Noah's Flood

[Guest Scott]

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

They'd say that this guy named @MormonGator is awesome. 

Can't argue with that!

[Just_A_Guy]

 

5 minutes ago, Scott said:

I wonder what they would say if they posted on these forums?

I wish I could remember where it was, but once upon a time I was party to an online discussion where there was some speculation as to what online handles certain GAs might adopt.  IIRC it was decided that Uchtdorf would be “Maverick”, Nelson would be “Doc”, and Bednar would be “Pickles”.

[Guest Scott]

30 pages and I'm still willing to bet (in a non-monetary manner of course!) that no one has changed their mind on the topic.   

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It was also consistently publicly opposed by various Q12 members throughout Young’s lifetime; and the evidence that it was included in the lecture at the veil is somewhat overstated.  Adam-God may be on par with some of the explanations for the ban; but it had a far weaker authoritative pedigree than the ban itself.  

However it was the prophet who championed the Adam God doctrine. On this forum everyone seems to promote the idea that what the prophet teaches is true doctrine. However in the Church we do not believe in the infallibility of prophets. 

[BJ64]

55 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Some people think that but the evidence of such isn't compelling.

The evidence of what isn’t compelling?

[BJ64]

45 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 That's an interesting point that none of us really understand. From the outside, it looks like the 12 apostles agree on everything all the time. On some issues, that is certainly true. But on other issues, they might disagree more than what we know. Very interesting! 

It is often said that on any particular issue the presidency and the twelve are in unanimous agreement. However I feel that the way this comes about is that after discussion and perhaps disagreement everyone falls in line with what the prophet decides is best to do. 

[BJ64]

37 minutes ago, Scott said:

I wonder what they would say if they posted on these forums?

They’d probably say to quit wasting time on forums and start ministering. 

[Just_A_Guy]

47 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

On this forum everyone seems to promote the idea that what the prophet teaches is true doctrine.

Thankfully, on this forum we never over-generalize.  😛

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Anyway, perhaps the best example I can think of that pertains to changing Church Doctrine is the Adam God Theory.   This was definitely taught in our Church from ca. 1852 to ca. 1912.   It used to be part of the endowment ceremony and there were also Church hymns sung in church that had the doctrine. 

I won’t go into that much detail about the Adam God Theory or Doctrine, since that would open up another heated discussion, but anyone else can read it on your own.  Here are some brief examples and details.

Brigham Young said the following in General Conference in April 9 1852 that Adam was our God and Father. 

Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

Those who wish to can delve farther, but it was an important and often discussed doctrine during that time period of our Church.  It's even discussed on FAIR:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

Later prophets have denounced the doctrine and theory and have called it false doctrine and heresy.  

For example, here is a talk by Spencer Kimball from October General Conference 1976: 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

While it is a bit surprising that President Kimball used the word alleged" and only General Authorities, rather than including Prophets, the theory or doctrine was definitely taught in our Church before 1912 and it was definitely denounced as false doctrine and heresy by later prophets.  

 

The DOCTRINE actually has not changed. 

What changed was how people understood what he stated.  As Joseph Fielding Smith (and even Joseph F. Smith) aptly have pointed out, Brigham Young expounded on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost being separate, and that Adam was NOT part of that group of three.  With his influence on the temple, and on the Pearl of Great Price it should be apparent that his teachings were that these were separate individuals.  On the otherhand, he DID teach much about the relationship between Adam and our Father and our relationship with Adam and Eve.  If one reads it as intended, one can see he does NOT confuse Adam with his own Heavenly Father, but differentiates between the two while expounding how Adam himself is the father of our mortal existence and of all men.

These teachings were further taught by later prophets including Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow (extensively) and Joseph F. Smith (and to a lesser degree Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McKonkie.  They all pointed out that Brigham Young's sermons taught that Adam and the three members of the Godhead were separate individuals, and that to suppose Brigham Young ever meant something else would mean that Brigham Young was teaching two very different theologies at the same time.  Brigham Young did NOT teach two separate and different doctrines, but the same doctrine.  Thus, one cannot be confused that he ever taught the ideas some have attributed to him.  Instead he taught about Eternal Marriage, how we must have Heavenly Parents and that his son, Adam, followed in these footsteps in a like and Shadow.  As his Heavenly Father was the Father of our spirits, Adam is the Father of our mortal bodies.  There are many other things that he taught, but it is these above principles that seem to get confused.

Somehow his teachings got twisted to mean something very different, and what people were teaching as the Adam-God theory was NOT what Brigham Young himself had taught or espoused.

Hence, that twisted teaching that got known as the Adam-God theory was stated to be false. 

The teachings of Brigham Young on the otherhand are considered true, but with the correct understanding.  He is one of the few that we can point out was the originator of the teaching that we have a Heavenly Mother and that we are sealed as families in the same way as we follow that of our Heavenly Parents. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

3 hours ago, Scott said:

Anyway, perhaps the best example I can think of that pertains to changing Church Doctrine is the Adam God Theory.   This was definitely taught in our Church from ca. 1852 to ca. 1912.   It used to be part of the endowment ceremony and there were also Church hymns sung in church that had the doctrine. 

I won’t go into that much detail about the Adam God Theory or Doctrine, since that would open up another heated discussion, but anyone else can read it on your own.  Here are some brief examples and details.

Brigham Young said the following in General Conference in April 9 1852 that Adam was our God and Father. 

Adam is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

Those who wish to can delve farther, but it was an important and often discussed doctrine during that time period of our Church.  It's even discussed on FAIR:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

Later prophets have denounced the doctrine and theory and have called it false doctrine and heresy.  

For example, here is a talk by Spencer Kimball from October General Conference 1976: 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

While it is a bit surprising that President Kimball used the word alleged" and only General Authorities, rather than including Prophets, the theory or doctrine was definitely taught in our Church before 1912 and it was definitely denounced as false doctrine and heresy by later prophets.  

 

the talk you quote there, if I remember correctly, is actually from a talk on tithing.  It is not a sermon that was focused on the teaching of the identity of the Lord, though he expounds a little bit upon it.  The words written in the JoD were a summation of what he said, but even as a summation, it is very often taken out of context.  If read with the Spirit it becomes very clear that he was not saying the Mortal Man Adam was our Heavenly Father, but was inferring about a FATHER ADAM who is different than Adam who is the Mortal Adam.   (which has led some to state that the word Adam=Man, etc...).

It is the same way in how he differentiated between Joseph Jr. and Joseph Sr....who he addressed as Father Smith rather than Joseph Smith alone.

When this (and others) are read without the spirit guiding us, they are very easy to misunderstand.  However, the words of Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow who also reference these teachings of Brigham SHOULD clarify what was meant at these talks and what we should understand Brigham to have been saying. 

Lorenzo Snow went much further into this theology to the point of saying that God was once a man like us, and as God became, so can we. (and as an aside, some say that the actual theories of this did not originate with Brigham Young, but originally started and came from Lorenzo Snow!...just a bit of trivia).

However, many have read it without the spiritual guidance and/or with either nefarious reasons or for confused understandings changed what the original intent of the sermons were, into saying something completely different then ever intended by Brigham Young, and very much against the understanding of his words by Wilford Woodruff (who had an excellent memory) and others prophets who utilized his teachings regarding men and exaltation later (and sometimes during Young's life as well if you read extensively in the JoD).  These teachings of men obtaining exaltation and our role thereof are still church doctrine today.

However, the twisted meanings that some attributed to Brigham Young (which started it's origins outside of the church and later were picked up also by apostates from the main branch of the LDS church who started their own offshoots such as the FLDS) which became known as the Adam-God theory is FALSE and thus stated as such by the LDS church.

Edited June 1, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

However in the Church we do not believe in the infallibility of prophets. 

This is true.

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

can

 

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

the talk you quote there, if I remember correctly, is actually from a talk on tithing.  It is not a sermon that was focused on the teaching of the identity of the Lord, though he expounds a little bit upon it.  The words written in the JoD were a summation of what he said, but even as a summation, it is very often taken out of context.  If read with the Spirit it becomes very clear that he was not saying the Mortal Man Adam was our Heavenly Father, but was inferring about a FATHER ADAM who is different than Adam who is the Mortal Adam.   (which has led some to state that the word Adam=Man, etc...).

It is the same way in how he differentiated between Joseph Jr. and Joseph Sr....who he addressed as Father Smith rather than Joseph Smith alone.

When this (and others) are read without the spirit guiding us, they are very easy to misunderstand.  However, the words of Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow who also reference these teachings of Brigham SHOULD clarify what was meant at these talks and what we should understand Brigham to have been saying. 

Lorenzo Snow went much further into this theology to the point of saying that God was once a man like us, and as God became, so can we. (and as an aside, some say that the actual theories of this did not originate with Brigham Young, but originally started and came from Lorenzo Snow!...just a bit of trivia).

However, many have read it without the spiritual guidance and/or with either nefarious reasons or for confused understandings changed what the original intent of the sermons were, into saying something completely different then ever intended by Brigham Young, and very much against the understanding of his words by Wilford Woodruff (who had an excellent memory) and others prophets who utilized his teachings regarding men and exaltation later (and sometimes during Young's life as well if you read extensively in the JoD).  These teachings of men obtaining exaltation and our role thereof are still church doctrine today.

However, the twisted meanings that some attributed to Brigham Young (which started it's origins outside of the church and later were picked up also by apostates from the main branch of the LDS church who started their own offshoots such as the FLDS) which became known as the Adam-God theory is FALSE and thus stated as such by the LDS church.

 I think it’s fair to say that if you read the teachings of Brigham Young you can come to the conclusion that he contradicted himself a lot. However what we have of his teachings is as you said what others heard him say, not his actual writings. If Brigham Young had written everything he said there would be much less confusion. 

[Grunt]

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

And hey, maybe in 20 years we'll all be saying the same thing about gay marriage that we are saying about African Americans in the priesthood now. (kidding everyone)

 

President Oaks just pretty much shot that down.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

President Oaks just pretty much shot that down.

I was kidding. 

[Grunt]

Just now, MormonGator said:

I was kidding. 

I absolutely knew that.  I was just surprised that President Oaks brought it up.  There must be a rumbling somewhere, or questioning, that they wanted to put to rest.

[person0]

8 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Obviously you and I don't know-unless my intuition is confirmed and your real name is David Bednar. 

I met him once.

[Grunt]

54 minutes ago, person0 said:

I met him once.

Good thing you didn't tug at my wig.

[person0]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Good thing you didn't tug at my wig.

I never said who it was that I met! 

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, BJ64 said:

The evidence of what isn’t compelling?

That they are millions of years old

[Overwatch]

I've actually met President Nelson in a religious meeting before. This was several years ago but he was very nice to me and could pronounce my name perfectly. I can't say I felt anything out of the ordinary but he sure was sweet... but a manly sweet. Like you are talking to a paternal relative.

*of course I met him in his Elder calling but he was very sharp indeed.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Overwatch
*

[BJ64]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I absolutely knew that.  I was just surprised that President Oaks brought it up.  There must be a rumbling somewhere, or questioning, that they wanted to put to rest.

It seems like he address homosexuality in most of the talks he gives. When was his most recent statement against gay marriage?

I’m sure the view on gay marriage won’t change but those pushing for it think it’s only a matter of time and I think that the reversal on blacks and the priesthood is one of the big factors behind their hopes for a reversal on gay marriage.  

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

That they are millions of years old

Are you the one who said many pages back that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Are you the one who said many pages back that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

Yeah they co-existed.

Edited June 2, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Overwatch]

16 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

It seems like he address homosexuality in most of the talks he gives. When was his most recent statement against gay marriage?

I’m sure the view on gay marriage won’t change but those pushing for it think it’s only a matter of time and I think that the reversal on blacks and the priesthood is one of the big factors behind their hopes for a reversal on gay marriage.  

2 nephi 13:9

Isaiah 3:9

Not gonna happen. Condemned in both books. I figured they aren't saying sorry so they don't get sued by upset people. I suppose it doesn't matter anymore. Beautiful program today.

[BJ64]

25 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

2 nephi 13:9

Isaiah 3:9

Not gonna happen. Condemned in both books. I figured they aren't saying sorry so they don't get sued by upset people. I suppose it doesn't matter anymore. Beautiful program today.

I was asking Grunt when was the recent statement Elder Oaks said about gay marriage. I know he talks about it a lot.