Question concerning “Continuing Revelation”

[Maverick]

30 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

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 ever 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.

Agreed. 

31 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

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

I think fundamentalists have some valid points on doctrinal and historical issues. I agree that they are out of order and lack the priesthood keys they claim to have. It’s not my place to judge them, though. I think many of them will prove to be the “outcasts of Israel” who will be part of the final gathering of the elect who will build the New Jerusalem. 

[ZealoulyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Agreed. 

I think fundamentalists have some valid points on doctrinal and historical issues. I agree that they are out of order and lack the priesthood keys they claim to have. It’s not my place to judge them, though. I think many of them will prove to be the “outcasts of Israel” who will be part of the final gathering of the elect who will build the New Jerusalem. 

With the quality of people I met during my wilderness journey among the various Restoration churches, I have no reason to doubt that some at whom we cry "APOSTATE!" will be gathered home with the Saints.

[askandanswer]

9 hours 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. 

I like to think that I'm too well-mannered to laugh at the views and opinions of others, but sometimes the temptation arises. To think that God would allow His prophet to teach false doctrine about His character and nature for 25 years, especially after he and His Son appeared in person to Joseph Smith - well that's an example of when I'm tempted. 

To quote again from a previously quoted from talk:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

If Brigham Young did indeed teach the Adam-God theory - and I have never looked into the matter myself, and nor do I intend to because it is so unimportant - and God allowed him to continue teaching this, I would be inclined to accept that there must be some truth to it. However, I say this from the position of one who has never looked at the idea or its associated teachings.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Maverick said:

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. 

Hypotheses are unsatisfactory answers to important questions, but they could be the beginning. Posing a hypothesis, “If unsubstantiated x is true, then unsubstantiated y is true” is just another way of asking the question, but in a most biased manner. Without further examination and exploration in the “real world,” constructing and comparing hypotheses based on personal preference and preset conclusions is ill-informed and does not answer the question.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I like to think that I'm too well-mannered to laugh at the views and opinions of others, but sometimes the temptation arises. To think that God would allow His prophet to teach false doctrine about His character and nature for 25 years, especially after he and His Son appeared in person to Joseph Smith - well that's an example of when I'm tempted. 

To quote again from a previously quoted from talk:

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.)

If Brigham Young did indeed teach the Adam-God theory - and I have never looked into the matter myself, and nor do I intend to because it is so unimportant - and God allowed him to continue teaching this, I would be inclined to accept that there must be some truth to it. However, I say this from the position of one who has never looked at the idea or its associated teachings.

I think God lets a lot of unimportant things go. How long did the Brother of Jared go in life incorrectly assuming that the Lord's flesh and blood form could not be seen (or whether He had such a form at all)? Only to be told to write and seal up the answer for a long-future date. Some things, correct or not, incomplete or confounded or not, simply are not impactful upon the Lord's timetable for certain things to happen in certain certain moments in certain dispensations.

[Carborendum]

On 4/13/2024 at 10:33 PM, 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. 

That's because we don't really know what Brigham Young meant.

If you look at the transcript of the speech he gave there was something disjointed about it.

Start: Speaking about something completely normal.

Insert: Adam-God.

Continue: Speak about the original subject again.

The issue is that there was no segue from each of these sections.  There didn't seem to be any relationship between Adam-God and the rest of his speech.

This tells me that either:

A. There was some explanation or preamble that we're missing that would have given us valuable background concerning his comments.

B. This was thrown in there when someone mixed up notes from multiple speeches.

Bottom line: We don't have the proper background to understand what it was that he was talking about.

[ZealoulyStriving]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's because we don't really know what Brigham Young meant.

If you look at the transcript of the speech he gave there was something disjointed about it.

Start: Speaking about something completely normal.

Insert: Adam-God.

Continue: Speak about the original subject again.

The issue is that there was no segue from each of these sections.  There didn't seem to be any relationship between Adam-God and the rest of his speech.

This tells me that either:

A. There was some explanation or preamble that we're missing that would have given us valuable background concerning his comments.

B. This was thrown in there when someone mixed up notes from multiple speeches.

Bottom line: We don't have the proper background to understand what it was that he was talking about.

The problem arises in that that discourse isn't the only place he mentioned it. And he is clearer about his meaning in other writings.

But like I said, those who hold the keys have told us to avoid the subject, so it's better to not fall down that rabbit hole.

[Maverick]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's because we don't really know what Brigham Young meant.

If you look at the transcript of the speech he gave there was something disjointed about it.

Start: Speaking about something completely normal.

Insert: Adam-God.

Continue: Speak about the original subject again.

The issue is that there was no segue from each of these sections.  There didn't seem to be any relationship between Adam-God and the rest of his speech.

This tells me that either:

A. There was some explanation or preamble that we're missing that would have given us valuable background concerning his comments.

B. This was thrown in there when someone mixed up notes from multiple speeches.

Bottom line: We don't have the proper background to understand what it was that he was talking about.

Journal of Discourse 1:50-51 is hardly the only recorded instance of Brigham Young having taught that Adam is God the Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. There are many recorded statements by Brigham Young teaching Adam-God. Other general authorities at the time taught it, too. From this it as actually very clear what was taught.

The problem is not in understanding what Brigham Young was talking about. The problem is that what he taught contradicts our traditional understanding of Adam. Many people really struggled with this. And as a result Brigham Young generally began teaching it less publicly and forcefully. But he still taught it repeatedly right up to the year of his death. In 1877, he included a thorough summary of the Adam-God doctrine in the lecture at the veil in the temple, which at the time was part of the endowment. 

[Maverick]

14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

If you look at the transcript of the speech he gave there was something disjointed about it.

Start: Speaking about something completely normal.

Insert: Adam-God.

Continue: Speak about the original subject again.

I also want to add that Brigham switching topics and then returning to the previous topic is a very common occurrence in his many discourses. He did it all the time. 

There are also several other records of his discourse on Adam-God in Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 in journals of people who were in attendance and they all agree with how it is recorded in the Journal of Discourses. 

[LDSGator]

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

I also want to add that Brigham switching topics and then returning to the previous topic is a very common occurrence in his many discourses. He did it all the time. 

There are also several other records of his discourse on Adam-God in Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 in journals of people who were in attendance and they all agree with how it is recorded in the Journal of Discourses. 

Is there a reason why Adam-God is of such great importance to you or am I missing something? Totally curious. 
 

I’m a convert and I don’t think I even heard about this doctrine until I joined TH. Never heard about it in church either. 

Edited April 17 by LDSGator

[ZealoulyStriving]

1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

Is there a reason why Adam-God is of such great importance to you or am I missing something? Totally curious. 
 

I’m a convert and I don’t think I even heard about this doctrine until I joined TH. Never heard about it in church either. 

It's actually quite fascinating and was a major draw for me towards fundamentalism during my wilderness journey.

[LDSGator]

19 minutes ago, ZealoulyStriving said:

It's actually quite fascinating and was a major draw for me towards fundamentalism during my wilderness journey.

Very cool! 

[ZealoulyStriving]

28 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Very cool! 

To be clear... I've tucked that securely back on the shelf behind all the towels.

[Maverick]

3 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Is there a reason why Adam-God is of such great importance to you or am I missing something? Totally curious. 
 

I only brought up Adam-God in this particular discussion because I was pressed to provide a tangible example of something that supports the possibility that changed teachings in the church can be due to God taking away light and truth from the church because the majority of the members couldn’t handle it. 

In a general sense Adam-God is important to me personally because I believe in searching out and embracing all truth. The Adam-God doctrine was taught as truth and a mystery of God by the president of the church for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in priesthood meetings, and in the temple. To me this makes it significant.

[zil2]

Quote

Jarom 1:2 ... but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.

 

[askandanswer]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:19 AM, Maverick said:

God taking away light and truth from the church because the majority of the members couldn’t handle it. 

In a general sense Adam-God is important to me personally because I believe in searching out and embracing all truth. The Adam-God doctrine was taught as truth and a mystery of God by the president of the church for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in priesthood meetings, and in the temple. To me this makes it significant.

The teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40

For ^aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; ^bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ^ctruth embraceth truth; ^dvirtue loveth virtue; ^elight cleaveth unto light; ^fmercy hath ^gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; ^hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

[Ironhold]

15 hours ago, zil2 said:

 

By coincidence, I was asked to teach Enos - Words of Mormon on Sunday. The regular instructor will be out for a scheduled event, and so I'll be handling matters. 

[Maverick]

23 hours ago, zil2 said:

Jarom 1:2 ... but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.

You cut out the relevant context for why he didn’t write down his prophecies and revelations. 

Let’s look at the reason:

“2 And as these plates are small, and as these things are written for the intent of the benefit of our brethren the Lamanites, wherefore, it must needs be that I write a little; but I shall not write the things of my prophesying, nor of my revelations. For what could I write more than my fathers have written? For have not they revealed the plan of salvation? I say unto you, Yea; and this sufficeth me.”

The reason for why he is not writing down his prophecies and revelations is not because they would be redundant, but rather because he didn’t have enough space on the small plates, because the space was almost completely used up already. 

Additionally, he says:

“3 Behold, it is expedient that much should be done among this people, because of the hardness of their hearts, and the deafness of their ears, and the blindness of their minds, and the stiffness of their necks; nevertheless, God is exceedingly merciful unto them, and has not as yet swept them off from the face of the land.

4 And there are many among us who have many revelations, for they are not all stiffnecked. And as many as are not stiffnecked and have faith, have communion with the Holy Spirit, which maketh manifest unto the children of men, according to their faith.

10 And it came to pass that the prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land.

11 Wherefore, the prophets, and the priests, and the teachers, did labor diligently, exhorting with all long-suffering the people to diligence; teaching the law of Moses, and the intent for which it was given; persuading them to look forward unto the Messiah, and believe in him to come as though he already was. And after this manner did they teach them.

12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance.”

What insights can we gain from this description of conditions among the members of the church in Jarom’s day that may be applicable to our day? 🤔

[Maverick]

19 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40

For ^aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; ^bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ^ctruth embraceth truth; ^dvirtue loveth virtue; ^elight cleaveth unto light; ^fmercy hath ^gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; ^hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

Are you suggesting that Brigham, as the prophet of the church, taught falsehoods about God for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, and in the temple, while claiming that this was new light and truth revealed from heaven? 

[CV75]

On 4/19/2024 at 12:58 AM, askandanswer said:

The teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40

For ^aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; ^bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ^ctruth embraceth truth; ^dvirtue loveth virtue; ^elight cleaveth unto light; ^fmercy hath ^gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; ^hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

Elders Fyans and Packer taught a traditional parable of the pearl and the box. My take is that parables, direct language and combinations of both, and suited for their time, serve as the box, but the pearl always remains the same. So in evaluating who correctly understands what, and given what we possess of such prophetic teachings, I think there are several intertwining principles to consider:

Many are called but few are chosen; the parables use the “things of this world” and human language is of this world, and it is possible for us to get overly focused on these.

The Lord teaches some truth in parables, symbolically and figuratively.

The Lord teaches some truth directly, plainly and literally such as D&C 131:7-8.

The Lord teaches some truth in a combination of metaphor and fact, such as John 17.

Human language is often insufficient to convey spiritual truths (see 3 Nephi 17:17; Luke 18:34; John 16:17-18).

Human language and parables change (imagine an early Polynesian convert understanding Elder Bednar’s parable of the pickle, or Elder Uchtdorf’s airplane analogies).

Prophets are fallible and their choice of language in teaching through parables, direct language or a combination therefore may not convey the spiritual truths they wish to, to think they are (Ether 12:24).

The living prophet has the keys for designing the box, and sometimes the box is simply not up to the task anymore, not because the prophet or anyone is false or too many cannot handle it, or no one has enough of the companionship of the Holy Ghost to suss the mystery, but the circumstances of human life and experience that God has allowed or encouraged to evolve have changed how we learn.

Personally, if we view any prophetic teaching through the lens of John 17 as the pearl, it is easy to see that it not so strange after all. But the ways and means of teaching may be! And that is no one's fault. Holding too tightly to the things of this world is. The spiritual truths of John 17 are taught in far more successful ways than they are not.

A prophet may be perfectly inspired and yet perfectly awkward in conveying it.

Edited April 20 by CV75

[askandanswer]

On 4/20/2024 at 10:10 AM, Maverick said:

Are you suggesting that Brigham, as the prophet of the church, taught falsehoods about God for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, and in the temple, while claiming that this was new light and truth revealed from heaven? 

What I'm suggesting is the teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40

If I had wanted to suggest something along the lines of what you have written I would have written something like "As the prophet of the church, Brigham Young may have taught things that might have sounded like falsehoods to some people and that there is some reason to suggest that he may have taught these things for a prolonged period and in various places." "

Edited April 21 by askandanswer

[Carborendum]

On 4/16/2024 at 11:39 PM, Maverick said:

I also want to add that Brigham switching topics and then returning to the previous topic is a very common occurrence in his many discourses. He did it all the time. 

There are also several other records of his discourse on Adam-God in Journal of Discourses 1:50-51 in journals of people who were in attendance and they all agree with how it is recorded in the Journal of Discourses. 

Links?

[laronius]

On 4/19/2024 at 5:40 PM, Maverick said:

Are you suggesting that Brigham, as the prophet of the church, taught falsehoods about God for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, and in the temple, while claiming that this was new light and truth revealed from heaven? 

"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." —Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77

This so-called Adam-God theory is false and contrary to the whole body of revealed truth. It negates the essential features of the whole plan of salvation, belittles God, makes a mockery of the atonement of his Son, and postulates the utterly absurd notion that Christ the Son had to work out an atoning sacrifice which would bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of God the Father. - Bruce R McConkie

 

I don't post these here to disprove the Adam-God theory. In fact I think the general concept has some merit (though the details get kind of wonky) but I think it's a bit misguided to take the stance that we must either accept what BY taught as truth or we must declare him a teacher of falsehoods. The Adam-God theory is just that, a theory, not official Church doctrine and therefore not a test for determining one's loyalty to the prophets.

[ZealoulyStriving]

I think there was quite a bit of too much, too fast in early Utah. With the easily crisised© in our day, I see the wisdom of pulling back and being more milk-oriented in official teachings. But the great thing about our religion is you can let your mind soar in your private musings and with those equally interested in the "deeper things" of God.

Edited April 21 by ZealoulyStriving

[Maverick]

14 hours ago, laronius said:

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." —Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77

This so-called Adam-God theory is false and contrary to the whole body of revealed truth. It negates the essential features of the whole plan of salvation, belittles God, makes a mockery of the atonement of his Son, and postulates the utterly absurd notion that Christ the Son had to work out an atoning sacrifice which would bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of God the Father. - Bruce R McConkie

If we take these statements at face value as the gospel truth, then the only conclusion is that Brigham Young taught false doctrine, which “negates the essential features of the whole plan of salvation, belittles God, [and] makes a mockery of the atonement of his Son.” And that he did this in his official capacity as the president and prophet for 25 years from the pulpit in General Conference, in meetings of the first presidency and quorum of the 12 and in the temple. 

14 hours ago, laronius said:

I think it's a bit misguided to take the stance that we must either accept what BY taught as truth or we must declare him a teacher of falsehoods.

And yet, Kimball and McConkie literally declared him to be a teacher of falsehoods if we take the two statements you shared at face value. 

14 hours ago, laronius said:

The Adam-God theory is just that, a theory, not official Church doctrine and therefore not a test for determining one's loyalty to the prophets.

It wasn’t taught as a theory. It was taught as revealed truth. And if the teachings of the president of the church and other apostles for 25+ years about the character of God and eternal progression towards becoming like God doesn’t constitute “doctrine,” then I don’t know what is. 

But I agree that believing or disbelieving in Adam-God today is “not a test for determining one's loyalty to the prophets.”