Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[askandanswer]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

So, what’s your take on why there hasn’t been an official revelation quoting the words of God directly added to the scriptures since 1847 or a vision since 1918? 

Perhaps you missed my earlier post on the previous page where I responded to this question. Here is the essence of that post. 

From a talk that I know some people here highly appreciate

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson/fourteen-fundamentals-following-prophet/

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added).

I note that this talk was also quoted in the October 2010 session of General Conference. 

I did a quick search of the scriptures searching for the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" using the search function on the church website. I acknowledge that is not always a reliable search function. The search returned a lot of results for the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, one result for the Pearl of Great Price, and no results for the New Testament, when the Lord actually said quite a few things. We should not discount what Christ said in the New Testament simply because it is not preceded by "Thus saith the Lord."

Despite the absence of the use of the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" I would value the inspired messages of the Lord contained in our General Conference reports more highly than all the scriptures that say "Thus saith the Lord." I'm often puzzled why people think that the word of the Lord given to people in cultures far distant from our own in time and distance is of equal or greater value than the word of the Lord given to prophets living here and now. The past is a foreign country. 

Addressing your point about no visions since 1918, if Proverbs 29:18 is true, that where there is no vision, the people perish, it is probable that the reverse is also true - where there is vision the people perish not. With its continuing rate of growth, the church and its members, are flourishing more than perishing, so I guess we can assume that there is vision. Who has it, and where its recorded, is not always clear, but I think its as clear as it needs to be for the Lord's purposes. In addition, I suspect that to be a special witness of Christ, as are, and have been, all of the apostles, you probably need to have witnessed something. I would be happy to consider whatever they have witnessed to be a vision, or something equivalent.  

[mordorbund]

Apparently my previous posts came off as defensive and perhaps even insecure. Hopefully this and future correspondence will be more avuncular.

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As a matter of mechanics, how do you think the “thus-switch-the-Lord” revelations in the D&C (and for that matter, the rest of canon) were transmitted to their recipients?  Dream?  Waking Vision? Physical material visitation of a divine being?  Audible voice?  Trance?  Specific words coming to to the recipient’s mind?  A image coming to the recipient’s mind, which the recipient then had to articulate in his own words?  Something else?

Were *all* the “thus-saith-the-Lord” revelations in our canon transmitted through the same method?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

Well, some of the "thus saith the Lord" revelations are known to have been received by the Urim and Thumim, others were likely by an audible voice, or the voice of the Lord speaking to the prophet the exact words to say. I don't claim to know the exact method, but I'm confident that the actually words of God were being conveyed in these revelations and not the words of the prophet conveying some knowledge he had received as if it were in God's own words. 

I would encourage you to take some time to really consider JAG's questions here. Just how precise is the wording of a dictated revelation? If the same revelation was given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would the wording be the same? If a revelation comes through the still small voice, can this be recorded as a "thus saith the Lord" dictation or does it need to be and audible voice with spoken words? Or are both acceptable but one is "weightier" or "weaker" than the other?

The purpose of this exercise is to really address your assumptions. You've been given a lot of answers in this thread but none seem to satisfy you. Let's clarify exactly what you believe and understand and state aloud the unspoken assumptions.

4 hours ago, Maverick said:

5 hours ago, zil2 said:

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

If we have a "thus saith the Lord" revelation quoting the words of God directly we know that these words came from God. When the president of the church speaks or writes something in his official capacity as church president in his own words we don't know if those words were given to him by revelation from God or if he's just giving his well-reasoned opinion, or somewhere in between. 

Actually, all you have is some man saying the words, "thus saith the Lord".  Whether he speaks those words or any other words, it would still be up to you to go to the Spirit and gain a testimony regarding whether the words are of the Lord.

I mean, I could quite easily say, "Thus saith the Lord, fountain pens are sacred writing implements and all others are an abomination before me."  Doesn't mean the Lord actually said that.  (Though He might have... )

Is this what you believe we need to do with each of these types of revelations we have received in the church thus far?

Or can we trust that they are from God?

Zil raises a really good point here, and your follow-up questions would be good for you to ponder at different levels. If President Nelson says "the Lord instructed me..." can we trust that the Lord instructed him? And if we're questioning that, then why will we trust him if he instead says "the Lord said to me, 'call Dallin Oaks and give him a fountain pen'"? Is the claim that the leaders of the Church may pretend to revelations that they haven't had, but they're god-fearing enough not to put words directly into the Lord's mouth? 

 

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Yes, this is true. But this doesn't explain why there hasn't been a single revelation quoting the words of God directly that has been added to our scriptures since 1847. The question is why this is? 

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I did a quick search of the scriptures searching for the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" using the search function on the church website. I acknowledge that is not always a reliable search function. The search returned a lot of results for the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, one result for the Pearl of Great Price, and no results for the New Testament, when the Lord actually said quite a few things. We should not discount what Christ said in the New Testament simply because it is not preceded by "Thus saith the Lord."

My question is actually not about the specific phrase "thus saith the Lord." It's about revelations that quote the words of God directly, in his own voice in the first person. The New Testament is full of God's words being quoted in the first person, so is the Pearl of Great Price. So we actually have a pattern of prophets quoting God's words like this all throughout scripture, and yet in the modern church this has essentially completely stopped. 

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Addressing your point about no visions since 1918, if Proverbs 29:18 is true, that where there is no vision, the people perish, it is probable that the reverse is also true - where there is vision the people perish not. With its continuing rate of growth, the church and its members, are flourishing more than perishing, so I guess we can assume that there is vision. Who has it, and where its recorded, is not always clear, but I think its as clear as it needs to be for the Lord's purposes. In addition, I suspect that to be a special witness of Christ, as are, and have been, all of the apostles, you probably need to have witnessed something. I would be happy to consider whatever they have witnessed to be a vision, or something equivalent.  

I understand the assumption that because the church is growing and lead by men who are called as apostles that our leaders must of necessity be receiving visions. But if they are, we aren't they bein shared with the membership? In the scriptures and early days of the church many visions were shared. Why not today or in the past 100 years?

[Maverick]

5 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I would encourage you to take some time to really consider JAG's questions here. Just how precise is the wording of a dictated revelation? If the same revelation was given to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would the wording be the same? If a revelation comes through the still small voice, can this be recorded as a "thus saith the Lord" dictation or does it need to be and audible voice with spoken words? Or are both acceptable but one is "weightier" or "weaker" than the other?

I think if a prophet of God quotes the words of God directly in a revelation we can trust the accuracy and preciseness of the words. That's not to say that the wording wouldn't be slightly different depending on which prophet received it. 

I guess the question I would have is what is being suggested in this comment and other similar ones on this thread? Is it being suggested that the words in the revelations in the D&C quoting God's words directly aren't really God's direct words, but actually the manner in which Joseph Smith decided to convey truths that he had received by the Holy Ghost? Instead of quoting the words of God directly as he did, he could have just as easily said it in his own words, like a General Conference talk, and there would be no difference?

6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

If President Nelson says "the Lord instructed me..." can we trust that the Lord instructed him?

Perhaps trust is the wrong word. I would say that we can have confidence that the Lord instructed him. But we should still seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost for confirmation, as Zil pointed out. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Maverick said:

It's not only theoretically possible, it's a very distinct possibility. And it wouldn't necessarily be because the brethren are asleep at the wheel, either. How would you expect the Lord to take away light and truth from the church, because the membership can no longer handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines? It would undoubtedly be in a very similar manner to what we've seen in the church for over a hundred years now.

There are many examples that I could provide. But I think the answer to the question would be what I said above about the Lord taking away light and truth from the church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines.

Since in your view it distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines," please describe how you conclude this from your observations concerning changes in how revelations are communicated since the phraseology, "This saith the Lord..." was last used. This is why examples are useful; please provide at least one to expand the discussions beyond an hypothesis or assertion.

This is how Alma 32 works: you cannot attain knowledge without nourishing the seed, the seed in this case being the hypothesis, with observed facts or events and doing the work to make the connections.

Edited April 12 by CV75

[Maverick]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

BTW, I couldn't find the talk you referenced.  I looked at the talks from Pres. Packer for both the April and Oct sessions from 2012 to 2015.  None of them used the words you referred to.

I meant to reply to this earlier, but it slipped my mind. I apologize for the delay. The talk was actually from 2010 and I didn't remember the wording quite right.

In his talk, President Packer stated that The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "qualifies according to definition, as a revelation..."  The printed version states that the proclamation "is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow." 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng

[Maverick]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Since in your view it distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines," please describe how you conclude this from your observations concerning changes in how revelations are communicated since the phraseology, "This saith the Lord..." was last used. This is why examples are useful; please provide at least one to expand the discussions beyond an hypothesis or assertion.

I actually don't conclude that it is as a distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines" because of the 100+ year absence of revelations quoting the words of God directly being presented before the church. 

My conclusion is based on careful observation and study of the evolution of church teachings, policy, and practice over the past 100+ years. 

I'm a little bit reluctant to provide specific examples, because I don't want to upset anyone or come of as criticizing the church or its leaders. And this discussion isn't about that, either, nor do I want it to turn into that. But I tell you what, I will give an example of something that could be considered evidence of this:

Brigham Young clearly, plainly, and repeatedly taught that Adam is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ. He taught that Adam and Eve came to this earth with Celestialized resurrected bodies, which they had received from being resurrected following a previous mortal probation on another planet. That they then fell and their bodies became mortal so they could provide physical bodies for all of their spirit children (all of mankind on this earth). 

Brigham said that this truth was revealed to him by Joseph Smith and by revelation from God. He taught this for 25 years in the church. It was taught in the General Conference, priesthood meetings, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles, and in the temple. 

But this teaching was very controversial and many members of the church had a very hard time accepting it. It was deeply troubling and even disturbing to many. Others readily accepted it as truth and rejoiced in what they had received. For many others it was somewhere in between. Eventually the leaders stopped talking about it and even told the members to stop talking about it. Then many years later some leaders even said that these teachings about Adam and Eve were false. 

If what Brigham Young taught was true, and a higher truth and deeper doctrine (as he claimed), then this would be a textbook example of light and truth being taken from the church because the members couldn't handle it. 

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, Maverick said:

I completely agree. 

This appears to contradict your previous statement. Can you please clarify? 

Woops  It should read all that G-d commands to be included, should be included in scripture.   Sorry for the confusion - and thanks for asking to be clarified.

 

The Traveler

[mikbone]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

Brigham Young clearly, plainly, and repeatedly taught that Adam is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ. He taught that Adam and Eve came to this earth with Celestialized resurrected bodies, which they had received from being resurrected following a previous mortal probation on another planet. That they then fell and their bodies became mortal so they could provide physical bodies for all of their spirit children (all of mankind on this earth). 

Brigham said that this truth was revealed to him by Joseph Smith and by revelation from God. He taught this for 25 years in the church. It was taught in the General Conference, priesthood meetings, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles, and in the temple. 

But this teaching was very controversial and many members of the church had a very hard time accepting it. It was deeply troubling and even disturbing to many. Others readily accepted it as truth and rejoiced in what they had received. For many others it was somewhere in between. Eventually the leaders stopped talking about it and even told the members to stop talking about it. Then many years later some leaders even said that these teachings about Adam and Eve were false. 

If what Brigham Young taught was true, and a higher truth and deeper doctrine (as he claimed), then this would be a textbook example of light and truth being taken from the church because the members couldn't handle it. 

Thats the beauty of having the scriptures and all the GC talks.

You have to personally do your homework, know the scriptures, read (and understand) GC talks, as well as employ personal revelation.

All the sources disagree with the so called ‘Adam God Theory’.

From time to time there will be big policy changes in the church but Eternal / Core doctrine never change.

You may have noticed thru the many postings of this thread that one person has been arguing their position contrary to everyone else.  That is called an outlier, and generally the outlier is wrong.

There is benefit to understanding doctrine and living your life in accordance to the covenant path. 

Take the material as a whole and stop clinging to your personal doctrinal fancies, or conspiracy theories.

Jesus Christ is not trying to confuse you, and the General Authorities have made great sacrifices in their personal lives to help not hinder the saints.

If you look at Joseph Smith’s final general conference talk (the so called KFD), and you study it, you will find that he quotes scriptures extensively.  He did not give chapter and verse, but he quoted scripture.

The Adam God theory is confusing, contrary to eternal and supportive doctrine and isn’t supported with scripture.  I’m not sure if it was ever taught during a GC meeting either.

Edited April 12 by mikbone

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

I think if a prophet of God quotes the words of God directly in a revelation we can trust the accuracy and preciseness of the words. That's not to say that the wording wouldn't be slightly different depending on which prophet received it.

If using the "voice of the Lord" in recording revelations signals the wording is accurate and precise, then does that mean Joseph Smith was in error when he edited his revelations?

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

I guess the question I would have is what is being suggested in this comment and other similar ones on this thread? Is it being suggested that the words in the revelations in the D&C quoting God's words directly aren't really God's direct words, but actually the manner in which Joseph Smith decided to convey truths that he had received by the Holy Ghost? Instead of quoting the words of God directly as he did, he could have just as easily said it in his own words, like a General Conference talk, and there would be no difference?

I stated exactly what I wanted to suggest with my questions. Just what exactly are your assumptions about the nature of revelation and the transmission of revelations to the membership. I think your above statement about accuracy and precision has uncovered one of them. Please continue.

3 hours ago, Maverick said:

Perhaps trust is the wrong word. I would say that we can have confidence that the Lord instructed him. But we should still seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost for confirmation, as Zil pointed out. 

I appreciate this clarification about seeking confirmation, but I'm still not following the first part. What is it about "The Lord said, 'call Dallin H. Oaks'" that instills more confidence than "The Lord instructed me to call Dallin H. Oaks"?

[Ironhold]

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.

[Ironhold]

Also, think for a minute why the in-flight safety briefings tell airline passengers to get their own oxygen masks on before trying to help someone get theirs on. 

Folks, if you're worried about the spiritual decline of society, get your own affairs in order first. Figure out where you stand, strive to improve, and behave in such a fashion that you are modeling the behaviors you want to see others adopt. 

 

[ZealoulyStriving]

5 hours ago, Maverick said:

Yes, this is true. But this doesn't explain why there hasn't been a single revelation quoting the words of God directly that has been added to our scriptures since 1847. The question is why this is? 

My question is actually not about the specific phrase "thus saith the Lord." It's about revelations that quote the words of God directly, in his own voice in the first person. The New Testament is full of God's words being quoted in the first person, so is the Pearl of Great Price. So we actually have a pattern of prophets quoting God's words like this all throughout scripture, and yet in the modern church this has essentially completely stopped. 

I understand the assumption that because the church is growing and lead by men who are called as apostles that our leaders must of necessity be receiving visions. But if they are, we aren't they bein shared with the membership? In the scriptures and early days of the church many visions were shared. Why not today or in the past 100 years?

My *personal* thoughts:

As the dispensation head Joseph had the responsibility of receiving revelation to lay the foundation upon which everything else would be built. Also, coming out of the Apostasy such revelations were more necessary to bring them forth out of almost complete darkness. The Prophets since then have been ministering to people who have more light so such revelations aren't as necessary. Not intending to downplay Joseph's successors in the Presidency, I see them in kind of a caretaker type role. I believe Brigham said as much once.

Edited April 12 by ZealoulyStriving

[askandanswer]

6 hours ago, Maverick said:

12 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Yes, this is true. But this doesn't explain why there hasn't been a single revelation quoting the words of God directly that has been added to our scriptures since 1847. The question is why this is? 

Because it is not necessary.

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Maverick said:

I actually don't conclude that it is as a distinctly possible that the Lord would "take away light and truth from the restored Church on account of the membership no longer being able to handle many of the hard truths and deeper doctrines" because of the 100+ year absence of revelations quoting the words of God directly being presented before the church. 

My conclusion is based on careful observation and study of the evolution of church teachings, policy, and practice over the past 100+ years. 

I'm a little bit reluctant to provide specific examples, because I don't want to upset anyone or come of as criticizing the church or its leaders. And this discussion isn't about that, either, nor do I want it to turn into that. But I tell you what, I will give an example of something that could be considered evidence of this:

Brigham Young clearly, plainly, and repeatedly taught that Adam is God the Father and the literal father of Jesus Christ. He taught that Adam and Eve came to this earth with Celestialized resurrected bodies, which they had received from being resurrected following a previous mortal probation on another planet. That they then fell and their bodies became mortal so they could provide physical bodies for all of their spirit children (all of mankind on this earth). 

Brigham said that this truth was revealed to him by Joseph Smith and by revelation from God. He taught this for 25 years in the church. It was taught in the General Conference, priesthood meetings, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 apostles, and in the temple. 

But this teaching was very controversial and many members of the church had a very hard time accepting it. It was deeply troubling and even disturbing to many. Others readily accepted it as truth and rejoiced in what they had received. For many others it was somewhere in between. Eventually the leaders stopped talking about it and even told the members to stop talking about it. Then many years later some leaders even said that these teachings about Adam and Eve were false. 

If what Brigham Young taught was true, and a higher truth and deeper doctrine (as he claimed), then this would be a textbook example of light and truth being taken from the church because the members couldn't handle it. 

But your proposition, "If what Brigham Young taught was true..." is still a hypothesis, and not presented an example of an documented event or a condition, as textbooks require. We need something more substantial.

Jesus and Eder Oaks taught about the Lord permitting divorce without the stain of immorality as an exception to the higher law because of the hardness of our hearts (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19?lang=eng&id=8-9#p8). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/05/divorce?lang=eng. This is an example of a higher light and truth being excepted or excused, but not taken away.

You need to identify a stronger example of a time when a higher law was rescinded by the Lord because of the wickedness or lack of faith among a threshold number of saints or the membership at large. An example from the D&C is the command to build the Jackson County temple was rescinded: (see D&C 124, but also101, 103). Try to identify an example like that which reflects your concerns.

What other revelation or commandment has been rescinded because the members couldn't handle it? It needs to be something more substantial than policies, procedures and practices.

 

[Maverick]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But your proposition, "If what Brigham Young taught was true..." is still a hypothesis, and not presented an example of an documented event or a condition, as textbooks require. We need something more substantial.

Jesus and Eder Oaks taught about the Lord permitting divorce without the stain of immorality as an exception to the higher law because of the hardness of our hearts (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/nt/matt/19?lang=eng&id=8-9#p8). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2007/05/divorce?lang=eng. This is an example of a higher light and truth being excepted or excused, but not taken away.

You need to identify a stronger example of a time when a higher law was rescinded by the Lord because of the wickedness or lack of faith among a threshold number of saints or the membership at large. An example from the D&C is the command to build the Jackson County temple was rescinded: (see D&C 124, but also101, 103). Try to identify an example like that which reflects your concerns.

What other revelation or commandment has been rescinded because the members couldn't handle it? It needs to be something more substantial than policies, procedures and practices.

 

I provided a clear example of what could be considered the Lord taking away light and truth from the church. You're welcome to respond to this example or ignore it. That's up to you.

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Because it is not necessary.

This still doesn't explain why these types of revelations and visions haven't been shared with the church in 100+ years. Why were they shared before and then discontinued completely?

[Maverick]

6 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I stated exactly what I wanted to suggest with my questions. Just what exactly are your assumptions about the nature of revelation and the transmission of revelations to the membership. 

I would like to know what you think? Where do you think revelations that quote the Lord directly come from? How are they received? Are they actually what the Lord said or not?

[Maverick]

8 hours ago, mikbone said:

You may have noticed thru the many postings of this thread that one person has been arguing their position contrary to everyone else.  That is called an outlier, and generally the outlier is wrong.

This isn’t accurate. Several different opinions have been presented by multiple people. And it’s been a discussion of different ideas, not an argument for a single position

8 hours ago, mikbone said:

The Adam God theory is confusing, contrary to eternal and supportive doctrine and isn’t supported with scripture.

This is the reaction to Adam-God many people had, which is why it stopped being taught in the church. 

It’s however not true that Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God are “contrary to eternal supportive doctrine” and not “supported with scripture.”

8 hours ago, mikbone said:

I’m not sure if it was ever taught during a GC meeting either.

It was taught repeatedly in GC, and not just by Brigham Young, either. 

Edited April 12 by Maverick

[mikbone]

47 minutes ago, Maverick said:

It’s however not true that Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God are “contrary to eternal supportive doctrine” and not “supported with scripture.”

You may need to brush up on your understanding on doctrine.  May I recommend: 

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings

If you did your homework reading Journal of Discourses 1: 50-51

You will see that Brigham Young prefaces his discourse with the commentary “upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views.

Scripture is the golden standard.  General Conference talks and official proclamations are of a lesser standard.

In official proclamations there is obvious unanimity.  

The Adam God Theory is categorized as esoteric doctrine.

[Maverick]

4 minutes ago, mikbone said:

You may need to brush up on your understanding on doctrine.  May I recommend: 

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-17-no-3-2016/doctrine-models-evaluate-types-sources-latter-day-saint-teachings

If you did your homework reading Journal of Discourses 1: 50-51

You will see that Brigham Young prefaces his discourse with the commentary “upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views.

Scripture is the golden standard.  General Conference talks and official proclamations are of a lesser standard.

In official proclamations there is obvious unanimity.  

The Adam God Theory is categorized as esoteric doctrine.

I am very well versed in the Adam-God doctrine. It was definitely taught as a true doctrine received by the prophet of the church by revelation from God. Make of that what you will. 

[mikbone]

21 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I am very well versed in the Adam-God doctrine. It was definitely taught as a true doctrine received by the prophet of the church by revelation from God. Make of that what you will. 

Nope.  Brigham Young claimed that he was taught the doctrine from Joseph Smith.  Specifically not ‘thus saith the Lord’

Most likely Joseph Smith was trying to teach Brigham Young some profound doctrine that Brigham Young obviously misunderstood.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Maverick said:

I provided a clear example of what could be considered the Lord taking away light and truth from the church. You're welcome to respond to this example or ignore it. That's up to you.

Sorry, you did not. You provided an acceptable hypothesis with no factual basis for a conclusion and seem to be ignoring the requirement to do so. That is up to you.

There is nothing wrong with expressing a feeling, bias, belief or opinion, but that is all it is, and I take discussion to be more than just sharing and refuting these for the sake of sharing and refuting.

I provided a couple of examples of well documented examples; with a bit of work you can do the same for your specific hypothesis.

Edited April 13 by CV75

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I am very well versed in the Adam-God doctrine. It was definitely taught as a true doctrine received by the prophet of the church by revelation from God. Make of that what you will. 

I understand you did not want to create a discussion about the content of your hypothesis; this is why I asked you for some documented examples. Then we could discussion their applicability instead, as i began to do with the examples I offered up.

[Maverick]

32 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Nope.  Brigham Young claimed that he was taught the doctrine from Joseph Smith.  Specifically not ‘thus saith the Lord’

Most likely Joseph Smith was trying to teach Brigham Young some profound doctrine that Brigham Young obviously misunderstood.

Nope. He said he received it by revelation from God and Joseph Smith.

Edited April 13 by Maverick