Maverick
-
Posts
125 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maverick
-
-
6 minutes ago, CV75 said:
I trust your observation and conclusion.
That members can't handle revelation has been repeatedly part of your hypotheses.
No, they say saying other things, just as I wrote them. And you can even say they are examples that Brigham Young as president of the church did not teach false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years, or taught it correctly/completely in some ways and incompletely/incorrectly in others, for 25 years. It depends on your bias, spin, context and semantics. I choose not to employ black-and-white, dichotomous analysis to drive a predetermined conclusion.
And you did use this as an example of it being "distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines..." as you did here: Posted Friday at 09:45 AM
Oh boy, yes I reluctantly used Adam-God as an example of something that appears to be an instance of light and truth being taken away from the church because members couldn’t handle it, after you kept pressing me for one example showing that this possible.
At no point did I suggest in any way that every change in the church was an example of this. Certainly not for edits to the printed versions of Conference talks, like the Boyd K. Packer instance (which was an entirely different discussion).
At this point I think you are looking to find offense with my words, and I’m not really sure why that is. Perhaps my questions and suggestions make you uncomfortable. I don’t know. 🤷♂️
-
17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:
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.
Brigham Young didn’t teach it as his opinion. He taught it as doctrine he had received by revelation from God. And it wasn’t just not canonized. It was essentially erased from existence and denied that he ever taught it. His talks were a scrubbed when they were reprinted in the Discourses of Brigham Young volume, to remove references to it.
Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, or he isn’t. If he is, then this stopped being taught because the members couldn’t handle it. If Adam isn’t God the Father, then Brigham Young taught false doctrine about God for 25 years in GC, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12, and in the temple. It’s really as simple as that.
-
1 hour ago, CV75 said:
Anyone's answer to this is simply a reflection of bias since the Holy Ghost confirms or corrects bias in the hour of actual need. It does not establish a rule that God changes the marriage covenant because the saints and the world agree that it is socially unpopular or straining. Even in permitting divorce and OD1, the standard of marriage remained intact.
1 hour ago, CV75 said:How about simple fallibility, misunderstanding and miscommunication, or practice with councils and group revelation and continuing revelation in council
This is just another way of saying that Brigham Young as president of the church taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years.
Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ of he isn’t. If he isn’t, Brigham Young taught false doctrine for 25 years. If he is, then the church has lost this truth. And God either took it away or the leaders after Brigham Young screwed up big time.
God taking it away is by far the most likely explanation.
-
1 hour ago, CV75 said:
I see these kinds of post-talk corrections as examples of inspired clarification in council, not that the members are unable or unwilling to handle a verbatim transcription.
I wasn’t suggesting that the clarification in the printed version of the talk is because the members are unable or willing to handle verbatim transcription. I have no idea how you got that idea.
The point is that Elder Packer or whoever “corrected” the talk clearly didn’t believe that it’s accurate to say that the Proclamation on the Family is by “definition a revelation.” The printed version has it correct. It’s a guide, not a revelation.
-
11 hours ago, askandanswer said:
Was there ever a time in the life of Christ when at least one member of the Godhead was not present?
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.
-
On 4/11/2024 at 1:22 PM, zil2 said:
Thank you. The word "inspired" doesn't appear in this talk (hence my passing over it). Printed text:
Audio:
Seems clear to me in the video that he was not following his written talk at that point - perhaps remembering a prior version. I'm with @Carborendum on this - there was no "we gotta correct what he said" after the fact. Rather, the written talk as submitted was published, but not read word for word during GC. (I've seen this elsewhere, usually with only minor changes, sometimes with ad hoc comments about a prior speaker. I've also seen those ad hoc comments added into the text, so it appears sometimes someone does change the text to match the talk as given.)
IMO, both versions of the talk are equally correct.
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.”
-
On 4/11/2024 at 1:12 PM, zil2 said:
The Church will never seal same-sex couples in the temple. I understand why those who want it would wrest scriptures and everything else under the sun to argue that it will happen and why (ETA: they think) it's reasonable to believe it will. I don't understand why anyone else thinks it could. The principles of eternal marriage and procreation by exalted couples could not possibly be clearer or more obvious. The notion that the Lord would let his Church go that far from truth in this dispensation is absurd. Any prophet who tried would be stopped (probably well before he tried). Not that there's any hint any of them would. Same-sex couples cannot procreate. There will be no "adoption" or "surrogacy" in the Celestial Kingdom. The mere idea is absurd. Scripture is clear that there will be no marriage of any sort anywhere other than the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.
The Lord changes policy, procedure, and modes of presentation to fit our needs. He does not reverse eternal principles.
If anyone doubts this, I recommend a deep spiritual dive into the eternal principles of marriage and family (procreation), while repenting, keeping covenants, fasting, praying, ministering, attending one's meetings, serving, and attending the temple - and asking the Lord every day to give one a testimony and understanding of the eternal principles (the things behind the related commandments). What you receive you will likely have to keep to yourself, so plan for that and prove trustworthy.
Same-sex sealings is simply never going to be a thing.
What if hypothetically the First Presidency does at some future point in time declare that in his infinite mercy for those who have same-sex attraction, God has authorized members to enter into same-sex civil marriages, and that as long as they only have sexual relations with their same-sex spouse, they aren’t breaking the law of chastity?
Would you accept this as continuing revelation?
-
On 4/12/2024 at 9:52 AM, Ironhold said:
So sometimes, when people don't infodump on everyone, perhaps you should give them the benefit of the doubt.
I think there’s a big difference between not “info dumping on everyone,” and not presenting a single revelation quoting the words of God directly or a single vision to the church in over 100+ years.
Obviously, God could have commanded the brethren to keep all such revelations and visions to themselves the past 100+ years or at least not to convey them in the manner in which they received them. But assuming this is true, it begs the question of why He would have put this restriction in place for the brethren?
-
11 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
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.
I never said that it was take away“because of the wickedness of the church.” I said it was taken away because the members couldn’t handle it.
It’s well documented that many members couldn’t handle it and that it was troubling a lot of people, which is why the church presidents after Brigham Young stopped talking about it and told everyone else to stop talking about, too.
-
-
22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:
Clearly there still exists enough light and truth about this doctrine for you to have studied it extensively. That makes it hard for me to see how this knowledge has been taken away.
It was taken away from the general church membership. It stopped being taught, was contradicted, and it was even denied that it was ever taught for many years. For this reason most members had no idea that this was ever taught.
It’s only because individuals have meticulously tracked down and compiled the recorded Adam-God statements of yesteryear that those who are interested can know what was actually taught by Brigham Young and other early church leaders.
-
1 minute ago, Vort said:
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.
I already provided that answer. If you didn’t see it, I suggest you review my response again.
-
22 minutes ago, Vort said:
But the response above more or less begs the question. You are arguing that the Lord is/might be taking away light and knowledge from the general membership because they reject it. Again, you may be correct; I have often posed similar questions to myself. But to what end are you asking such questions? If I accept your suggestion as truth, then what do I do to make things better? Should I be writing letters to Salt Lake? Should I be excoriating my fellow Saints in fast and testimony meetings for their faithlessness? Should I go around warning those in my ward and stake that we have already had much taken from us, and we are in imminent danger of losing more if we don't repent? Or is this merely idle speculation, something to chat about on an internet discussion list, not something to particularly worry about? Because it somehow feels urgent, yet I don't understand what that urgency is supposed to compel us (me) to do.
You already asked me something similar and I already answered.
-
36 minutes ago, Vort said:
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.
I’m not parading any supposed superior status around, nor am I coming out in open defiance of recent prophets.
I was pressed to provide an example of something that would support the possibility that changed teachings in the church could constitute the Lord taking away light and knowledge from the general membership, because they couldn’t handle it, so I reluctantly did.
And your accusatory response towards me is precisely why I was reluctant to do so.
-
22 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
In his "The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text" Royal Skousen has the original as "thy family" not "thy families".
https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/book-mormon-earliest-text
Interesting.
I just checked and the 1829 Printer’s manuscript has “thy family” but the 1830 Book of Mormon has “thy families.” Unfortunately, the passage in question is no longer extant in the Original Manuscript.
-
6 hours ago, ZealoulyStriving said:
In the Journal of Discourses talk I read last night Brigham says he is going to start letting people settle were they want because they weren't listening to him anyways when he would tell them where to settle.
Based on a talk I listened to on FAIR it seems he started backing off on going deeper in to Adam-God because people didn't want to listen- which is unfortunate because we are left with this confusion about what exactly WAS Brigham trying to teach?
It’s true that by the end of his life, Brigham basically said that people could take or leave what he was teaching them about Adam-God, and stopped expanding on it.
Undoubtedly there’s more to the doctrine than what Brigham Young revealed, but as someone who has studied Adam-God extensively, what he taught is clear and easily understandable, at least to me.
-
42 minutes ago, Vort said:
C. We do not have the correct context to understand the so-called Adam God doctrine.
This is really a variation of option A, since the Adam-God doctrine would have stopped being taught because of the inability of the members to understand it.
The Adam-God doctrine is also not difficult to understand. It’s just difficult to accept because it conflicts with our traditional understanding of the relationship between God and Adam, which understanding is very similar to what mainstream Christianity believes.
-
57 minutes ago, CV75 said:
But just about anything supports possibility.
No. And when it comes to Adam-God, it’s either
A) Light and truth being taken away because the members couldn’t handle it.
or
B) A prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.
Take your pick.
-
3 hours ago, mordorbund said:
you came here with a question and several answers were given. None of these seem satisfactory to you,
You must not have been paying attention then. I have expressed agreement with several answers that have been given.
3 hours ago, mordorbund said: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.
My “mode” has nothing to do with the question of why there hasn’t been a single revelation quoting the Lord’s words directly or a vision presented to the body of the church from a president or apostle in 100+ years.
The answer to this question has nothing to do with uncovering some subconscious assumptions I may have about exactly how past “thus saith the Lord” type revelations were received.3 hours ago, mordorbund said:If you don't want to engage
I have engaged more than anyone in this discussion. No one has answered more questions than I have.
3 hours ago, mordorbund said:I wish you the best in your search for understanding.
By not answering my question about how you think revelations quoting the words of God directly are received and conveyed, after insinuating that the words may not be literally what God said? 🤔
-
5 hours ago, CV75 said:
Sorry, you did not. You provided an acceptable hypothesis with no factual basis for a conclusion and seem to be ignoring the requirement to do so. That is up to you.
The situation with what was taught and then discontinued about Adam-God does support the possibility that light and truth has been slowly taken away from the church because the majority of the members cannot bear it.
The alternative is that a prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.
-
4 hours ago, askandanswer said:
To publish the revelations in a publicly available book is to make them available to the world and we know who is the god of this world. I can see some advantages in not signaling your moves to the opposition.
I'm not saying this is the reason why the revelations are no longer made publicly available in the way that they used to be, but this possibility does have some plausibility
Why wouldn’t this have been equally applicable 100+ years ago, when the revelations and visions were being made publicly available?
-
3 hours ago, mordorbund said:
I'm going to deflect on this one
Well, then I guess I am going to respectfully decline answering any more of your questions. This isn’t an interrogation, where I have to explain what I think about the ins and outs of how revelation is received and conveyed, while you decline to do the same.
-
32 minutes ago, mikbone said:
Nope. Brigham Young claimed that he was taught the doctrine from Joseph Smith. Specifically not ‘thus saith the Lord’
Most likely Joseph Smith was trying to teach Brigham Young some profound doctrine that Brigham Young obviously misunderstood.
Nope. He said he received it by revelation from God and Joseph Smith.
-
4 minutes ago, mikbone said:
You may need to brush up on your understanding on doctrine. May I recommend:
If you did your homework reading Journal of Discourses 1: 50-51
You will see that Brigham Young prefaces his discourse with the commentary “upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views.
Scripture is the golden standard. General Conference talks and official proclamations are of a lesser standard.
In official proclamations there is obvious unanimity.
The Adam God Theory is categorized as esoteric doctrine.
I am very well versed in the Adam-God doctrine. It was definitely taught as a true doctrine received by the prophet of the church by revelation from God. Make of that what you will.
Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by Maverick
I completely agree. And the talk in question was corrected to change the description of the Proclamation on the Family as a “revelation” by definition to a “guide.” This is was a good correction, it’s not a revelation.
Me too, big time.
I would have to do some serious soul searching and wrestling with God to know what to do.