Maverick
-
Posts
125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maverick
-
-
17 hours ago, mikbone said:
Aaron Sherinian update anyone?
If me, my wife and MiL are noticing that we are presenting a mixed message. There must be others that are confused as well.
It's not just a mixed message these days, it's a different message altogether. The message used to be that mothers should stay home with the kids and not go to work, unless it was absolutely necessary. Now the message is that it's perfectly fine to be a career woman and a mother at the same time.
-
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
But if you accept it the way you explain, it makes zero sense.
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Many people found it very confusing and difficult to accept from day one.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:The reasons is that in the case you mention, then Adam would be in three places at the same time, meaning he is exhibiting three different exhibitions at the same time at the same place.
I don’t think he would have to be in three places at the same time. Instead what we would see is a hierarchy of God’s who fulfill various different roles with different titles at different times.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:We don't believe that and neither did Joseph or any others. In fact, the final version that he has of the First Vision directly contradicts this.
If Adam-God is true, then the person standing next to Jesus in the air during the first vision would have been Father Adam.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:the word Adam is referring to MAN
Yes, it is true that the Adam and man are the same word in Hebrew in many instances. Hence Christ referring to himself as the Son of Man, which in Hebrew is Ben Adam, or son of Adam.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:Thus, by simply saying Adam, one could be referring not only to the Adam in the garden, but to the race of man, or to a specific man...including you or I even.
Brigham Young was very clear that he was referring specifically to the singular individual known as Adam in the garden of Eden. He did also teach that there’s an Adam on each planet and that exalted men and women will become the Adam and Eve on their own planets.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:We are talking more about Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and the most forward of them, Joseph Fielding Smith. This is also included in more modern Apostles such as Bruce R. Mckonkie and of course Talmadge also indicates heavily in regards to our modern theology on this rather than the misunderstanding that many others had.
I would be interested to see the statements from these men claiming that Brigham was speaking about two Adams. Can you please share these with
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:If you want to continue this in a more private conversation I'd be happy to do so, but I don't feel it is proper to really discuss this in public currently.
You’re welcome to PM me if you’re more comfortable with that.
-
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
But if you accept it the way you explain, it makes zero sense.
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Many people found it very confusing and difficult to accept from day one.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:The reasons is that in the case you mention, then Adam would be in three places at the same time, meaning he is exhibiting three different exhibitions at the same time at the same place.
I don’t think he would have to be in three places at the same time. Instead what we would see is a hierarchy of God’s who fulfill various different roles with different titles at different times.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:We don't believe that and neither did Joseph or any others. In fact, the final version that he has of the First Vision directly contradicts this.
If Adam-God is true, then the person standing next to Jesus in the air during the first vision would have been Father Adam.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:the word Adam is referring to MAN
Yes, it is true that the Adam and man are the same word in Hebrew in many instances. Hence Christ referring to himself as the Son of Man, which in Hebrew is Ben Adam, or son of Adam.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:Thus, by simply saying Adam, one could be referring not only to the Adam in the garden, but to the race of man, or to a specific man...including you or I even.
Brigham Young was very clear that he was referring specifically to the singular individual known as Adam in the garden of Eden. He did also teach that there’s an Adam on each planet and that exalted men and women will become the Adam and Eve on their own planets.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:We are talking more about Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, and the most forward of them, Joseph Fielding Smith. This is also included in more modern Apostles such as Bruce R. Mckonkie and of course Talmadge also indicates heavily in regards to our modern theology on this rather than the misunderstanding that many others had.
I would be interested to see the statements from these men claiming that Brigham was speaking about two Adams. Can you please share these with me.
12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:If you want to continue this in a more private conversation I'd be happy to do so, but I don't feel it is proper to really discuss this in public currently.
You’re welcome to PM me if you’re more comfortable with that.
-
15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
First, it is a stylistic CHOICE of how to put the revelations down. That is a very simple reason.
If true, why the style change?
Under the current “style” how are we to know when something our leaders say has truly been given to them directly from God via revelation or when it is just their well reasoned opinion?
16 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:A DEEPER reason could deal with HOW those revelations are approved. The Twelve apostles collectively had the same authority and power as the Prophet Joseph Smith. This means, what he could do singularly needed to be collectively approved by them.
Why would this prohibit the sharing of visions and revelations quoting the words of God directly?
In the days of Joseph Smith, revelations were presented to the church and published as scripture without having the unanimous approval of the quorum of the 12 apostles. The quorum of the 12 didn’t even exist yet when most of the revelations in the D&C were published and accepted as scripture.
-
15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:
the last revelation that is in our canonized scriptures is actually from only 45 years ago (almost 46 years). It came prior to the date listed, but the text gives the date of September 30, 1978. The revelation itself was received in June of that year, presumably.
It is found in your Doctrine and Covenants at the end of it.
You’re referring to Official Declaration 2. This is actually not a revelation in the sense I am referring to. There was no vision and there were no direct words of God quoted.
There were rumors floating around at the time that a vision had happened or that there was a “thus saith” the Lord type revelation received, but the brethren who were present in the temple were all very clear that neither of these things happened. What happened was that the brethren had decided to give blacks the priesthood after a great deal of deliberation, then they prayed for confirmation, and received a strong feeling of confirmation that the time was right to end the priesthood ban.
It really has been over 100 years since there’s been canonized revelation of the literal word of the Lord or a vision.
15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:Brigham is VERY specific in his wording.
A KEY to understanding it then is to understand that what Adam means is basically Man, and that When using the term Adam, it is saying the term man as well.
In addition, there are Two Adams that Brigham Young refers to, Father Adam, and Adam. One is the Father of the other.
The two Adam’s theory was suggested by Eldon Watson, but it’s not accurate.
Brigham only ever referred to Adam or Father Adam as a single individual. He also clearly and repeatedly taught that this singular Adam, the first man upon this earth who was placed in the garden of Eden, is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ in the flesh.
15 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:The reason we no longer teach it is because without enlightenment it is VERY easy to misunderstand.
I think it is actually very easy to understand. The problem is that it’s very hard to accept because it goes against the traditional understanding of who God is and who Adam is.
-
On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:
You still haven't provided any links to specific examples. You made the claim. You need to back it up.
On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:it is quite possible that multiple accounts misheard or misunderstood exactly what words were used in the speech, and what their meaning really was.
On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
I provided several statements by men in attendance when Brigham Young gave the speech recorded in JD 1:50-51, who confirm that the speech was recorded accurately. And no, it isn’t possible that all these men “misheard” what Brigham said on that occasion.
As for additional Adam-God statements by Brigham Young and his contemporaries over the next 25+ years, many of these are easy to find online. Here are two links that document many of Brigham Young’s Adam-God statements:
https://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Brigham_Young_Adam.pdf
On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:You said many of his contemporaries repeated his words.
Yes, quite a few of his contemporaries repeated what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam-God. Some were apostles, others leading church authorities, and others lay members.
On 4/23/2024 at 5:21 AM, Carborendum said:What other apostles then repeated Young's doctrine in their own words and by the Spirit of Revelation?
There were several apostles who taught Adam-God in their own words or testified that the spirit had confirmed to them that it was true. Others accepted it as true because they sustained Brigham Young as the prophet of the church and believed that what he taught was the word of the Lord.
See for example:
Franklin D. Richards 12/10/1853
Millennial Star 15:803-04
Hear what the Prophet Daniel says upon this subject - [quotes Daniel 7:9, 10, 13, 14.] Again, the word of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph, gives additional importance, if possible, to the part which Adam acts relating to his children, which reads as follows - [quotes D& C 29:26.]
From the foregoing we are enabled to draw important conclusions, that before the coming of the Lord Jesus in the clouds of heaven, to take the reins of government upon the earth, Adam comes and gathers around him all that have ever held keys of power under him upon the earth, in any of the dispensations thereof to man; he calls forth the dead from their graves, at the sound of his trump; he brings them to judgment, and they render unto him an account of their several stewardships; the books are opened that a righteous judgment may be rendered by him who now sits upon his throne, not only as the Father, but the Judge, of men; and in that capacity thousands minister unto him. An august assemblage are now gathered in one grand council around the great Patriarch of all Patriarchs, consisting of his sons, who have been faithful in that which was committed to them; and all this preparatory to that great event, when the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven should be given to the Saints of the Most High. Daniel saw that the Saints possessed the kingdom, by virtue of which Adam was once more in possession of the dominion given unto him before the fall, which was over every living thing that moved upon the earth, which rendered him the universal Sovereign and Lord of all.
At this important period, when Adam is reinstated with full power upon the earth, seated upon his throne, as Daniel saw him - a glorious and an immortal God, one like the Son of Man comes in the clouds of heaven (as oftimes represented by the Apostles), to the Ancient of days, and receives from him dominion, glory, and a kingdom; or in other words, Michael, having accomplished the work committed to him, pertaining to this world, delivers up an account of his stewardship over the same, to that character represented as Yahovah in the creation of the world, who reigns in unison with those upon the earth, until his work is fully accomplished - till the last great contest with the enemy, who has been released for a little season, is won; then he in turn delivers up the kingdom to the great Eloheim, that in the language of the Apostle, `God may be all in all.'
This final surrender, we are to bear in mind, does not detract from the God-like power and dominion of our first Parent, nor of our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Patriarchal order of government, each and every ruler is independent in his sphere, his rule extending to those below, and not to those above him, in the same order. ... [W]e find that ... Michael has power to deliver men from the power of the Devil, which is death; that by the sound of his own trump - the trump of the archangel, the nations of the dead shall awake and come forth to judgment, and there render an account to the Ancient of Days seated upon his burning throne. Then shall the nations know that he is their Judge, their Lawgiver, and their God, and upon his decree hangs the destiny of the assembled dead. Yes, our Judge will be a kind and compassionate Father, by whom none can pass, but through whom all glory, dominion, and power, will be ascribed to the great ETERNAL.Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball 10/6/1854
Journal of Joseph L. Robinson, 102-03
President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father. This as Brother Heber remarked, was letting the cat out of the bag,Heber C. Kimball 6/29/1856
JD 4:1
I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth - the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted.Heber C. Kimball 3/11/1857
Journal of Heber C. Kimball 20:17
The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the son of Adam.Heber C. Kimball 4/30/1862
Heber C. Kimball, Memorandum
The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth.George Q. Cannon 10/15/1870
Meeting of the School of the Prophets
[George Q. Cannon] fully endorsed the doctrine that father Adam was our God and Father - or as He in many places is called, Michael the great prince - the Arch Angel, Ancient of Days, & c. It was not only wisdom, but perfectly consistent, that Adam & Eve should partake of the forbidden fruit and start the work of increase of their species. The above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true.Orson Hyde 1/25/1871
Jans Christian Anderson Weibye Daybooks, Daybook 1st, p. 131
I attended meeting, Orson Hyde preached to us, and he told us that what we heard before that Adam is our God, we had a splendid good meeting. At Manti, Jan 25th Orson Hyde preached to us here in Manti, that, Adam is our God for this planet (Earth).George Q. Cannon 6/23/1889
Journal of Abraham H. Cannon
He (George Q.) believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God: that under certain unknown conditions the benefits of the Savior's atonement extend to our entire solar system. ... He asked me what I understood concerning Mary conceiving the Savior; and as I found no answer, he asked what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus. Then said I: "he must have been a resurrected Being." "Yes," said he, "and though Christ is said to have been the first fruits of them that slept, yet the Savior said he did nothing but what He had seen His Father do, for He had power to lay down His life and take it up again. Adam, though made of dust, was made, as President Young said, of the dust of another planet than this." I was very much instructed by the conversation and this days services.Lorenzo Snow and Franklin D. Richards 10/12/1897
Brigham Young Jr. diary
At meeting of all the apostles except Grant and Merill, Pres. [Lorenzo] Snow led out on Adam being our father and God. How beautiful the thought - it brot [sic] God nearer to us. Bro Franklin [D. Richards] said it made him thrill through his whole body - it was new & it was inspiring.Wilford Woodruff 12/16/1897
Brigham Young, Jr. Journal
Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with Josephites or any one else. -
On 4/22/2024 at 7:51 AM, ZealoulyStriving said:
At this juncture, maybe it would be appropriate to open a new topic addressing Adam/God?
Agreed. I’ll start one later today, unless someone else would like to start one sooner.
-
11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
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.
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?
-
15 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I believe there was some sort of mistake with this record, as well as the way people heard it.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
Uhmm... Gee... Thanks...
You’re welcome. 😉
-
-
17 hours ago, Carborendum said:
Links?
You can read pretty much any of Brigham Young’s talks and you’ll see that he switches topics frequently within his talks.
As for the particular discourse in question, this is what several men who were in attendance recorded:
Journal of Wilford Woodruff
Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit & formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world don't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please, it will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost.
(More to this quote)
Journal of Hosea Stout 2:435
Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body, etc.
Friday 4/9/1852
Lorenzo Brown Journal
Meeting at 9 A.M. All male members met at 6 P.M. House full. President Young preached some new doctrine respecting Adam etc. Excellent discourse I thought.
Friday 4/16/1852
Journal of Samuel Holister Rogers 1:179
Conference commenced on the 6 and continued until the 11, it was held in the new tabernacle, adjourned until the 6 of next October We had the best Conference that I ever attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam came to the Earth and that Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial body when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eave was also a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ, was our elder brother.
-
On 4/20/2024 at 7:27 PM, askandanswer said:
What I'm suggesting is the teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory.
I don’t believe that the general church membership had demonstrated the ability to discern truth from error beyond recognizing the truthfulness of the restored gospel in general. Speaking of these same people, Joseph Smith had said:
“[T]here has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.
I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.” (Jan. 20, 1844.) DHC 6:183-185.
On 4/20/2024 at 7:27 PM, askandanswer said:So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40
Many church members received the Adam-God teaching with gladness and considered it to be light and truth revealed from heaven. This included apostles like Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Franklin D. Richards.
Others had difficulty accepting it as it went against their traditions.
-
11 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
I think there was quite a bit of too much, too fast in early Utah.
Brigham Young admitted that he may have been guilty of saying too much about who God is, as the Saints weren’t ready for it.
11 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:With the easily crisised© in our day, I see the wisdom of pulling back and being more milk-oriented in official teachings.
I see the wisdom in this as well. And I think this is exactly what we’re seeing.
11 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:But the great thing about our religion is you can let your mind soar in your private musings and with those equally interested in the "deeper things" of God.
It’s nice that the church is more tolerant of this now, as long as you don’t try to publicly teach controversial things like Adam-God as official church doctrine or try to disparage current church leaders for not openly teaching the mysteries anymore.
-
14 hours ago, laronius said:
We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." —Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77
This so-called Adam-God theory is false and contrary to the whole body of revealed truth. It negates the essential features of the whole plan of salvation, belittles God, makes a mockery of the atonement of his Son, and postulates the utterly absurd notion that Christ the Son had to work out an atoning sacrifice which would bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of God the Father. - Bruce R McConkie
If we take these statements at face value as the gospel truth, then the only conclusion is that Brigham Young taught false doctrine, which “negates the essential features of the whole plan of salvation, belittles God, [and] makes a mockery of the atonement of his Son.” And that he did this in his official capacity as the president and prophet for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 and in the temple.
14 hours ago, laronius said:I think it's a bit misguided to take the stance that we must either accept what BY taught as truth or we must declare him a teacher of falsehoods.
And yet, Kimball and McConkie literally declared him to be a teacher of falsehoods if we take the two statements you shared at face value.
14 hours ago, laronius said:The Adam-God theory is just that, a theory, not official Church doctrine and therefore not a test for determining one's loyalty to the prophets.
It wasn’t taught as a theory. It was taught as revealed truth. And if the teachings of the president of the church and other apostles for 25+ years about the character of God and eternal progression towards becoming like God doesn’t constitute “doctrine,” then I don’t know what is.
But I agree that believing or disbelieving in Adam-God today is “not a test for determining one's loyalty to the prophets.”
-
19 hours ago, askandanswer said:
The teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40
For aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ctruth embraceth truth; dvirtue loveth virtue; elight cleaveth unto light; fmercy hath gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.
Are you suggesting that Brigham, as the prophet of the church, taught falsehoods about God for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, and in the temple, while claiming that this was new light and truth revealed from heaven?
-
23 hours ago, zil2 said:
Jarom 1:2 ... but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.
You cut out the relevant context for why he didn’t write down his prophecies and revelations.
Let’s look at the reason:
“2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.”
The reason for why he is not writing down his prophecies and revelations is not because they would be redundant, but rather because he didn’t have enough space on the small plates, because the space was almost completely used up already.
Additionally, he says:
“3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land.
4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith.
10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land.
11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them.
12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance.”
What insights can we gain from this description of conditions among the members of the church in Jarom’s day that may be applicable to our day? 🤔
-
3 hours ago, LDSGator said:
Is there a reason why Adam-God is of such great importance to you or am I missing something? Totally curious.
I only brought up Adam-God in this particular discussion because I was pressed to provide a tangible example of something that supports the possibility that changed teachings in the church can be due to God taking away light and truth from the church because the majority of the members couldn’t handle it.
In a general sense Adam-God is important to me personally because I believe in searching out and embracing all truth. The Adam-God doctrine was taught as truth and a mystery of God by the president of the church for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in priesthood meetings, and in the temple. To me this makes it significant.
-
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:
If you look at the transcript of the speech he gave there was something disjointed about it.
Start: Speaking about something completely normal.
Insert: Adam-God.
Continue: Speak about the original subject again.
I also want to add that Brigham switching topics and then returning to the previous topic is a very common occurrence in his many discourses. He did it all the time.
There are also several other records of his discourse on Adam-God in Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 in journals of people who were in attendance and they all agree with how it is recorded in the Journal of Discourses.
-
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:
That's because we don't really know what Brigham Young meant.
If you look at the transcript of the speech he gave there was something disjointed about it.
Start: Speaking about something completely normal.
Insert: Adam-God.
Continue: Speak about the original subject again.
The issue is that there was no segue from each of these sections. There didn't seem to be any relationship between Adam-God and the rest of his speech.
This tells me that either:
A. There was some explanation or preamble that we're missing that would have given us valuable background concerning his comments.
B. This was thrown in there when someone mixed up notes from multiple speeches.
Bottom line: We don't have the proper background to understand what it was that he was talking about.
Journal of Discourse 1:50-51 is hardly the only recorded instance of Brigham Young having taught that Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. There are many recorded statements by Brigham Young teaching Adam-God. Other general authorities at the time taught it, too. From this it as actually very clear what was taught.
The problem is not in understanding what Brigham Young was talking about. The problem is that what he taught contradicts our traditional understanding of Adam. Many people really struggled with this. And as a result Brigham Young generally began teaching it less publicly and forcefully. But he still taught it repeatedly right up to the year of his death. In 1877, he included a thorough summary of the Adam-God doctrine in the lecture at the veil in the temple, which at the time was part of the endowment.
-
30 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
In ancient Israel when the Temple priests went off course, the Israelites still had to take their sacrifices to the temple to those same priests who officiated in the sacrificial offerings. It is a pattern for us... If the leadership should ever from established counsel (like transporting the ark on an oxcart instead of carrying it) it is our job to continue the mission God has given us, and let the Lord correct His leaders.
Agreed.
31 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:I empathize with the fundamentalists on some doctrinal issues, but they lack the keys to teach them and are out of order.
I think fundamentalists have some valid points on doctrinal and historical issues. I agree that they are out of order and lack the priesthood keys they claim to have. It’s not my place to judge them, though. I think many of them will prove to be the “outcasts of Israel” who will be part of the final gathering of the elect who will build the New Jerusalem.
-
26 minutes ago, CV75 said:
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.
Again, I’m not interested in proving anything. The example I provided with Adam-God would be a textbook example of the Lord removing light and truth from the church, if what Brigham Young taught was true.
If what Brigham Young taught was false or the leaders after him removed this teaching against God’s will, then that’s of course a different story. And quite frankly both of these other possibilities are way more of a problem for continuing revelation in the church, than God removing a true teaching because the members couldn’t handle it.
-
6 minutes ago, zil2 said:
Do you know that the written talks are submitted before hand so that the translators, interpreters, and technical people have a "head start"? That it is far more likely, especially given the video, that the spoken talk diverged from what was written and that the printed version was not edited from what Elder Packer had previously submitted? Just checking.
I guess if we really wanted to explore your theory that the original submitted talk called it a “guide” and Elder Packer went off script, we could examine the audio versions of his talk in different languages.
But, like said before, the order of events doesn’t really change anything. Either way it was decided that calling the Family Proclamation a “guide,” rather than a “revelation” was the way to go.
-
1 minute ago, zil2 said:
Do you know that the written talks are submitted before hand so that the translators, interpreters, and technical people have a "head start"? That it is far more likely, especially given the video, that the spoken talk diverged from what was written and that the printed version was not edited from what Elder Packer had previously submitted? Just checking.
I used to assume that the printed came second, but it turns out, it comes first (per Elder Bednar).
I’m not assuming anything about the order of events. We don’t know what the original talk that was submitted and displayed on the teleprompter said. Which is why I said:
10 hours ago, Maverick said:Elder Packer could have gone off script or the wording was changed. Or maybe it’s a combination of both.
But clearly it was decided that the Proclamation on the Family should be referred to as a “guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow” instead of declaring that it “qualifies, according to definition, as a revelation.”
Have we decided to live the lesser law?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
I think there's a big difference between what you are describing and a mothers who are also "career women" who work full-time as professionals out of ambition, the desire for a high standard of living, or both. The church currently teaches that it's completely fine to be a "career woman" and a mother at the same time, which is the exact opposite of what was previously taught.