lord" dictation or does it need to be and audible voice with spoken words? Or are both acceptable but one is "weightier" or "weaker" than the other?
The purpose of this exercise is to really address your assumptions. You've been given a lot of answers in this thread but none seem to satisfy you. Let's clarify exactly what you believe and understand and state aloud the unspoken assumptions.
Zil raises a really good point here, and your follow-up questions would be good for you to ponder at different levels. If President Nelson says "the Lord instructed me..." can we trust that the Lord instructed him? And if we're questioning that, then why will we trust him if he instead says "the Lord said to me, 'call Dallin Oaks and give him a fountain pen'"? Is the claim that the leaders of the Church may pretend to revelations that they haven't had, but they're god-fearing enough not to put words directly into the Lord's mouth? 
 

Also, folks in Florida be like:

Actually, all you have is some man saying the words, "thus saith the Lord".  Whether he speaks those words or any other words, it would still be up to you to go to the Spirit and gain a testimony regarding whether the words are of the Lord.
I mean, I could quite easily say, "Thus saith the Lord, fountain pens are sacred writing implements and all others are an abomination before me."  Doesn't mean the Lord actually said that.  (Though He might have... )
If you know that light and truth have been taken from the Church, then you must also know what that light and truth are.  So please give an example of one of these truths or deeper doctrines that has been taken away.
What then, is this:

As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients?  Dream?  Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being?  Audible voice?  Trance?  Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind?  A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words?  Something else?
Were *all* the “thus-saith-the-Lord” revelations in our canon transmitted through the same method?
Are you sure?
How do you know?
Oh, and on a completely unrelated tangent:  what do you think of Denver Snuffer and John Pontius/Thom Harrison?