Calm

I have a major concern if the socialist criticism is accurate and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be…except it’s so hard for me to believe that anyone halfway educated would hold that position. That’s evidence they allow bias to influence their interpretations too much for me.

I need to break my mind block on using digital scriptures for scripture study. I have tried a few times. It just doesn’t feel as mentally and emotionally immediate or maybe it’s intimate as the weight of a book and turning pages. Maybe your post will do it. I do like annotating.

He was serious? That just seems so unlikely for anyone halfway educated in their actual behaviour, which was not socialist once the surface was scratched and it mostly didn’t need that even. I don’t suppose you have a link (this might*** be a case where I will only believe it if I see it, it is so unreasonable) I have not watched much of him and was wondering if you were over reacting…not much given your past posting, but you can be emphatic these days. ***No, it’s definitely a case I need to see to believe, I just don’t see any reasonable reason for him to go there.

Are these points from Brigham or scriptures? I do believe your above argument is logical, just wondering if this is Brigham contradicting himself as I agree he did (whether it was different, new ideas or he lost track of his own reasonings as I do quite often or he was using terms inconsistently (which has been my understanding of what caused contradiction in his later comments in the past, but I haven’t checked each or possibly even the majority of cases as I have never been systematic about it, so who knows) Your questions 2 and 3 have always made Adam-God a nonstarter for me. The rest of your reasoning and use of scripture is very thorough. I am impressed.

As long as it’s vast underground caravans and not actually a hollow earth with its own ‘sun’ at the core as the forces involved for that might be more than requiring them to go to the moon and create a livable environment there…though now I think of it if that has a sun as well, that eliminates that difference….warning, warning, something shiny up ahead. I will not go check out what would be required for that to even be considered scientifically possible in some form (an artificial sun much smaller and cooler of course).

Points because I love the word “hobgoblin” and wish there were more ways to include it in conversation.

Good point. Still since it’s a thought experiment or so it seemed to me, I am not talking about nonexalted beings though I don’t rule them out because even if the glory goes to another, why wouldn’t someone of that level of spirituality (assuming here three levels in the Celestial Kingdom) want to contribute in any way they could to another’s glory? However, in this case, I am focusing on the oneness that exists between those who have fully accepted Christ’s atonement and why wouldn’t there be very close friendships and partnerships between those of the opposite sex given there won’t be an issue with inappropriate feelings? Is it likely given the revelation we currently have that such partnerships would contribute to spirit creation? No, but given the incompleteness of revelation and given Stargazer was talking about the possibility of single beings who were exalted (and therefore our current understanding is incorrect) and given we don’t know the process of creation of spirit children—which may be adoption or forming out of elements or providing a spirit body for a person of intelligence, whatever that may be, it seemed appropriate in that thought experiment to point out there is already more than one form of partnership revealed for the act of creation. Even assuming only married couples get exalted (which is most likely given current revelation) and therefore are the only beings in the Celestial Kingdom (if celestial three degrees refer to the three kingdoms), why do we assume parenthood is only within the bonds of a couple given the ultimate oneness centered around Christ and God among the exalted? We know little about Heavenly Mother and the role she fills. I would say we only know she exists at this point and has some sort of parent relationship with us, but that still leaves so many possibilities and the right answer is likely one we can’t comprehend, so it’s kind of amusing to me we are saying it can’t be this or that. I am thinking more along the lines of a couple being the focus of the group and others contributing to them through some sort of spiritual exchange…maybe the couple provides the spiritual elements and others provide additional spiritual energy needed to bind the elements together than unmarried male and female producing spirits on their own. If creation of children is the highest act of creation exalted beings are blessed to be involved in, it seems odd to me with the huge emphasis on oneness that at that point of most profound creation, the community who are one with the couple are excluded in participating.

Thanks for the summary. I just can’t go down that rabbit hole right now. will later.

Very, very good point.

You never encountered someone who promised to get the evidence out for all to see until he was actually in a place of power to do just that and then it didn’t happen for quite some time, maybe even called it a hoax?

Yes, thank you for opening yourself up and sharing. I hope your achieve your dreams in ways that benefit both you and those around you.

I haven’t watched it yet and won’t until I get some stuff done. Based on my experience reading complaints and listening to lawyers promote their clients’ cases (very limited, not an expert), I don’t trust the accuracy of their representation. They don’t have to prove the facts of their case until they are in court. The complaint may be full of errors, possibly intentional. So it weakens her position, but it depends on when she wrote it and under what circumstances and if she was coerced to do so, if she can prove that she was coerced or at least pressured by TB. She wouldn’t be the first or last victim who acted like they are in a great relationship with their predator or even believe it for a time. Fear can play major games with one’s mind. Not saying this is for sure, but ruling out she was a victim based on that is premature, imo.

This got my brain going and I checked out Mormonr, which is my usual first stop these days for anything controversial, so I don’t know why I have been spacing on it for this. https://mormonr.org/qnas/0JPssK/adam_god_theory I may have asked you this before as my memory is going to ‘is this Deja vu?’ Mormonr seems quite thorough on this topic in its collection of sources, but what do you think of the discussion? Do you see them downplaying the importance of the teachings (as in it’s non canonical and was only ever semi-official even if taught publicly, so best to call the set of teachings a theory rather than doctrine even if some ideas in it are officially taught still; it was only publicly taught for a few decades while denounced for over a century)?

Given their criticism of members for just accepting what others (in this case, they see the source as antimormons) tell them is true without examining the claims, it’s rather hypocritical, imo.

So no details? That’s okay, I know not everyone has the amount of free time and interest level I do. What site do you believe has the most accurate reconstruction of Brigham’s beliefs in this area?

Love to hear the details. It was frustrating that they didn’t pull up more and just wasted time gushing. Are you claiming the “or” is actually supposed to be “our”, that is not a mistake? Also what about the Ben Rich journal entry? I see the punctuation as a very debatable choice, but the two other finds seem on point and solid. Or perhaps you were just saying the framing was off? IMO, the history they used to place the finds in context was surprisingly lacking what I would assume they would know, the Orson Pratt-Brigham Young disagreement, but perhaps they felt that was covered by the guest pointing out the different parts of the Adam-God theory and the only one that matters is whether or not Brigham taught that Adam was Elohim. There were also close contemporaries of Brigham sharing the same ideas they are saying were not what Brigham meant, I believe, and that was ignored along with contemporary disagreement with Brigham. I know basic summary of a contrasting view of history, but it would be great to see it in detail.

It’s not presented as something the writer does himself, which weakens it as a global Christian teaching imo.

Why is the only possible partnership to create spirits seen as husband and wife? It’s not apparently needed in anything else, at least in the sense we need to know about it. It makes sense to me both male and female are needed (assuming doctrine is correct and that is how eternally speaking sexual identity falls into categories) when both sexes are being created if part of creation requires the sharing of some personal element, which idea I am very fond of (literally giving a part of yourself to your children to carry with them as an eternal bond), but not necessarily marriage depending on what being parents actually mean in a community of Gods (and gods?) that are one.

The first link….why would you call an anonymous someone online an expert? Dan Fefferman, the third link, has a Master’s of Divinity, but says nothing about what training he has in Biblical Hebrew. Middle link is the most credible.

Out of likely over a dozen or so, I don’t think I have seen an episode that wasn’t cranked up and overly enthusiastic about the ‘latest’ finds (most of the new stuff is new, some wasn’t) and trash talking critics. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there, I have only seen a small percentage after all.

Not for me. They are all too cranked up. And they come across to me as it’s not the understanding of new truth that is most important to them (though it is conveyed as very important by their dropped jaws and gosh gollies variations), but being able to be in your face “you are wrong, you lying sob critic!!!” I love the info and I want to hear and see more, but in a thorough step by step fashion that identifies all the controversial parts, traces provenance (who said what when) and compares the possibly corrected versions to what Brigham said around the same time or later to demonstrate it was consistent to him. The guest throwing out 1940s before Adam-God took hold, blaming it on missionaries spending their time scouring the JoD and then mission presidents and then dumping the alleged (that’s from me, not them) acceptance of Brigham teaching it on middle management while prophets and apostles not only instantly denied it, but didn’t even buy that it was from Brigham (use of a cautious “allegedly”)…it’s too conspiracy theory vibe for me, ignores a lot of the scholarly discussion over the decades, imo. Orson Pratt was disciplined for something. What did he reject that got him in trouble with Brigham? There was no mention of that episode either. In fact, iirc, they claimed there was no controversy or push back while Brigham was saying these things, which is bunk as far as I know. Again…driven to check myself… https://www.dialoguejournal.com/articles/the-orson-pratt-brigham-young-controversies-conflict-within-the-quorums-1853-to-1868/ So far nothing where Adam is Elohim. Couldn’t finish it, if anyone can point to specific censure for, would be helpful.

Did anyone else understand the guest to claim that Brigham frequently used not only “Father Adam” (which I think is likely) and “Son Adam” (meaning who we typically think,of as Adam)? If so, did they post a quote or a list of quotes because I don’t remember Brigham ever using “Son Adam”, though I haven’t studied him closely so could be very wrong. Lazy today and appealed to Chat, which says “Son Adam” was not from Brigham, but fundamentalist groups. Also its timing on the “Adam is a title” apologetic, which I see as pretty well demonstrated generally speaking, whether or not it explains Brigham’s usage (I think it does in many cases, need to refresh my memory and compare documentation to their claims before going most or all): Eldon Watson was the past expert on Adam-God. Anyone know anyone besides this guest whose name I didn’t register who is digging deep into it now?

First off, the guy’s disdain of scholars is a massive red flag. LDS scholars are biased against finding a more palatable version? As if they (in general) haven’t been trying for as long as I remember. Second, why is he using the word “corrupted” for what are apparently publishing mistakes, misreading “or” as “our”, accidentally choosing the wrong punctuation? He certainly likes his drama, but it makes me more concerned about his precision. He’s blaming missionaries using the JoD as an authority for the idea? I think he’s right there are 5 (maybe even more) parts to or versions as he calls them to the A-G theory. His list is 1) Adam and Eve were resurrected beings, 2) Adam was father of Jesus, 3) one eternal round (everyone will get their opportunity to be Adam and Eve)…4 and 5? I assume Adam/Michael is God the Father, Jesus prays to Adam…he confirms this, but never says what he sees as 5. Any guesses?

Same here, just too eager to see things fit in their current world view (like the automatic assumption the Church issued a correction because they were worried about critics rather than members going off the rails when to me it seems much more common that members are driving such things).

My grandmother is probably rolling over in her grave.