Adam-God Doctrine

[MarginOfError]

Until what they say is accepted a scripture or formal Church doctrine, it's all opinion in my view.

I disagree with the harshness of President Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness" in spots. I think preaching Adam-God theory and blood-atonement was a mistake on Brigham Young's part. And the way Gordon B. Hinckley answered Larry King's question about our belief in "As man is, God once was" represents a mistake on his part. I also think Marion G. Romney's statement that Gifts of the Spirit are predicated by the Gift of the Holy Ghost is flawed.

This reminds me of a poster that was on the door of one of my Statistics professors in university. It was a manager sitting behind his desk, passing a piece of paper to his assistant. The managers says "That's what I want to say, now, get me the statistics to back it up".

So often people have an agenda they want to further. Perhaps its to just give a compelling speech. Or maybe it's to make a certain point emphatically.

They will quote from whatever Church source that seems to have authority to back up their statements. If that means taking something Brigham Young said that shores up their case, they will use it. If it doesn't (such as Adam God Theory, or Blood Atonement) they leave it alone.

These two taken together rather amuse me. Particularly, I'd be interested in knowing what resources do the following:

• discredit President Kimball's harshness in The Miracle of Forgiveness
• disprove Brigham Young's Adam-God theory
• show that President Hinckley's response to Larry King was a mistake on his part
• illustrate that gifts of the spirit are not predicated on the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Keep in mind this is an intellectual exercise.

[Dravin]

But doesn't it stink a bit to be blindsided about the history of the Church when you're out there acting as a representative for it? To only learn about the organization you hold dear by people who don't believe in it?

It was probably after your Mission but there was an Ensign that talked about Mountain Meadows not that many years ago. Ultimately the purpose of church is not to teach history but restored truth I'm with Funky on this one. You want to learn the history of the Church there are resources out there, ones that aren't anti. And you aren't drafted on a mission with no notice, you would have had plenty of time to research Church history if you so chose. Or maybe not, I'm not sure how old you are and the scholastic options for research may have changed drastically but I imagine you could have gotten some sort of primer.

And if you had known about the MMM and somebody had asked you about something else you'd have run into the same thing and been here wondering why the Church doesn't teach about X event. I was never taught the entire contents of Mormon Doctrine or The Journal of Discourses and I encountered those a whole lot more than I did MM. Should we be taught about Warren Jeffs because I imagine that comes up more than MM?

Ultimately the Church exists to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and uplift the Saints and others and it touches upon history when it aligns with that goal. Now LDS culture on the other hand I suppose could do with a more stark look at our past, but I don't think that is a place the Church as an organization particularly needs to go (and as mentioned with the Ensign Article, it does go there occasionally).

As well as some coaching on how to deal with it.

There is, they tell you to follow the Spirit and tie things back to hinging on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's calling as a Prophet. Tis nice to have an encyclopedic knowledge about things but they do coach you on how to handle anti with the last case scenario being to wish them well and move on.

those teachings don't seem to add much positive life advice to help you get through the challenges of our day.

This is why limited church resources (both money but more importantly time) is not used to expound on these things.

Edited June 10, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest mormonmusic]

Keep in mind this is an intellectual exercise.

I don't see the point of making this an intellectual exercise. I never claimed that was my intent. These represent my own opinions as I interact with my own unique experience in the Church, and seek to maintain my faith in spite of the things that sometimes don't seem to add up.

Edited June 10, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Suzie]

I would disagree that the Massacre is something we should talk about in church.

I respectfully disagree. Just like the example Mormonmusic gave, we have way too many members who do not know our church history and end up hurt when they "discover" something that the present Church does not want to teach. It does not help anyone in my view. It does not help the member and it does not help the nonmember who may be looking for answers in a church member. Imagine how a nonmember feels when a member does not know the history of the Church, he/she claims to be the Restored Church.

Even in seminary and Institute classes, these topics are not discussed in depth.

Ask most members in your ward, and I am pretty sure you will be told the myth that the reason for Plural Marriage was because there were many widows who needed husbands. For some reason, we have a very hard time accepting that it was a commandment from the Lord (if we believe JS was right) clearly stated in D & C 132, so we invent, we justify, we rationalize...I guess it's human nature however, the Church does not do much about clarifying the topic either or any other controversial topic.

The Massacre was real, still real for the descendants of the victims and even though we truly do not know exactly what took place, trying to avoid the discussion altogether or pretending it never happened by not discussing about it makes the whole thing worst.

I have been in many church classes when someone would mention "Plural Marriage" or "Blacks and the priesthood" and suddenly the countenances would change, people would start whispering to each other's ears and the question of the person would be quickly dismissed by stating that either "it's not important for our salvation" or "we will discuss it another time".

It's silly really. It creates this mantle of darkness over things the Church DID practice, over doctrines we STILL believing and over our past that the Church in some ways, seems to be embarrassed about.

[Suzie]

For me, I wish we could go back in time and erase plural marriage, MMM, Adam-God Theory, Blood-Atonement, the peep stones, and all that stuff that puts out on the fringe to so many people. It detracts from their acceptance of the truth at times, and those teachings don't seem to add much positive life advice to help you get through the challenges of our day.

Well if we erase those things, the Church won't be the Church anymore. It will be another church. Also, should we erase those things to become acceptable to the world?

[MarginOfError]

I don't see the point of making this an intellectual exercise. I never claimed that was my intent. These represent my own opinions as I interact with my own unique experience in the Church, and seek to maintain my faith in spite of the things that sometimes don't seem to add up.

I think it has a lot of value actually. You initially gave a list of "mistakes" made by Church leaders, but you gave no justification for calling the mistakes other than your own personal opinion. So now I'm in a position of having to decide if a prophet has a mistaken opinion or if mormonmusic has a mistaken opinion.

The purpose of the intellectual exercise was to elicit discussion about how you determine if a prophet has made a mistake in issuing his opinion.

[MarginOfError]

I respectfully disagree. Just like the example Mormonmusic gave, we have way too many members who do not know our church history and end up hurt when they "discover" something that the present Church does not want to teach. It does not help anyone in my view. It does not help the member and it does not help the nonmember who may be looking for answers in a church member. Imagine how a nonmember feels when a member does not know the history of the Church, he/she claims to be the Restored Church.

Even in seminary and Institute classes, these topics are not discussed in depth.

Ask most members in your ward, and I am pretty sure you will be told the myth that the reason for Plural Marriage was because there were many widows who needed husbands. For some reason, we have a very hard time accepting that it was a commandment from the Lord (if we believe JS was right) clearly stated in D & C 132, so we invent, we justify, we rationalize...I guess it's human nature however, the Church does not do much about clarifying the topic either or any other controversial topic.

The Massacre was real, still real for the descendants of the victims and even though we truly do not know exactly what took place, trying to avoid the discussion altogether or pretending it never happened by not discussing about it makes the whole thing worst.

I have been in many church classes when someone would mention "Plural Marriage" or "Blacks and the priesthood" and suddenly the countenances would change, people would start whispering to each other's ears and the question of the person would be quickly dismissed by stating that either "it's not important for our salvation" or "we will discuss it another time".

It's silly really. It creates this mantle of darkness over things the Church DID practice, over doctrines we STILL believing and over our past that the Church in some ways, seems to be embarrassed about.

The two hours we have for lessons at Church in our Sunday meetings are not sufficient to treat these topics, nor are they the appropriate forum in which to do so. What's more, the policy of the Church, and a wise policy, is not to 'coach' people on how to handle tough questions-in large part because these issues require a strong knowledge of history, context, and subsequent implications. In short, they become academic treatments that distract from the commandment that we are to teach nothing but repentance, and that we are to go forth testifying of Christ.

I empathize with your desire to teach people more about these topics, but Sunday meetings are not the place to do it, nor should we be expecting to the Church to cater to our opinions. There is nothing stopping you from getting together study groups outside of Church. In fact, I imagine in many areas you'd find great interest and support for this. But it'd be better to be proactive than to idly sit back and complain that the Church isn't doing enough. The Church works miracles every single day. This criticism pretty much amounts to "the Church doesn't perform the miracles that I want."

[MarginOfError]

Well if we erase those things, the Church won't be the Church anymore. It will be another church. Also, should we erase those things to become acceptable to the world?

I adamantly agree that erasing these things would be a travesty. These are issues that-when studied in the proper context and properly framed with eternal truths-can edify and fortify faith in the restored Gospel. They ought not be erased, but embraced.

[Suzie]

The two hours we have for lessons at Church in our Sunday meetings are not sufficient to treat these topics, nor are they the appropriate forum in which to do so.

There is nothing stopping you from getting together study groups outside of Church. In fact, I imagine in many areas you'd find great interest and support for this.

So according to you, forming a study group outside church with no leaders/teachers to oversee if what is being taught is accurate is actually the forum for it? Sorry, I don't think so.

[rameumptom]

Brigham Young spoke on hundreds of topics over almost 30 years as prophet. He speculated on some things. A-G is a topic he spoke on just a few times, and still was not quite clear on all aspects of what he meant. I know many LDS scholars have shelved the teaching, because there just isn't enough there to know all the ramifications of his statements, or how to exactly interpret them.

That's what I do, as well. Instead of focusing upon 2 or 3 outlying statements from Brigham Young, I focus on the hundreds of well defined concepts he spoke upon.

[MarginOfError]

So according to you, forming a study group outside church with no leaders/teachers to oversee if what is being taught is accurate is actually the forum for it? Sorry, I don't think so.

Then enjoy being unsatisfied forever. Because what I've proposed and personal study are the only options you've got.

[Suzie]

Then enjoy being unsatisfied forever. Because what I've proposed and personal study are the only options you've got.

If you say so. That's the wonderful thing about forums like this one. We all can share our opinions, so yours is appreciated. I am interested in reading other ones as well.

[Blackmarch]

When I was investigating the church, I ran across a number of people who were eager to tell me about the Adam-God Doctrine and claimed it was proof of Brigham Young being a fraud.

These claims of course came from Anti Mormon people and have never bothered me. As I was going through some older notes I made while investigating, I saw a few notes on this idea and was reminded of it. Clearly the church doesn't teach this, but does anyone know the real story on Adam-God Doctrine? I suspect it is much like other issues Anti Mormons talk about where the remarks are taken out of context and ultimately twisted, but what's the LDS side?

Adam god doctrine hearkens to a couple paragraphs in one of BY's discourses that is confusing and can be taken several ways....

I find the concept of Adam = God to be the least likely.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Well if we erase those things, the Church won't be the Church anymore. It will be another church. Also, should we erase those things to become acceptable to the world?

I ended a later statement in this thread, indicating that things things ARE part of our heritage and they need to be dealt with. They ARE part of what we once were. I'm not suggesting that we re-write history like the Department of Truth in George Orwell's 1984. So, you and I are in perfect agreement that we should not erase these controversial parts of our histly.

However, there are times when I wish we could, with integrity, but we can't. Here's why...people who lack testimonies have trouble getting past these parts of our history sometimes, unfortunately.

My father, for example, refuses to even pray about the Book of Mormon, read it, or otherwise give it any serious consideration because of what he perceives to be weirdness in our religion -- much of what he quotes are these very items, even though they don't typify the Church any longer.

When I meet people and they eventually learn I'm a Mormon, one of the first things they bring up is plural marriage and I have to figure out how to get past that. Fortunately, that was one issue that we DID get some training about in the MTC, and I came away with an arsenal of reasons to help give a reasoned response to the question when people weren't ready to jump immediately into praying about our religion.

Would it be nice to erase these objectionable parts of our history? Definitely! Does the Church deemphasize them -- definitely -- however, they happened, they exist, and I think many active, temple-recommend-holding members like myself sometimes have trials of their faith when life in the Church becomes difficult, and they see all this negative evidence around them-- in spite of their testimonies.

For me, being able to expect less than perfection from the GA's and prophets of the past has relieved me of a tremendous amount of doubt. When I realized that Spencer Kimball's Miracle of forgivness was partly an exercise in trying to create godly sorrow in people who might not otherwise feel any remorse for the things they did, it helped me stop beating myseful up over my own minor sins. I saw that he was being especially firm and blunt in an effort to move people who might otherwise not be moved.

My Bishop was the one who said this, and made the comment that "The Miracle Of Forgiveness is pretty hard in its statements" in an effort to make me feel better when I was unduly concerned about some of the non-sexual, non-murdering, non-thieving, mistakes I'd made, after reading TMO Forgiveness.

When I relieve Brigham Young of the pressure of being perfect in everything he said, particularly Adam-God or Blood Atonement, and acknowledge he may have made been wrong, or that it's sheer opinion, all of a sudden his words become interesting theories rather than possible evidence he wasn't a prophet (I believe he was a prophet, by the way), or its possible effect, a challenge to one's faith in the Church as a whole.

Regarding the Mountain MM. For me, the best thing the Church ever did was let Dallin H. Oakes respond to the Mountain Meadow Massacre on the PBS.org documentary openly to everyone.

Oakes said something like *There is no question that members of our Church were involved. It breaks my heart that members of our Church would do that to their brothers and sisters and my heart goes out to the families of the people injured. I hope the Lord can forgive them* (or something to that effect)

There was no attempt to justify, no attempt to sanitize the events, just admission that someone made a mistake, and that their actions were not justified by the Church as we know it today.

I'm at a place now where I recognize I made mistakes as a Priesthood Leader. I made a mistake yesterday as a father that I regret. And to demand perfection from these men who are imperfect people like me puts way too much pressure on the Church and on them. It's not good for my faith; nor is it realistic.

Edited June 10, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Guest mormonmusic]

I think it has a lot of value actually. You initially gave a list of "mistakes" made by Church leaders, but you gave no justification for calling the mistakes other than your own personal opinion. So now I'm in a position of having to decide if a prophet has a mistaken opinion or if mormonmusic has a mistaken opinion.

The purpose of the intellectual exercise was to elicit discussion about how you determine if a prophet has made a mistake in issuing his opinion.

There won't be a satisfactory answer to this kind of debate.

[Suzie]

Mormonmusic, thank you for such detailed, heart-felt post.

However, there are times when I wish we could, with integrity, but we can't. Here's why ..apeople who lack testimonies have trouble getting past these parts of our history sometimes, unfortunately.

I think sometimes we think some of the people that have a hard time getting past these things lack testimonies, I think many times they do not, they truly do not. They just have concerns, deep ones and they're serious about how they feel.

[FunkyTown]

The problem, Suzie, is that church is not a 'Church history' lesson.

Church is a place to get closer to God.

If you want to learn church history, then you should attend Institute and study church history.

If you want to learn the gospel, you should go to church.

The purpose of the church is not to discuss history but to discuss what you need to know for your salvation. While there shouldn't be a deliberate 'pall of darkness' and all things needed to know should be available, people shouldn't be discussing things that are only historical without spiritual worth in church.

Because 3 hours is long enough for church. I don't want to spend another hour there learning about history and I don't want to lose out on spiritual teachings for what are essentially secular ones..

I respectfully disagree. Just like the example Mormonmusic gave, we have way too many members who do not know our church history and end up hurt when they "discover" something that the present Church does not want to teach. It does not help anyone in my view. It does not help the member and it does not help the nonmember who may be looking for answers in a church member. Imagine how a nonmember feels when a member does not know the history of the Church, he/she claims to be the Restored Church.

Even in seminary and Institute classes, these topics are not discussed in depth.

Ask most members in your ward, and I am pretty sure you will be told the myth that the reason for Plural Marriage was because there were many widows who needed husbands. For some reason, we have a very hard time accepting that it was a commandment from the Lord (if we believe JS was right) clearly stated in D & C 132, so we invent, we justify, we rationalize...I guess it's human nature however, the Church does not do much about clarifying the topic either or any other controversial topic.

The Massacre was real, still real for the descendants of the victims and even though we truly do not know exactly what took place, trying to avoid the discussion altogether or pretending it never happened by not discussing about it makes the whole thing worst.

I have been in many church classes when someone would mention "Plural Marriage" or "Blacks and the priesthood" and suddenly the countenances would change, people would start whispering to each other's ears and the question of the person would be quickly dismissed by stating that either "it's not important for our salvation" or "we will discuss it another time".

It's silly really. It creates this mantle of darkness over things the Church DID practice, over doctrines we STILL believing and over our past that the Church in some ways, seems to be embarrassed about.

[MarginOfError]

There won't be a satisfactory answer to this kind of debate.

Then why are you making the statements that you did?

[HiJolly]

Gaia is quite a scriptorian and Church historian. If memory once again serves, I think she was a researcher for Truman Madsen for a number of years.

...and here I thought it was Hyrum Andrus!

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Mormonmusic, thank you for such detailed, heart-felt post.

I think sometimes we think some of the people that have a hard time getting past these things lack testimonies, I think many times they do not, they truly do not. They just have concerns, deep ones and they're serious about how they feel.

I hear you, Suzie.

HiJolly

[Suzie]

The problem, Suzie, is that church is not a 'Church history' lesson.

I agree. However, if the Church decides to share part of it's history then why not share the rest?

Church is a place to get closer to God.

Well, I see Church as a school where we learn the things we need to DO in order to get closer to God.

If you want to learn church history, then you should attend Institute and study church history.

Sure. Will they cover in detail the MMM, the wives of Joseph Smith, the struggles of Emma accepting the revelation, the struggles of the early brethren who had to give away their wives to be sealed to the Prophet, will they cover why some Blacks in early Church history were given the Priesthood by the Prophet Joseph Smith and years later suddenly stopped? If they cover these things and MORE, sure. But I have been in Institute and these topics were never covered in detail.

The purpose of the church is not to discuss history but to discuss what you need to know for your salvation. While there shouldn't be a deliberate 'pall of darkness' and all things needed to know should be available, people shouldn't be discussing things that are only historical without spiritual worth in church.

So if Institute does not cover those topics, where is the forum? Also why people shouldn't discuss things that are only historical? (I suppose you mean in Church Sunday meetings rather than other Church meetings?)

[Hemidakota]

The problem, Suzie, is that church is not a 'Church history' lesson.

Church is a place to get closer to God.

If you want to learn church history, then you should attend Institute and study church history.

If you want to learn the gospel, you should go to church.

The purpose of the church is not to discuss history but to discuss what you need to know for your salvation. While there shouldn't be a deliberate 'pall of darkness' and all things needed to know should be available, people shouldn't be discussing things that are only historical without spiritual worth in church.

Because 3 hours is long enough for church. I don't want to spend another hour there learning about history and I don't want to lose out on spiritual teachings for what are essentially secular ones..

Eloquently posted. The church's four mission statement is the core of teaching today.

[Saguaro]

This debate about what history we should or should not learn in church is a touchy one for me. A good friend of mine, a life long member of the church, did not find out until she was 36 years old that Joseph Smith practice polygamy. She had only heard about Emma and what a great loving couple they were, then she found out Joseph practiced polygamy behind her back and lied to her and married women who were already married. It nearly destroyed her testimony.

I don't want to start a debate about JS or polygamy, but my point is in 36 years of living in the church, going to primary, seminary, institute, sacrament meeting, sunday school, young women, she never once heard this taught from an official source. Members of the church need to be prepared for this kind of thing, whether it's polygamy, MMM, seer stones, whatever, because eventually it's going to come up, whether it's on a mission or whenever, and it can be devastating to hear about it the first time. People often feel lied to an betrayed by the church. I don't buy the argument that the information is out there, and we should all study the church and its history on our own, so there's no need to teach in in Church. How many times have we sat through another boring sunday school or PH/RS lesson on the same topic we've heard 100 times with the same answers to the same qustions. How refershing would it be to have a real history lesson just once a year where we address things like this that the rest of world seems to know about us but the average member is woefully under educated about.

(Example, I gave a lesson in EQ once about Joseph Smith and brought up using seer stones and a hat to translate the book of Mormon, and used a quote from an Ensign article as backup, and I asked how many people had heard of that before, many hands went up, and I'll never forget the look on one guy's face, he looked like I had just told him the BofM was translated by aliens.)

I think the situation is actually improving, as information is more available through the internet and people participate on discussions like this they are exposed to more information at an early age. We speak very openly with our children about polygamy and other issues. I don't want them to be blindsided by these issues later in life.

[Hemidakota]

I have yet to find any evidence that Joseph Smith practice plural marriage without acknowledging this to Emma. He even carried that hand written revelation for ten-years until he was confronted by a ministering spirit and was told to enact what was given.

However, if you can provide any reference that indicates your statement, please post it.

Thanks

[Saguaro]

I have yet to find any evidence that Joseph Smith practice plural marriage without acknowledging this to Emma. He even carried that hand written revelation for ten-years until he was confronted by a ministering spirit and was told to enact what was given.

However, if you can provide any reference that indicates your statement, please post it.

Thanks

I guess the whole point of my post was lost on you. Let me repeat, I don't want to start a debate about JS or polygamy, that's not what this thread is about.