Search the Community

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.

One of the boldest claims the church makes is that the church is led by continuing revelation from God to the President of the church, who along with his counselors and the Quorum of the 12 apostles, we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators. While I don’t doubt that our leaders have often received inspiration and guidance in their callings, my question is why there hasn’t been a single revelation where the direct words of the Lord have been quoted added to our scriptural canon since the revelation Brigham Young received in 1847 in Winter Quarters (D&C 136)? This is literally the last “thus saith the Lord” type revelation quoting the words of the Lord directly added to our scriptures. This was 177 years ago. Why hasn’t there been any more revelations like this since? I understand that revelation doesn’t always have to come this way and that making prophecies of the future and declaring “thus saith the Lord” first person revelations isn’t all true prophets, seers, and revelators should be expected to do. But why hasn’t there been any of this in such a long time? This is not a criticism of the brethern. It’s an honest question that has puzzled me for some time now. Any thoughts?

The fam went and saw One Life last night. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Life_(2023_film) I can highly, highly recommend it. Everyone should know the story. Inspiring and important reminder of how average folks can rise to the occasion. Anthony Hopkins and all the other actors did an amazing job. Easier to watch and less traumatizing/extreme/violent/shocking than Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan. Excellent movie for older teens on up. In my life, as the son of a WWII vet, I've felt the pressing need to preserve and pass along the lessons my dad's generation learned. This movie really really helped me forward that goal with my older daughter.

What happened was that when Filmation was about to ship He-Man out the door they realized that the violence in each episode was on a rather higher level than what kids' shows of the era normally contained. As a result, they devised the PSA bit at the end of each episode in order to put the violence in some sort of context as part of a larger moral bit. This "halo effect" concept caught on, and soon a number of cartoons were doing some sort of PSA or educational segment at the end of each episode. These initially faded away around the end of the 1980s as most of the shows that did these segments got cancelled, but briefly reappeared in the mid-1990s when Congress passed laws requiring that all over-the-air broadcast television stations had to air three hours of "educational and informative" kids' programming a week as stations used these segments to justify tagging whatever show they were attached to as E/I compliant. Nowadays they're more of a meme than anything else, although there are G. I. Joe fans who are open to the idea of the PSAs returning at the end of future content.

This thread is to highlight what posters are learning from their current study of the Book of Mormon. I will begin this with 1Nephi 5:16. Here Lehi learns that both he and Laban are direct decedents of Joseph. Thus, Laban inherited from his father the right to “keep” the records. As a direct descendent of Joseph Lehi was next in line to be a keeper of the convent – Nephi becomes the first son (most noble) and therefore the keeper of the covenant which explains why Nephi was instructed to behead Laban and take possession of the brass plates. This fulfills the prophesy that a remnant (righteous branch) of the house of Joseph will be broken off (See 2Nephi 3:5). The rest of chapter 3 prophesies that all this will commence the great work (from those that receive the Book of Mormon) in the last days to prepare for the Messiah. I understood that the Nephits carried the covenant of Joseph until their fall, but I never saw the symbolism of the beheading of Laban like unto the fall of the Nephits and the transfer of the covenant to Nephi symbolic to the transfer of the covenant to Joseph Smith and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Traveler

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.

As a kid, I was subjected to homophobic abuse. And I'm not even gay! In fact I am SO not-gay, I think many of those who homophobe-abused me were gay by comparison. In fact I suspect some were actually real-gay with an "I'll homo-abuse the allegedly gay kid to get the attention off myself" type of agenda. But that's speculation. The point is, I know that homophobic abuse is an actual thing, coz I've been on the receiving end. And though I agree there is much nonsense talked about "hate speech", homophobia (along with transphobia) is a real thing. But it's so easy to think after the event what you should have said. I was never able to think on my feet. So I'm going to indulge in a little wish-fulfilment fantasy... There was one kid - somewhat older than me - whom I'm going to call him "CT". He once gave me a grilling about what I'd do if I were propositioned by a half-naked Bo Derek, beckoning me to bed. When I didn't immediately respond in words to the effect that I'd "do" her, he told me I was not normal, while his bully-partner (a smirking sycophant whom I'll call "CV") snickered snottily away to himself in the background. CT: So? What would you do? There's Bo Derek calling out for you, wanting you!" Me: Well... (Not sure how to respond. Even then I had a superstitious view of sex [barring masturbation], even though I was not very outwardly religious.) CT: Come on! It's Bo Derek? You do know who Bob Derek is, don't you?" Me: She was in 10. And Tarzan the Ape M..." CT: So...? What would you do? Me: OK, well tell me first what you'd do? CT: Oh well...haha...what wouldn't I do? Haha...mmmemmmmemmmm... (performs bodily contortions intended to convey sexual arousal, but actually more suggestive of diarrhea) This is where fantasy takes over... Me: So you'd have had "carnal knowledge" of her? CT: Mmmm...you could put it that way....(continued vocalizations and bodily contortions). But you'd just run away, wouldn't you? Like a scared little rabbit, that's you! You'd... Me: Has it never occurred to you that Bo Derek is married? CT: (Momentarily taken aback) What...? Me: Yes. To John Derek. That's how she got the name 'Derek', you know. Or did you think that's the name she was born with? CT: I don't believe this! If you think...you're actually saying that...? Me: That I think the sanctity of marriage is important? You bet I am! Or are you the sort of slimy little toad who goes around sleeping with other men's wives? CT: What...? (looking over to CV for support, but getting none.) Me: Because if you are, then I hope that when you get married, some other little slime ball comes and has his way with your wife! And I hope she enjoys him ten times better than you! CT: But... Me: And I hope he tells everyone about it, and everyone has a good laugh at Mr. Cuckoo-Cuckold! *does cuckoo impressions* It's good to dream...

You probably need to get out more. (should have strike-thru formatting) I have a very diverse group of clientele. It takes quite a bit to surprise me now though. As I am quite seasoned. Hope to retire in 10 years. Me, “You did what!?” Edit, I mis-read your reply. Us old / experienced guys have seen some stuff.

What do you call a guy with no arms and no legs who just lies on the grass in the front yard? Lon

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.

Chrome force-updated on my phone while I was trying to type this out so I had to make sure I typed this out. Before I begin I would like to caveat what I am about to say with a few things to remember. This is a topic that you must approach with alot of humility and a healthy portion of caution. There is alot of information out in the world that is designed to use this desire and fascination to pervert your faith. Be careful who and what to trust, and let the holy spirit guide you solely along with your understanding of the word. In mathew it says if you have faith but a mustard seed you can command mountains to move, and they will go to the sea. Understand that a mustard seed is extremely small. The poetry is about a small thing growing larger and becoming stronger, as should your faith. But having true faith, even if only a little, qualifies you to do this. Jesus granted his disciples the authority to do miracles, as an additional source of divine credentials of sorts. This is proof that he authorizes true believers to perform supernatural feats. However there are some rules that seem to come with this gift. Understand this gift is not meant to be for your selfish benefit, and will outright fail if you try to do it on a case by case basis. If you try to do it you must expect it to work. With conviction, with absolute confidence and expectation that the command will work, you must fully acknowledge to yourself that it is not "you" doing it, you are not the source, but rather the holy spirit flowing through you. If you get asked how you were able to do it you must always proclaim that it is because of God's authority over all, and that we are given the authority to command the world(things not people) around us to submit in his name. Never ever ever claim it as a power that you create, it is a gift to be used for his glory, never ours. Things I've done it with, smoke, electricity, something that was broken and needed to work, people engaged in the occult and I believe we're also possessed. It can be practical but it's significantly stronger if it's directly related to testimony and evangelical uses. The commanding of the people were people threatening me/attacking me, and had to faith in God/Jesus in their hearts. The people themselves still had their free will but where unable to continue threatening/attacking me using spiritual forces/demons. It doesn't make you a puppet master I could never force them to give me riches even if I wanted that. But you can use it for protection from ungodly people/posessed/occult practitioners in a physical sense. I will check back in a few days if anyone has comments or wants to discuss scripture about my interpretation of the word/why I believe the way I do, my specific experiences and instances of doing these things. All my gifts are blessings from God to be used for his purpose, plan, for me and my life in him, in Jesus name, Amen.

When I was 15, in a Teachers Quorum lesson about the power of the Melchezidek Priesthood, I was told that among plenty of other things, I would have access to something called Command over the Elements. I immediately pictured the Periodic Table, and then quickly realized that if I heard right, the Melchezidek Priesthood would allow me to turn a bar of Lead into Gold. I imagined the looks on the faces of alchemists who have attempted that for centuries as I did so in front of them. Any why stop at Lead I thought. Water is simply Hydrogen and Oxygen mixed together, so I could turn bottles of water into bottles of Gold then too. I raised my hand and said out loud "Could I use the Priesthood to turn a bar of Lead into a bar of Gold?" The teacher told me that first it would have to he God's will for the Lead to turn to Gold and that second I would need a righteous reason for doing so. I knew I just wanted to make myself rich and see the look on people's faces so that put me in my place, and I have never actually attempted to use the Melchezidek Priesthood to practice Alchemy. The phrase Command over the Elements, still puzzles me though. Outside that lesson I don't think I've ever heard that phrase used again. Some have told me that Elements refers to Earth, Water, Air, Fire. Which would signify that Melchezidek Priesthood holders have access to all 4 of Earthbending, Airbending, Waterbending, and Firebending then. I do hear the phrase The Faith to move Mountains from time to time, which taken literally would mean Earthbending.

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.

I second what @Maverick said. I think part of the atonement required Jesus to endure the suffering in part without any external support. That's why he could make the claim "I have tread the winepress alone." Some general authorities have expressed similar opinions. I have always liked this explanation by Jeffrey R Holland: "Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 16 Matthew 27:46 emphasis added.] The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour … is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”? 17 John 16:32 8:29 With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required, indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone."

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.

This is regarding a correction of translation in the Bible concerning Luke chapter 23 verses 42-43. A thief hanging on the cross conversed with Jesus as He was also crucified next to him: 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. The Prophet Joseph Smith explained that this is a mistranslation; the Lord actually said that the thief would be with Him in the world of spirits. A correct translation of Luke chapter 23 verse 43 should read as follows according to Joseph Smith: "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in a world of spirits." In the spirit world the thief would hear the gospel of Jesus Christ preached to him. (See page 96 of the New Testament 2019 Come Follow Me – For Individuals and Families.) The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught this. Why is this not in the Inspired Version of the Bible or at least in our footnotes of the Latter-Day Saint edition of the King James Version?

For those who are just tuning in - I have had a very unique, interesting, and "different" life than what most of experienced. There are topics to where if I was to even *vaguely* go into any sort of discussion to any real depth, it would cause people to either glaze over or break down in tears... assuming of course they didn't vomit or freak right out first. Well, by day, I write for a series of newspapers. I do a weekly op/ed and a weekly movie review, and sometimes other material from there. Between my word count restrictions and my audience, I have to be very careful as to what I discuss, how I discuss it, and what lesson I want my audience to learn (if any). I also have to make sure that what I write is something that is accessible to all but the youngest readers. If there are things I don't talk about, it's generally because either there is some restriction in place that prevents discussion or I know that my audience just isn't ready to handle it. Yes, I've actually done entire *series* of columns just to cover a single topic or series of related topics so that people understood what was going on and why I felt compelled to mention it. So sometimes, when people don't infodump on everyone, perhaps you should give them the benefit of the doubt.

So, my family is going to see the eclipse this coming Monday. We're just a few hours away from the path of Totality. We're planning on heading out right near @Ironhold's stomping grounds. We have no idea what the popularity will be. But if it is the nearest spot for me, you can bet that most of the eclipse chasers (out of 4 million people in Houston) will want to go to the same location. Texas is fortunate since the duration of the total eclipse will be longer with a decrease in latitude. We'll get nearly four minutes of the total eclipse. With the roads clogged, we may have difficulty returning. I hope we don't run out of gas. Or we'll be the only idiots driving out in the middle of nowhere looking at an event for just a few minutes only to returrn home with a memory. We can't really take pictures... can we? But memories will be what makes and breaks this family.

I wonder - what does it mean to you to be "against gay sex", and what does it mean to you to have the church "never allow" it? Membership in the church is voluntary. People can do whatever they want to in this church, and reap whatever consequences spring from their actions, be it positive or negative. The church isn't our mommy, telling us what we can and can't do. It's not about allowed or not allowed. The church is our guide, giving us counsel on how to be and how to act, inviting us to come to beliefs which our doctrine indicates is true, urging us to gain, maintain, and strengthen our testimonies. It's missions are to perfect the saints, proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, and care for the poor and needy. It doesn't enforce keeping the commandments, it urges keeping the commandments. When you talk in terms of "against" and "never allowing", the immediate question is "or what?". The main actions the church can take with members, who either aren't keeping the commandments, or are breaking the commandments, are primarily to urge, proclaim, teach, and love. Some things the church figures are serious enough breaches of community norms (i.e. sins), that the ultimate power - that of removing membership - gets involved. It's like a chess club dealing with a member who wants to play checkers. Ok, you're still welcome in chess club, but you can expect we'll be playing chess, and inviting or even urging you to do the same. And if you disrupt our chess games to push for checkers, we'll probably disinvite you to future meetings and tournaments. Replace chess with bringing unto Christ, and checkers with sins, and there you go. Another way of thinking about it, is we're also "against" and don't "allow" cheating on a spouse. But there are endless active LDS folks with behavior like that in their past, and that's a good thing, because being LDS and living as one is a blessing that's available to all, just as the atonement is. We're also "against and "don't allow" p0rn or lusting after your neighbor's wife in your own head. But there are endless active LDS folks engaged in it, and we want to keep them in the church, because we believe being in the church is a good thing. Isn't same-sex behavior or thoughts or orientations sort of the exact same thing? I guess another way of asking my question, how do you know you're "against gay sex"? What sorts of actions or beliefs spring from you when you see gay? Something that surprised the heck out of me recently, was found in a recent poll: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/03/08/jana-riess-who-is-leaving-lds/ That 4% number floored me. 4 out of every 100 members of the church identifies somewhere in that acronym? With roughly 6.8 million LDS members in America, most of whom live in the corridor, that equals roughly a quarter-million members who might identify as LGBTQ. Who are these people? Are they happy? At what rates do they keep the commandments or break them? Are they active? Do they hold callings? Are they surly teens waiting to age out and leave the church as soon as they can? I wonder - has the church found a good balance on the issue? Ok, so you like checkers. This is the chess club, and we'll be doing chess club things. You're welcome to come as much as you want, and participate as much as you want, and we'll love the heck out of you. Just don't try to get us to stop playing chess, or force your checkers playing on us, and we're good.

"32 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Go forth and do as I have commanded thee, and no man shall pierce thee. Open thy mouth, and it shall be filled, and I will give thee utterance, for all flesh is in my hands, and I will do as seemeth me good. 33 Say unto this people: Choose ye this day, to serve the Lord God who made you. 34 Behold my Spirit is upon you, wherefore all thy words will I justify; and the mountains shall flee before you, and the rivers shall turn from their course; and thou shalt abide in me, and I in you; therefore walk with me." (Moses 6)

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.

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. 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.

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.

It is important to understand that not all that is spiritual or is revelation or that leaders have received for the people needs be or should be recorded in what is sometimes called the “standard” works of scripture. In the Book or Mormon the Book of Jacob chapter 1 verses 2 though verse 6 (more if one intends to maintain the context) Jacob is commanded what to wright as scripture. What Jacob commits to scripture is not all what was revealed to the Prophets of his day. Note in verse 5 that Jacob indicates that there were things revealed concerning things that would happen to the people that were not included for preserved scripture. Note what is not included in scripture was still revelation and important to the people. Every 6 months the prophets and seers of our generation extend to the people of the Church and world things revealed and commanded concerning the next 6 months to the next Conference. Often in Stake or regional conferences a sustained prophet and seer may attend to make known revelations received concerning those that are intended to listen. The most important thing to understand is that all that G-d commands or reveals is recorded in scripture. The Traveler

I disagree, and would refer back to what I said earlier. I've already acknowledged that individual GAs may at times err; and in case I wasn't clear enough, I'll state: they may err even from the conference pulpit. (They probably won't, especially in our highly-correlated age. But they can.) If you take the race-and-priesthood issue specifically and parse the material that was released in the name of the entire first presidency or the entire Q12, you really don't see anything that's been subsequently rescinded. To the extent that individual Church presidents made statements that were later walked back (Brigham Young to the Territorial Legislature or what-have-you)--see my earlier statement about the OD-1 material and "harmless error". [1] In general, these same sorts of exegeses (and others, suggesting that particular passages were directed to particular cultures/times/places and are no longer appropriate to our modern circumstances) could be made about any future change in doctrine/practice, right up to my earlier hypothetical about the Church approving human trafficking. Heck, the nature of continuing revelation and the vagaries of the existing corpus of canon mean that one could make a straight-faced argument justifying a "revelation" affirming that the Atonement was actually done in 1956 by a Chicago plumber named Earl who died by choking on a piece of cake. The fact that something is arguable, does not make it mainstream. [2] As you no doubt are keenly aware, such arguments are a red herring since both the Old and New Testaments explicitly condemn gay sex. [3] As you no doubt are keenly aware, the Church has institutionally entrenched itself into a position on the perpetual sinfulness of gay sex and justifications thereof, in a way it never entrenched itself on the issue of the perpetual nature of or the detailed justifications for priesthood ban. And as you are further no doubt keenly aware, the "theories taught with limited understanding" verbiage comes from Elder McConkie who was addressing one particular (and frankly not-very-authoritative) sub-corollary of the ban justifications which, unlike the other justifications, *did* suggest that the ban was effectively perpetual (at least until the Millennium) But Elder McConkie himself continued to his dying day to maintain that the ban itself was divinely instituted and that in principle, the Lord takes the restored Gospel to different peoples at different times. [4] I think there are limits to how accommodating the Church leadership is to the idiocies of the Church membership. There are not-insubstantial issues with young LDS adults breaking the law of chastity and concealing it from priesthood leaders (in my work, I just last month cross-examined a lovely young lady on a family law case who admitted that she, as a BYU student, had been shacking up with (and of course, fornicating with) her boyfriend for the last three months). I daresay the Church leadership is aware of this as a general proposition; but they haven't gone so far as to say "fine, we changed our minds, go ahead and sex it up with whoever you want." And one of the virtues of the Church's financial situation is that (absent the danger of violence or adverse government action) it can pretty much teach whatever it wants without regard to what the masses think about it or what those teachings do to its membership rolls or annual donation receipts. Those of the "younger generation" who are willing to pimp out their spiritual birthrights for the sexual revolution's mess of pottage can quit doing their thinking with their genitalia--or they can go to hell until they learn (or are forced) to ignore their genitalia, quit taking their theological cues from the shriekings of the sorrowing damned, and discern what God is actually telling them.