Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[Maverick]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Is there official church teaching on it today?

There hasn’t been an official statement on Adam-God in over 40 years to my knowledge. And the last statements that were made long ago contradicted what Brigham Young taught about it. 

 

[LDSGator]

4 minutes ago, Maverick said:

There hasn’t been an official statement on Adam-God in over 40 years to my knowledge. And the last statements that were made long ago contradicted what Brigham Young taught about it. 

 

Thanks. 

[Maverick]

11 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I think we can agree on two things; 1) that the Adam-God theory was once taught in the church and 2) now it is not being taught in the church. I'm not sure, from those two facts, whether we can reliably come to the conclusion that it was a) taken away from the church and b) the reason for that presumed taking away was because of the wickedness of the church.

I never said that it was take away“because of the wickedness of the church.” I said it was taken away because the members couldn’t handle it.

It’s well documented that many members couldn’t handle it and that it was troubling a lot of people, which is why the church presidents after Brigham Young stopped talking about it and told everyone else to stop talking about, too. 

Edited April 14 by Maverick

[Maverick]

On 4/12/2024 at 9:52 AM, Ironhold said:

So sometimes, when people don't infodump on everyone, perhaps you should give them the benefit of the doubt.

I think there’s a big difference between not “info dumping on everyone,” and not presenting a single revelation quoting the words of God directly or a single vision to the church in over 100+ years. 

Obviously, God could have commanded the brethren to keep all such revelations and visions to themselves the past 100+ years or at least not to convey them in the manner in which they received them. But assuming this is true, it begs the question of why He would have put this restriction in place for the brethren? 

[Maverick]

On 4/11/2024 at 1:12 PM, zil2 said:

The Church will never seal same-sex couples in the temple.  I understand why those who want it would wrest scriptures and everything else under the sun to argue that it will happen and why (ETA: they think) it's reasonable to believe it will.  I don't understand why anyone else thinks it could.  The principles of eternal marriage and procreation by exalted couples could not possibly be clearer or more obvious.  The notion that the Lord would let his Church go that far from truth in this dispensation is absurd.  Any prophet who tried would be stopped (probably well before he tried).  Not that there's any hint any of them would.  Same-sex couples cannot procreate.  There will be no "adoption" or "surrogacy" in the Celestial Kingdom.  The mere idea is absurd.  Scripture is clear that there will be no marriage of any sort anywhere other than the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

The Lord changes policy, procedure, and modes of presentation to fit our needs.  He does not reverse eternal principles.

If anyone doubts this, I recommend a deep spiritual dive into the eternal principles of marriage and family (procreation), while repenting, keeping covenants, fasting, praying, ministering, attending one's meetings, serving, and attending the temple - and asking the Lord every day to give one a testimony and understanding of the eternal principles (the things behind the related commandments).  What you receive you will likely have to keep to yourself, so plan for that and prove trustworthy.

Same-sex sealings is simply never going to be a thing.

What if hypothetically the First Presidency does at some future point in time declare that in his infinite mercy for those who have same-sex attraction, God has authorized members to enter into same-sex civil marriages, and that as long as they only have sexual relations with their same-sex spouse, they aren’t breaking the law of chastity? 

Would you accept this as continuing revelation? 

[Maverick]

On 4/11/2024 at 1:22 PM, zil2 said:

Thank you. The word "inspired" doesn't appear in this talk (hence my passing over it). Printed text:

Audio:

Seems clear to me in the video that he was not following his written talk at that point - perhaps remembering a prior version.  I'm with @Carborendum on this - there was no "we gotta correct what he said" after the fact.  Rather, the written talk as submitted was published, but not read word for word during GC.  (I've seen this elsewhere, usually with only minor changes, sometimes with ad hoc comments about a prior speaker.  I've also seen those ad hoc comments added into the text, so it appears sometimes someone does change the text to match the talk as given.)

IMO, both versions of the talk are equally correct.

Elder Packer could have gone off script or the wording was changed. Or maybe it’s a combination of both. 

But clearly it was decided that the Proclamation on the Family should be referred to as a “guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow” instead of declaring that it “qualifies, according to definition, as a revelation.”

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Maverick said:

Elder Packer could have gone off script or the wording was changed. Or maybe it’s a combination of both. 

But clearly it was decided that the Proclamation on the Family should be referred to as a “guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow” instead of declaring that it “qualifies, according to definition, as a revelation.”

I see these kinds of post-talk corrections as examples of inspired clarification in council, not that the members are unable or unwilling to handle a verbatim transcription.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Maverick said:

What if hypothetically the First Presidency does at some future point in time declare that in his infinite mercy for those who have same-sex attraction, God has authorized members to enter into same-sex civil marriages, and that as long as they only have sexual relations with their same-sex spouse, they aren’t breaking the law of chastity? 

Would you accept this as continuing revelation? 

Anyone's answer to this is simply a reflection of bias since the Holy Ghost confirms or corrects bias in the hour of actual need. It does not establish a rule that God changes the marriage covenant because the saints and the world agree that it is socially unpopular or straining. Even in permitting divorce and OD1, the standard of marriage remained intact. 

[CV75]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:38 PM, Maverick said:

No. And when it comes to Adam-God, it’s either

A) Light and truth being taken away because the members couldn’t handle it. 

or

B) A prophet of God taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years in GC, other official church meetings, and in the temple, while claiming to have received this doctrine by revelation.

Take your pick. 

Why limit the choice to 2? How about simple fallibility, misunderstanding and miscommunication, or practice with councils and group revelation and continuing revelation in council, or expediency in the Lord changing priorities and emphasis to best convey His plan of redemption?

[zil2]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I see these kinds of post-talk corrections as examples of inspired clarification in council, not that the members are unable or unwilling to handle a verbatim transcription.

Watch the video.  It's perfectly clear what happened.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I see these kinds of post-talk corrections as examples of inspired clarification in council, not that the members are unable or unwilling to handle a verbatim transcription.

I wasn’t suggesting that the clarification in the printed version of the talk is because the members are unable or willing to handle verbatim transcription. I have no idea how you got that idea.

The point is that Elder Packer or whoever “corrected” the talk clearly didn’t believe that it’s accurate to say that the Proclamation on the Family is by “definition a revelation.” The printed version has it correct. It’s a guide, not a revelation.

[ZealoulyStriving]

Even Joseph Smith corrected/clarified revelations he received. If the senior leaders say a talk transcript needs clarifying, it is in the purview as the authorized keyholders.

If a policy announcement was made authorizing same-sex marriages, I would doubt the inspiration of the change, but would go about my business of redeeming the dead and sealing families in the Houses of the Lord.

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Anyone's answer to this is simply a reflection of bias since the Holy Ghost confirms or corrects bias in the hour of actual need. It does not establish a rule that God changes the marriage covenant because the saints and the world agree that it is socially unpopular or straining. Even in permitting divorce and OD1, the standard of marriage remained intact. 

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

How about simple fallibility, misunderstanding and miscommunication, or practice with councils and group revelation and continuing revelation in council

This is just another way of saying that Brigham Young as president of the church taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years. 

Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ of he isn’t. If he isn’t, Brigham Young taught false doctrine for 25 years. If he is, then the church has lost this truth. And God either took it away or the leaders after Brigham Young screwed up big time. 

God taking it away is by far the most likely explanation.

[mirkwood]

14 minutes ago, Maverick said:

God taking it away is by far the most likely explanation.

 

Not really. 

 

The most likely explanation is this was an opinion strongly held by Brigham Young that was never canonized because it was an opinion strongly held by Brigham Young.

 

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Watch the video.  It's perfectly clear what happened.

I trust your observation and conclusion.

25 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I wasn’t suggesting that the clarification in the printed version of the talk is because the members are unable or willing to handle verbatim transcription. I have no idea how you got that idea.

The point is that Elder Packer or whoever “corrected” the talk clearly didn’t believe that it’s accurate to say that the Proclamation on the Family is by “definition a revelation.” The printed version has it correct. It’s a guide, not a revelation.

That members can't handle revelation has been repeatedly part of your hypotheses.

20 minutes ago, Maverick said:

This is just another way of saying that Brigham Young as president of the church taught false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years. 

Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ of he isn’t. If he isn’t, Brigham Young taught false doctrine for 25 years. If he is, then the church has lost this truth. And God either took it away or the leaders after Brigham Young screwed up big time. 

God taking it away is by far the most likely explanation.

No, they say saying other things, just as I wrote them. And you can even say they are examples that Brigham Young as president of the church did not teach false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years, or taught it correctly/completely in some ways and incompletely/incorrectly in others, for 25 years.  It depends on your bias, spin, context and semantics. I choose not to employ black-and-white, dichotomous analysis to drive a predetermined conclusion.

And you did use this as an example of it being "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..." as you did here: Posted Friday at 09:45 AM

 

[Maverick]

17 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

 

Not really. 

 

The most likely explanation is this was an opinion strongly held by Brigham Young that was never canonized because it was an opinion strongly held by Brigham Young.

 

 

Brigham Young didn’t teach it as his opinion. He taught it as doctrine he had received by revelation from God. And it wasn’t just not canonized. It was essentially erased from existence and denied that he ever taught it. His talks were a scrubbed when they were reprinted in the Discourses of Brigham Young volume, to remove references to it. 

Either Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, or he isn’t. If he is, then this stopped being taught because the members couldn’t handle it. If Adam isn’t God the Father, then Brigham Young taught false doctrine about God for 25 years in GC, meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12, and in the temple. It’s really as simple as that.

 

 

[Maverick]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I trust your observation and conclusion.

That members can't handle revelation has been repeatedly part of your hypotheses.

No, they say saying other things, just as I wrote them. And you can even say they are examples that Brigham Young as president of the church did not teach false doctrine about the character of God for 25 years, or taught it correctly/completely in some ways and incompletely/incorrectly in others, for 25 years.  It depends on your bias, spin, context and semantics. I choose not to employ black-and-white, dichotomous analysis to drive a predetermined conclusion.

And you did use this as an example of it being "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..." as you did here: Posted Friday at 09:45 AM

 

Oh boy, yes I reluctantly used Adam-God as an example of something that appears to be an instance of light and truth being taken away from the church because members couldn’t handle it, after you kept pressing me for one example showing that this possible. 

At no point did I suggest in any way that every change in the church was an example of this. Certainly not for edits to the printed versions of Conference talks, like the Boyd K. Packer instance (which was an entirely different discussion). 

At this point I think you are looking to find offense with my words, and I’m not really sure why that is. Perhaps my questions and suggestions make you uncomfortable. I don’t know. 🤷‍♂️ 

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Perhaps my questions and suggestions make you uncomfortable

I think this discussion has been interesting. Hope you stick around.  

[zil2]

18 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Certainly not for edits to the printed versions of Conference talks, like the Boyd K. Packer instance (which was an entirely different discussion). 

Do you know that the written talks are submitted before hand so that the translators, interpreters, and technical people have a "head start"?  That it is far more likely, especially given the video, that the spoken talk diverged from what was written and that the printed version was not edited from what Elder Packer had previously submitted?  Just checking.

I used to assume that the printed came second, but it turns out, it comes first (per Elder Bednar).

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

Even Joseph Smith corrected/clarified revelations he received. If the senior leaders say a talk transcript needs clarifying, it is in the purview as the authorized keyholders.

I completely agree. And the talk in question was corrected to change the description of the Proclamation on the Family as a “revelation” by definition to a “guide.” This is was a good correction, it’s not a revelation. 

1 hour ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

If a policy announcement was made authorizing same-sex marriages, I would doubt the inspiration of the change

Me too, big time. 

1 hour ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

but would go about my business of redeeming the dead and sealing families in the Houses of the Lord.

I would have to do some serious soul searching and wrestling with God to know what to do. 

Edited April 14 by Maverick

[Maverick]

1 minute ago, zil2 said:

Do you know that the written talks are submitted before hand so that the translators, interpreters, and technical people have a "head start"?  That it is far more likely, especially given the video, that the spoken talk diverged from what was written and that the printed version was not edited from what Elder Packer had previously submitted?  Just checking.

I used to assume that the printed came second, but it turns out, it comes first (per Elder Bednar).

I’m not assuming anything about the order of events. We don’t know what the original talk that was submitted and displayed on the teleprompter said. Which is why I said:

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

Elder Packer could have gone off script or the wording was changed. Or maybe it’s a combination of both. 

But clearly it was decided that the Proclamation on the Family should be referred to as a “guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow” instead of declaring that it “qualifies, according to definition, as a revelation.”

 

[Maverick]

6 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Do you know that the written talks are submitted before hand so that the translators, interpreters, and technical people have a "head start"?  That it is far more likely, especially given the video, that the spoken talk diverged from what was written and that the printed version was not edited from what Elder Packer had previously submitted?  Just checking.

I guess if we really wanted to explore your theory that the original submitted talk called it a “guide” and Elder Packer went off script, we could examine the audio versions of his talk in different languages. 

But, like said before, the order of events doesn’t really change anything. Either way it was decided that calling the Family Proclamation a “guide,” rather than a “revelation” was the way to go.

[ZealoulyStriving]

15 minutes ago, Maverick said:

I completely agree. And the talk in question was corrected to change the description of the Proclamation on the Family as a “revelation” by definition to “guidance.” This is was a good correction, it’s not a revelation. 

Me too, big time. 

I would have to do some serious soul searching and wrestling with God to know what to do. 

In ancient Israel when the Temple priests went off course, the Israelites still had to take their sacrifices to the temple to those same priests who officiated in the sacrificial offerings. It is a pattern for us... If the leadership should veer from established counsel (like transporting the ark on an oxcart instead of carrying it) it is our job to continue the mission God has given us, and let the Lord correct His leaders. THE primary work of these last days is Temple work, redeeming our ancestors and sealing the generations and dispensations to each other. If we are found faithful to that mission the Lord will accept our individual offering no matter what policy the Church may propose. 

This is where the other churches/groups of the Restoration fail. The RLDS people doubt or outright reject temple work, and the Fundamentalists are so obsessed with their own family situations that they have for all intents and purposes ignored the greater work of redemption for the dead. Only the Church making a full-court press in temple work can be the Lord's authorized organization, and only one church is doing that.

I empathize with the fundamentalists on some doctrinal issues, but they lack the keys to teach them and are out of order.

Edited April 14 by ZealoulyStriving

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Oh boy, yes I reluctantly used Adam-God as an example of something that appears to be an instance of light and truth being taken away from the church because members couldn’t handle it, after you kept pressing me for one example showing that this possible. 

At no point did I suggest in any way that every change in the church was an example of this. Certainly not for edits to the printed versions of Conference talks, like the Boyd K. Packer instance (which was an entirely different discussion). 

At this point I think you are looking to find offense with my words, and I’m not really sure why that is. Perhaps my questions and suggestions make you uncomfortable. I don’t know. 🤷‍♂️ 

No, I am looking for you to test your various hypotheses with documented instances and occurrences, not bias, opinion and possibilities. It might help if you list your questions with the facts you have gathered that can be used to answer them. I've asked for this before ( Posted Friday at 06:29 PM ) and you insisted a hypothesis was a "textbook example" -- which are far from the same things. If you don't understand the distinction, as indicated in the subsequent exchanges, maybe we can flesh that out, though with a little work you can get up speed on your own. Thank you.

[Maverick]

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, I am looking for you to test your various hypotheses with documented instances and occurrences, not bias, opinion and possibilities. It might help if you list your questions with the facts you have gathered that can be used to answer them. I've asked for this before ( Posted Friday at 06:29 PM ) and you insisted a hypothesis was a "textbook example" -- which are far from the same things. If you don't understand the distinction, as indicated in the subsequent exchanges, maybe we can flesh that out, though with a little work you can get up speed on your own. Thank you.

Again, I’m not interested in proving anything. The example I provided with Adam-God would be a textbook example of the Lord removing light and truth from the church, if what Brigham Young taught was true. 

If what Brigham Young taught was false or the leaders after him removed this teaching against God’s will, then that’s of course a different story. And quite frankly both of these other possibilities are way more of a problem for continuing revelation in the church, than God removing a true teaching because the members couldn’t handle it. 

Edited April 15 by Maverick