Does the LDS Church "cover up" its past?

[Loran Howard Blood]

I believe the answer to this question is an unqualified, "Yes."

For purposes of this thread, I take as a case-in-point Brigham Young's teachings on Adam and God.

Brigham Young taught that Adam is God (not Elohim, but a fully exalted God beneath Elohim) and that Adam is the father of our spirits.

The fact that Brigham Young taught this principle on a host of occasions in a plethora of venues is "covered up" by the LDS Church.

It is officially denied that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing.

And when it turns out upon further investigation that Brigham Young actually did teach it, the official denial turns into an official explanation that he was misquoted.

When it turns out Brigham Young was not misquoted, the official explanation shifts to his being misinterpreted.

When it turns out he was not misinterpreted, the official explanations peter out, unless it is to say that Brigham Young was wrong. (Here I am thinking of a certain letter by Elder McConkie.)

But it is a rare thing for the average Mormon to go past the first official denial that it was ever taught. Hence the "cover-up" serves its purpose of dissuading the average Mormon from getting to any of the other stages.

Any comments on this rather obvious attempt of the LDS Church to cover up its past?

Any thoughts as to why this should be the case?

Any other examples are welcome.

For the record, I am not saying this practice is necessarily an "evil" thing, nor am I saying it is confined to the LDS Church.

But I think we go a long way in coming to grips with reality when we recognize and accept that such is the case.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I see the trajectory out of the Church and gospel from "graduate gospel doctrine class" teacher to full fledged Darling of the Signature Books in-crowd is moving forward at an appreciable clip.

Must it be this way?

[Loran Howard Blood]

...hyper conservative neoorthodoxy...

What the??

[Loran Howard Blood]

Adam Sr./ Adam Jr is poor long-after-the-fact Apologetic construct, and you yourself have said the 'Plain reading' of Brigham's statements can't mean what they actually say or what all Brigham's associates who we have on record discussing (and disagreeing with or agreeing with) his teaching thought they said, because one needs to begin with the assumption that Brigham Young would never disregard or supersede common scriptural texts or doctrines - something which he very specifically did publicly in his sermons.

Did the parables of Jesus "mean what they actually say" depending upon the perceptive sensitivity and spiritual openness of the perceiver? What does much of the symbolism in the vision of Ezekiel, or the Revelation of John "mean"?

[rockslider]

I see the trajectory out of the Church and gospel from "graduate gospel doctrine class" teacher to full fledged Darling of the Signature Books in-crowd is moving forward at an appreciable clip.

Must it be this way?

As the apologetic crowd gives you that added hand-up, um I mean push-out.

What a sad cycle of bad blood - all ways around.

Consig, If you are struggling at all - walk away

[Loran Howard Blood]

LDS leaders used to always be free to give their views and thoughts, some of which didn't necessarily have a scriptural basis, but was personally inspired, though indeed usually from the scriptures. But today, only actual "doctrine" is encouraged to be taught so we know for a certainty what is and isn't doctrine, compared to speculation. In other words, the Church has essentially learned it's lesson so as to not give anti-mormons fodder.

This is a very important point to bring out, because of the degree to which our culture has changed over the last half century or so. While I was at the FAIR conference last August, I spent some time in Salt Lake City at a really massive bookstore down there (forget the name at the moment) and picked up some old Melchizedek Priesthood manuals from the mid-sixties era. I was utterly flabbergasted by the difference in prose and writing style in those manuals over against what the Church has brought out since roughly the mid-seventies or so, but even more over the last 20 years.

The modern priesthood manuals, like the Gospel Principles manual I teach the Gospel Essentials class out of ever third or fourth week, as good as they are in doing their basic job (teaching core doctrinal concepts in a plain, easily understood manner) is written at about a seventh or eighth grade reading level. The manuals I brought home that date from the 1965-1967 time frame, contain a number of examples of really mature, creative prose, a fluid, more intellectually challenging style, and some actual creative literary gems from the writers themselves. This is nowhere to be found in modern Church manuals (if you really want to see some real philosophical depth in a Church manual of a kind that would be unthinkable today, see The Gospel in the Service of Man, the Sunday School manual for the 1966 teaching year, which is a smattering of the writings of John A. Widtsoe.)

A part of this is probably, truth be told, the Church's response to the ever decreasing attention spans and patience for any kind of serious literary complexity or intellectual spaciousness, even for a half an hour on Sunday, that has come to define so much of our culture and, in part, reflects the collapse of our public education system. Beyond this however, and directly relevant to Obiwan's point as it relates to Consig, is that any attempt at philosophical depth or complexity seems, for many people, to produce confusion, consternation, intellectual distress and, as the continuing journey of consig makes clear, creates an opening through which to crawl when the rigors of discipleship come to be perceived as to constricting.

Many of us, its seems, cannot handle nuance or depth, while too many of those who can seem to use those gifts as a crowbar to pry open any perceived hairline fractures in the "whole armor of God."

Is there a "middle path" here?

[Loran Howard Blood]

As the apologetic crowd gives you that added hand-up, um I mean push-out.

I'm doing nothing but making an observation. There is a pattern at work here that many in the "apologetic crowed" have seen many times before, sometimes in their own personal lives.

It was consig who, according to him at least, turned his gospel doctrine classes into his own personal intellectual ego trip quite sometime ago. Is it, therefore, mysterious that he turns up now talking like Sandra Tanner or a typical Signature Books author (in any given year)?

[Loran Howard Blood]

We denounce [the Adam

[rockslider]

Ahh yes, "The Gospel according to Bruce" as some old timers used to call it. One of the "great minds" I mentioned earlier, once shared with me how BRM stood toe to toe with him, yelling in a very loud voice right in his face about this very topic. He lost his job and almost his membership in the church over the likes of it.

Likely second only to BHR in his knowledge of the teachings of Joseph Smith via his many years in the archives. While you were in that bookstore digging through old books, you may have come across some of his, written in the mid 50's to early 60's as a result of his Doctorate dissertation studies of JS with emphasis on the Nauvoo period. Your description of some of the works you saw from that era fit.

Well, anyway ... It's nearly all sweep under the rug now. Another generation, after those of us with a testimony of it have died off, and all will be well.

The fun part about it all is that correction finally retired BRM's bible as well. Yep another generation or two and nothing but Nom's, cafeteria's and corrected members will be left.

[Calm]

The manuals I brought home that date from the 1965-1967 time frame, contain a number of examples of really mature, creative prose, a fluid, more intellectually challenging style, and some actual creative literary gems from the writers themselves.

What percentage of the Church at the time was BIC as opposed to convert and then percentages in comparison for Utah, the US and then international?

[Deborah]

What percentage of the Church at the time was BIC as opposed to convert and then percentages in comparison for Utah, the US and then international?

This is an important point as to why the manuals may be more basic. We are dealing with a worldwide church and people at many different levels of learning. Fortunately for the more advanced students there are places to go for additional studies. But I don't think it proper for those who are devouring meat to push their diet on those who are still only on milk diets. Let them learn at their own paces and ask questions and want to study more on their own.

I do think however, the point about short attention spans in a twitter age is valid. Years ago all we had were our books and so people loved to read and study. Now we live in a world of soundbites and that is how people seem to want their information.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Like what you are doing here Pastor?

Pastor?

I am just a run-of-the-mill Adult Sunday School teacher in our Branch.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Did the "Church Of Christ Restored" teach you that?

Is sarcasm lost on you?

You are the one telling us we need to just fall in line with what the church says. The men I mentioned didn't.

- Lehi "rebelled" against the church leaders in Jerusalem

- Alma "reblled" against the church leaders in Nephi.

- Jesus "rebelled" against the High Priests and Pharisees (church leaders) in Jerusalem.

** Righteous men in scripture seem to be pre-disposed to "rebelling" against the religious ruling class.

[semlogo]

Did the parables of Jesus "mean what they actually say" depending upon the perceptive sensitivity and spiritual openness of the perceiver? What does much of the symbolism in the vision of Ezekiel, or the Revelation of John "mean"?

There are certain contextual clues the tell us that Jesus' parables were parables. These don't exist for Adam/God.

From FAIR:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

* Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.

* Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.

* Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.

* Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.[2]

[consiglieri]

I've shown that you can only argue a "cover-up" if you define "cover-up" to mean "anything less than complete agreement with Consiglieri."

Of course you've shown no such thing. But dream on, Pahoran, baby.

You are perfectly aware that Elder McConkie preached one thing about the Adam-God Theory pubicly, but said something entirely different in private correspondence.

And yet you want to say there is no cover-up.

To each his own, I suppose.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Your few one-or-two-line posts being as trite and wholly void of substance as they are, I'm surprised you've room to be embarrassed for anyone other than yourself.

I think I'm in love.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps BOML should follow your example in formulating a substantive contribution to the thread?

Neither could do any worse than you have so far.

[semlogo]

semlogo:

I became aware of and then carefully read all about Brigham Young's so-called "Adam/God" teachings long before I ever heard about or read about any "alternative theories" as to what BY meant. My first impression, after reading the available reference materials, was that Brigham's teachings were anything but "crystal clear". Not only that, but I didn't draw the same conclusions from my reading as have various critics of the church. I'm still not so confident that I would write an essay that attempted to explain exactly what Brigham Young was trying to say, but I do think that Lachoneus(sp?) is pretty close to the mark with his

'>earlier post

on the topic. If BY had been trying to express the concept that he is accused of by many people, then he repeatedly contradicted himself in other addresses given over the years, all during the period of time when he spoke about the Adam/God stuff. That leads me to conclude that he has definitely been misunderstood and that any explanation of what he really meant has to account for the rest of his teachings that overlap the Adam/God subject area. The common interpretation of his words concerning Adam as a God cannot account for the entirety of his teachings concerning the Godhead, God the Father, Jesus Christ, Michael/Adam, etc.

Edited to add link to Lachoneus' earlier post.

Joseph Smith's teaching that God used to be a man contradicted some of his earlier beliefs that he carried over from protestantism. That doesn't mean we don't understand what he was talking about.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God

Based on these remarks, and others he made in public and in private, it is apparent that Brigham Young believed that:

* Adam was the father of the spirits of mankind, as well as being the first parent of our physical bodies.

* Adam and Eve came to this earth as resurrected, exalted personages.

* Adam and Eve fell and became mortal in order to create physical bodies for their spirit children.

* Adam was the spiritual and physical father of Jesus Christ.[2]

Is FAIR "accusing" BY too?

[consiglieri]

Consig, I posted for you. If, after your studies of this, you found some enlightenment, don't be ashamed of it, but don't bother posting about it, you will only be ridiculed.

I can assure you that some of the greatest minds and men I knew, who had dedicated their lives to the Temple, understood this as doctrine and as exactly what the endowment was presenting

[Deborah]

And yet you want to say there is no cover-up.

I fail to see how discussing something different in private, if that is the case, is a cover-up. I had a friend in Lincoln who discussed esoteric things with me but not most people. He was very, very knowledgeable but understood some people just aren't ready for more and knew I enjoyed the discussions. I do not consider that a cover-up but wisdom and tact.

[consiglieri]

I guess if Consig is an "anti-Mormon", I am too--although I was in the temple a week ago and even do my home teaching.

People of Anti-Mormon Mormon, unite!

[semlogo]

Pahoran absolutely destroyed Consig. No worries Consig, I will be embarrassed for you.

Is it wrong to enjoy someone being exposed for who they really are?

That's inaccurate, and worse, immature. This is a friendly discussion, not Dungeons and Dragons.

[consiglieri]

Riddle me this:

Why are those who have left the Church (self admitted) and apostates (self admitted) so fascinated by the so called A-G theory? It is only brought up by those looking in yet feel they have the "sacred" duty to define our doctrines.

I am an active and observant Mormon who is fascinated with the Adam-God Theory, mainly because it was clearly and repeatedly taught by the second president and prophet of the LDS Church.

Hope that doesn't damage your paradigm too much.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

We believed this, and sought it as if a quest, knowing that it was going to be a very long an perilous journey, As any who had sought it, were always brought deeply into the depths of hell before achieving it.

Indeed.

Like the descent into Egypt in search of the pearl guarded by the dragon.

[consiglieri]

You are right, I have no respect for false doctrines and those who stand in the large and spacious building while trying to "correct" what they see wrong within the Lord's Church. The same Church they left. Imagine that!

Well, if you want to talk about the large and spacious building, who is it pointing the finger and mocking . . . ?

[consiglieri]

This new church with all the fresh "meat" not tasty enough? Or is just easy to mock the Lord's Church?

And yes, I am fully guilty in mocking those who have left (etc..) and now are pointing their fingers while hiding behind their computers. I definitely have respect for those who can leave the Lord's Church and actually move on with their lives and enjoy it. You know, a life.

Sorry.

Didn't see you had actually posted an admission.