Faded Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Hello Faded,Indeed, it is offensive, to say the least.I wonder though, how can so many LDS members seem to disagree on this " teaching " or " not teaching "???Peace,Ceebooboo Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are just as susceptible to nonsensical theological speculation as the next religion. The way I see it, we get more information about eternal principals, and for some it's that much more rope to hang themselves with. There was wild and happy-go-lucky speculation about the Adam God Theory -- the notion that Adam and God the Father are actually the same person, or that Adam was a God in his own right before the Earth was formed. This theory has been shot down so many times and so thoroughly by the leaders of our Church that you seldom see it pop up anymore. It was based on massively misunderstanding several statements by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. There are some who still try to beat a dead horse on this topic. We are fortunate to have inspired leaders who bring us back down to Earth and get things straightened out. I just wish that this particular theory about the conception of Jesus was at least a little less disturbing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceebooboo Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are just as susceptible to nonsensical theological speculation as the next religion. The way I see it, we get more information about eternal principals, and for some it's that much more rope to hang themselves with. There was wild and happy-go-lucky speculation about the Adam God Theory -- the notion that Adam and God the Father are actually the same person, or that Adam was a God in his own right before the Earth was formed. This theory has been shot down so many times and so thoroughly by the leaders of our Church that you seldom see it pop up anymore. It was based on massively misunderstanding several statements by Brigham Young and Joseph Smith. There are some who still try to beat a dead horse on this topic. We are fortunate to have inspired leaders who bring us back down to Earth and get things straightened out. I just wish that this particular theory about the conception of Jesus was at least a little less disturbing.Thanks for the reply,If I may ask a follow up to your post, What is LDS teaching regarding this???Is there no direction from your current prophet??Was there teachings from past prophets??Thanks again,Ceebooboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 It paints the God that I adore and that they adore as a letch and a womanizer.Nonsense. It does no such thing. That's purely you adding that emotional baggage, no different from saying that if God allows a child to die, he's a despicable murderer. The idea is absurd, and betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of who and what "God" is.I'm no defender of the "doctrine" you mention, but calling a goat a pig doesn't make your case against the goat any stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faded Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Thanks for the reply,If I may ask a follow up to your post, What is LDS teaching regarding this???Is there no direction from your current prophet??Was there teachings from past prophets??Thanks again,CeeboobooThe most recent the comes to mind was this (and I'm paraphrasing because I don't know where to find the exact quote.) We do not know what happened after the Holy Ghost and the power of the Highest came overshadowed Mary. What we do know is that: 1.) She was pregnant with the literal Son of God.2.) She was still a virgin.I'll try to find the exact quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 ... but Brigham Young (president of the Church from 1846-1877) and some of his contemporaries did express their beliefs that there was actual intercourse between Mary and God the Father. Didn't that spring from the wishfulness of Polygamy Theology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 What about the Mary - Mrs. God Theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faded Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Well, here is one: LDS.org - Liahona Article - Joy in ChristHe was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. Edited March 27, 2009 by Faded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 [Adam-God] was based on massively misunderstanding several statements by Brigham Young and Joseph SmithNo, it wasn't. Brigham Young wasn't as straightforward on the matter as we might like; but whatever he was teaching, it wasn't what the Church teaches today.I'm pretty sure I disagree with Adam-God. I accept those who have condemned it (ranging from Joseph F. Smith down to Spencer W. Kimball) as prophets, seers, and revelators. But let's not pretend that Brigham Young didn't teach it. He did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I'm pretty sure I disagree with Adam-God. I accept those who have condemned it (ranging from Joseph F. Smith down to Spencer W. Kimball) as prophets, seers, and revelators. But let's not pretend that Brigham Young didn't teach it. He did.As I recall, Nibley thought that Brigham Young's teachings on the matter were widely misunderstood, that he used somewhat ideosyncratic definitions of terms like "Adam", and that properly understood, his teachings were perfectly in line with what we commonly accept. But I can't produce any evidence of this; it's just what I'm remembering.I do think that it is worthwhile to remember that, until we are absolutely sure that we understand what the prophets meant with any given teaching and we are absolutely sure they were wrong, we would do well not to discard anything they say or label it as "false doctrine". I have little doubt that "Adam/God", as it is normally presented, is a false and baseless doctrine, but I do not know that President Young was wrong in what he taught on the matter. I have read what he said (or at least what he was written to have said) on the subject, and I have never quite believed that his words line up with the typical presentation of "the Adam/God theory". Iow, I'm not convinced that President Young actually taught what he is commonly said to have taught in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceebooboo Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This prophet taught " A " I believe " B " Prophet " C " condemned prophet " A " Some think they will lean toward " C " Others are convinced that " A " was simply not understood Prophet " E " says we are not sure :confused::confused: They were prophets, right???? Peace, Ceebooboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This prophet taught " A "I believe " B "All too common.Prophet " C " condemned prophet " A "Who ever said this? I don't recall any prophet condemning another.They were prophets, right????Right.But then, you call me a liar, so take what I say with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceebooboo Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 All too common.Who ever said this? I don't recall any prophet condemning another.Right.But then, you call me a liar, so take what I say with a grain of salt." Who ever said this ??? You don't recall any prophet condemning another ??? Please see post 104 ( about three posts ago was the most recent:lol:)Yes, I do consider you a liar so I have indeed taken it with a grain of salt.Peace,Ceebooboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 This prophet taught " A "I believe " B "Prophet " C " condemned prophet " A "Some think they will lean toward " C "Others are convinced that " A " was simply not understoodProphet " E " says we are not sure:confused::confused:They were prophets, right????Peace,CeeboobooWe don't believe (well, I don't believe this, some on this board do based on past threads I'm not going to go into) that prophets are 100% infallible. They are simply teaching based on the amount of knowledge that the church currently has and has been revealed to us. We as a church are still actively learning about many things: this is the great thing about continuing revelation. The rule of thumb is when you see two or more prophets giving contradicting teachings on an issue, go with the most recent one, as it's most likely based off of the most recent revelation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 " Who ever said this ??? You don't recall any prophet condemning another ??? Please see post 104 ( about three posts ago was the most recent:lol:)Yes, I do consider you a liar so I have indeed taken it with a grain of salt.Peace,CeeboobooCeebooboo,I am unaware of any Prophets of the church condemning another Prophet. That being said, it is difficult to have an accurate understanding of something Brigham Young was quoted as saying because the historical records just don't contain enough information. If we had a time machine and could travel back to Brigham Young's time and ask some questions, we might be very surprised to learn that we have got it all wrong. Not every word uttered by someone sustained as the Prophet of the church is revelation. They are men like you and I and are likely in the dark about many things just like you and I. Issues that relate to the salvation of mankind are cut and dry......some questions like the topic of this thread just lead to speculation and personally I think that the Biblical record on the birth of the Savior is adequate and accurate enough for our purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 " Who ever said this ??? You don't recall any prophet condemning another ???Correct. If you do, please elaborate.Please see post 104 ( about three posts ago was the most recent:lol:)Do you honestly not see the difference between a prophet saying "Thus-and-such is false" and "I condemn President So-and-so"?Yes, I do consider you a liar so I have indeed taken it with a grain of salt.Ceebooboo, it is impolite to talk that way to others, and it is cowardly to talk to a man on a list in a way you would never dare talk to him face to face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceeboos_boss Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 correct. If you do, please elaborate.Do you honestly not see the difference between a prophet saying "thus-and-such is false" and "i condemn president so-and-so"?Ceebooboo, it is impolite to talk that way to others, and it is cowardly to talk to a man on a list in a way you would never dare talk to him face to face.move on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyRudick Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 ....and your point is what? To me (and to God) the Bible is the authority, it is the Word. JimYou said the "Bible".Yes, that is one volume of Scripture.When these verses were written these were not even considered Scripture. But the word given by God, weather by the oracle of God living or dead, they were called by the people "Scriptures".And I stand by the Scripture I have quoted.In response to what our friend Ceebooboo jested at earlier.My point was as I have said earlier,Lets stick with the Scriptures.Bro. Rudcik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceebooboo Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Ceebooboo, Issues that relate to the salvation of mankind are cut and dry......some questions like the topic of this thread just lead to speculation and personally I think that the Biblical record on the birth of the Savior is adequate and accurate enough for our purposes.Hello bytor, :)First, thanks for the reply I agree that the Biblical record on the birth of the Savior is accurate enough FOR ALL OF US. ( Should be MORE than enough for us Christ followers )What puzzles me is the " not sure " of this or " not certain " of that. Then how can you pick the things ( like plan of salvation ) that you DO feel is prophetized accuratly???Seems VERY VERY strange to say we believe this with all our heart and say we are not sure or it doesn't really matter, they are human, when the INFORMATION comes from the very same mouths.:confused:Perhaps, WE SHOULD ALL BASE OUR ETERNAL LIVES IN THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST HIMSELF WHEN HE WALKED THIS EARTH.Peace,Ceebooboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 move on!What is that supposed to mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceeboos_boss Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 what is that supposed to mean?it means enough is enough!Your outta line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ceebooboo Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Ceebooboo, it is impolite to talk that way to others, and it is cowardly to talk to a man on a list in a way you would never dare talk to him face to face.Hello Vort,First, I am not talking any way to you, I am agreeing with your suggestion that you were a liar in your previous post ( Beacause you are )As far as your attempt at bullying me and the implied threat, I will simply offer you an enormous :lol:Peace,Ceebooboo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyRudick Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Absolutely .. He knew who He was and what He was to do from the start. I always find it interesting when people say the Jews killed Him ... it was His choice to give up His life ... no one took it from Him. Such a gift!Well, it is like some say about a man in the street. "He was killed by a gun."Bro. Rudick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 it means enough is enough!Your outta line!How so?Do you think your husband is out of line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceeboos_boss Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 How so?Do you think your husband is out of line?WHOS MY HUSBAND?:confused:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Children, children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts