Adam-God Doctrine

[FunkyTown]

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

Because the church has a long history. If they don't talk about the time that the Saviour woke up, had a nice sandwich with maybe some lettuce and a side of sliced gherkins, then they shouldn't talk about other things which are irrelevant to our salvation.

If your argument is, 'These things will challenge some of the saints when they hear them. Therefore, they should be taught so they can defend those things', then again I should point out that as it is they don't teach everything in the scriptures. There's simply not enough time to cover even the basics unless we spend our lives in contemplation of the scriptures. While I would love to do that, I find it difficult. I am definitely one of the weaker saints. 3 hours is enough for me.

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

And teaching that Joseph gave the Priesthood to blacks before Brigham Young removed it teaches you something you need to do in order to get closer to God?

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.

Frankly, I've heard all those things talked about in Institute, if briefly. Maybe you need better Institute teachers. Heck; Half of those topics were covered this year when we were studying D&C.

Suzie: I can't pretend to understand your struggles. These things may clearly hurt you. As a convert, I heard all those things and they basically rolled off my back and didn't challenge me at all. However, I should point out that I have heard everything you've mentioned and I didn't grow up in the church.

[Suzie]

Because the church has a long history. If they don't talk about the time that the Saviour woke up, had a nice sandwich with maybe some lettuce and a side of sliced gherkins, then they shouldn't talk about other things which are irrelevant to our salvation.

I think as members of the church we use that line way too often when we either are not interested in discussing certain topics, don't know the answer and we do not want to admit it or just want to brush it off.

And teaching that Joseph gave the Priesthood to blacks before Brigham Young removed it teaches you something you need to do in order to get closer to God?

It teaches me more about early Prophets, it teaches me that sometimes prophets speak their opinion (despite many people disagreeing), it teaches me that there were many church members who were hurt, who did not have the opportunity to access the same blessings you and I enjoy today, it teaches me that just because someone may be a leader or a GA does not mean they are free of prejudice, it teaches me more about the nature of man and more about the mercies of God.

Suzie: I can't pretend to understand your struggles. These things may clearly hurt you. As a convert, I heard all those things and they basically rolled off my back and didn't challenge me at all. However, I should point out that I have heard everything you've mentioned and I didn't grow up in the church.

They don't hurt me (maybe I "sound" that way) but I am not. I am just being straightforward about certain issues that I think needed/need address. We all have different needs I suppose. I know some friends who do not want to discuss plural marriage at all (as an example) because according to them they do not want to learn about it because it will challenge their testimonies, they rather live in ignorance and continue with their lives, others choose to read the basics and they are just happy with that. Well, I am in the group where I want to learn ALL these things because they ARE part of our Church history and if I deny it or do not want to learn about it or pretend it never existed, means that I actually joined another church. Some folks are fine with that, well I am just not.

Thanks for your input. Time for me to move on to another thread.

[Hemidakota]

Same thing happened to my GGrandfather David _____, who had this revealed to him at the time he embraced the Second Comforter on Hurricane hill in the late 1800's. At the time, he had only one wife, but was shown the other 3 women who would also be sealed to him, their names, everything.

Interesting! I had not known that this happened to Joseph.

HiJolly

Personal history and journal writing are such a blessing for us in these latter days to glean from. Thanks for sharing that with me.

[Hemidakota]

Personally?

I think it was because she was ashamed of her involvement in it. I cannot fault her; not in the least.

HiJolly

Usually, I would side with a prophet unless I personally receive a revelatory moment concerning specific subject. In the case of President O'Mckay, he stated his opinion concerning Emma spiritual welfare in a negative connotation. I wouldn't go into details on what was stated but to add, after reading one of members statement, who visited Emma in her last month, she stated to him about her dream. She said, she had cross over the veil and upon the other side; both the Savior and Joseph Smith were there to greet her. Others items were shown to her but the point here, I believe, it was a testimony and a witness to her, dispute what had happened, it is up to the Savior to forgive her for those lost moments and sins. Even a prophet has Suzie stated, they have opinions and that remains that. As the dream stated, I believe she now occupies that mansion that was shown and raising Don Carlos as Joseph revealed to her. In my eyes, she is a noble and blessed woman of the Gospel and perhaps, was part of the special intelligences mentioned by Abraham when he witnessed the gathering of intelligences (spirits).

It also didn’t remove anything from my own affection for President OMckay in making this remark. It was his own private opinion of Emma Hale Smith.

[Vanhin]

About Emma and Joseph. Were Joseph and Emma sealed to one another? Were all their ordinances sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise? Did either of them blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (or does it even matter in the case of Emma)?

If the answers are yes, yes, and no, then I am confident that they will both enter their exaltation according to the promise of Lord.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation... (D&C 132:26)

Regards,

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

Sidenote - for Joseph sake, it may be awhile for him to be exalted since his work is still not complete in order to turn it over back to Adam. What a busy man this wonderful prophet is.

[Still_Small_Voice]

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.

When I hear this saying I think about the teachings of the Apostle Paul:

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:5-8

[urloony]

It's not 100% certain that Adam-God was ever in the temple ceremony. Brigham Young preached a sermon mentioning Adam-God in the St. George Temple in February of 1877, which was recorded by his secretary L. John Nuttall in Nuttall's journal. Some have said that this sermon was actually Young setting forth a part of the temple ceremony known as the "lecture at the veil", but I haven't seen anyone cite a primary source for this assertion. Nuttall's journal itself doesn't support the notion (though it doesn't disprove it either).

Adam-God is in the temple ceremony, it is the entire focus.

[Just_A_Guy]

The 1877 ceremony, maybe.

Later versions of the ceremony? If I'm missing it, I suppose I'm in decent company. Joseph F. Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, and Bruce R. McConkie (among others) didn't seem to see it. In fact, McConkie invoked the temple ceremony (in his Seven Deadly Heresies, if I remember correctly) to argue against Adam-God.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[urloony]

The 1877 ceremony, maybe.

Later versions of the ceremony? If I'm missing it, I suppose I'm in decent company. Joseph F. Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, and Bruce R. McConkie (among others) didn't seem to see it. In fact, McConkie invoked the temple ceremony (in his Seven Deadly Heresies, if I remember correctly) to argue against Adam-God.

Yes the latest version. Bruce R and others have deemed correctly the heresy that "Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship." This, in my opinion, is not the correct teaching of Adam-God, but what has been incorrectly deemed to be the actual words of BY is rather a misquote/misinterpretation that has been handed down over the years and amidst this confusion has been disavowed. We are all Adam. The next question is what is our destiny?

For your consideration

http://www.eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

[Hemidakota]

We simply have to wait for further clarity from President Young on what was intent of his thought. I agree with Vanhin, we need to wait before casting judgment on this subject.

Our destiny beyond what is already given, can only be answered when enter into the highest state of the Celestial Kingdom. We learn there, what our next estate is or what is above that state. John described a stone that will be given to each person, in order to see above this state. Again, unless you destiny is the highest state in the Celestial Kingdom, you will learn it before or after entering that realm.

[FunkyTown]

I think as members of the church we use that line way too often when we either are not interested in discussing certain topics, don't know the answer and we do not want to admit it or just want to brush it off.

You're right in that that particular line is used when someone wants to brush off a topic. Mostly because it deserves to be brushed off(In church). Outside of church, personal study in to church history is commendable and interesting if that's your thing.

It teaches me more about early Prophets, it teaches me that sometimes prophets speak their opinion (despite many people disagreeing), it teaches me that there were many church members who were hurt, who did not have the opportunity to access the same blessings you and I enjoy today, it teaches me that just because someone may be a leader or a GA does not mean they are free of prejudice, it teaches me more about the nature of man and more about the mercies of God.

All important lessons. However: I should point out that the GAs are usually the first to admit their fallibility. In fact, there was a talk on that very thing at General Conference last year.

They don't hurt me (maybe I "sound" that way) but I am not. I am just being straightforward about certain issues that I think needed/need address. We all have different needs I suppose. I know some friends who do not want to discuss plural marriage at all (as an example) because according to them they do not want to learn about it because it will challenge their testimonies, they rather live in ignorance and continue with their lives, others choose to read the basics and they are just happy with that. Well, I am in the group where I want to learn ALL these things because they ARE part of our Church history and if I deny it or do not want to learn about it or pretend it never existed, means that I actually joined another church. Some folks are fine with that, well I am just not.

Thanks for your input. Time for me to move on to another thread.

Those issues you're concerned about are addressed. Just not in church. There is a time and place for discussing these things. From what you've previously said, these things should be brought up during lessons.

However, I should point out that there is a time and place for things and church is not it.

I would probably feel very uncomfortable if someone said "Hello, brothers and sisters. I want to give my testimony that I know the Mountain Meadow Massacre was a terrible thing and that many people died due to our members. I also would like to testify that at some points in history, the Prophet was racist. Amen."

Does that seem like an appropriate testimony? No? If not, then you recognize on some level that church is not the proper venue for discussing those things. Also, with the lack of time that can be placed towards addressing those particular points, you would have a very simplistic view of the events in question. Frankly, I'd rather learn about faith affirming things at church than waste my time on things that are irrelevant to my salvation. People interested in that can study on their own time or go to FAIR. And because the church tends to agree with me and people like me on this, I'd say that I'm not the only one thinking that.

[Suzie]

In fact, there was a talk on that very thing at General Conference last year..

Would you mind sharing a link or the name of the talk? I would love to read it. Thanks. :)

[Hemidakota]

I would probably feel very uncomfortable if someone said "Hello, brothers and sisters. I want to give my testimony that I know the Mountain Meadow Massacre was a terrible thing and that many people died due to our members. I also would like to testify that at some points in history, the Prophet was racist. Amen."

Does that seem like an appropriate testimony? No? If not, then you recognize on some level that church is not the proper venue for discussing those things. Also, with the lack of time that can be placed towards addressing those particular points, you would have a very simplistic view of the events in question. Frankly, I'd rather learn about faith affirming things at church than waste my time on things that are irrelevant to my salvation. People interested in that can study on their own time or go to FAIR. And because the church tends to agree with me and people like me on this, I'd say that I'm not the only one thinking that.

Let us look at this from someone who was living in that timeframe. This was written by Santigo. No last name was written and found in the Contributor, vol. 11 (November 1889-October 1890).

A WONDERFUL RIDE.

September 12th, 1857, the writer witnessed the completion of a wonderful ride, or, at least, one that well merits record. On that day James Haslam passed through Parowan to Cedar City, on his return from Salt Lake City, whither he had been sent to carry to President Young intelligence of the attack made upon the company of emigrants at Mountain Meadows by the Indians. Haslam rode from Cedar City to Salt Lake City and return in six days—a distance of five hundred and sixty miles—a feat which has but few parallels in any age.

It was from Haslam that President Young gained his first knowledge of that lamentable affair. To those who knew him and his innate goodness, and his gentle, sympathetic nature, it will not be necessary to say he was overwhelmed with grief and horror. He permitted Haslam to remain in Salt Lake City only long enough to eat a single meal and take a few moments rest, and then sent him back flying, with orders to spare neither himself nor horseflesh; to ride day and night, and get back in time, if possible, to avert the calamity which impended over that unfortunate company; and that bloodshed be prevented at every cost and hazard.

And well did Haslam obey the injunction. Changing horses at every settlement, hardly stopping to eat or to sleep, he pursued his lonely, tireless way, doing all that man could do to save that company. But in vain; he arrived too late. He had ridden nearly six hundred miles in six days! If any think this a small matter, let him ride even forty or fifty miles a day for two or three days, and he may then have a faint idea of such a labor. He would find himself very tired at the end of fifty miles in one day, but let him still go on and add fifty more that same day, and he will find what it is. But many a man who could ride a hundred miles in one day could not go a mile the next. Every bone in his body would ache, and every muscle would be strained and worn out. Keep this up six days, without any previous training as an athlete, and it becomes simply marvelous as an example of human endurance under physical strain. Yet this is what James Haslam did, and for the purpose before mentioned.

Enemies to President Young and the Saints have often asserted that the killing of that emigrant company, at Mountain Meadows, was by his direction, and that of Apostle George A. Smith. Nothing could be farther from the truth; no one would have more gladly prevented such an act Mountain Meadows is about three hundred and fifty miles from Salt Lake City; no telegraph line in those days—no mail line existed. The United States Government had abolished the mails, as a war measure, when it launched its army as a thunderbolt against the Saints. Travel between the extreme south and Salt Lake City was rare and uncertain; and there was no possible way for President Young to know what was going on in the south except by a special courier, as when Brother Haslam was sent, in the journey we now record.

The writer was in a position to know positively the truth of all he says herein, and fearlessly challenges the world to disprove it. He does not expect the non-Mormon world to believe the truth of this—they would rather believe a lie—but he writes for the comfort of those Saints who have heard false reports, but not the truth, and who thereby have been filled with doubt. And all this applies equally to Elder George A. Smith, a man who, like President Young, would a thousand times rather do good than evil to any man. (Contributor, vol. 11 (November 1889-October 1890 by Santiago)