Does the LDS Church "cover up" its past?

[Duncan]

Are you starting to understand the "cover up"?

NO!!!! haha! to me, if there was a coveup we wouldn't even know that pres. young eve taught such a thing, because it would be covered up as in a cover up, meaning no one wants someone else to know that he he ever taught such a thing.

[ELF1024]

Here is the context--Church leadership felt too many of its members were being exposed to the fact that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Theory.

Denials were therefore in order.

Your turn . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

A number of years ago, back when I was attending then Rick's College (Now BYU Idaho) I purchased a book called "Evidences and Reconciliations" which included in it that Adam-God theory. Since I purchased it at the church run college bookstore, I would hardly call it a coverup.

In fact most things that people bring up as hidden have been hidden in the Ensign for all to see. That's more transparency that the Obama adminstration is giving...

ADDITONALLY:

Moses 1:33-34

33 And ^aworlds without number have I ^bcreated; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the ^cSon I ^dcreated them, which is mine ^eOnly Begotten.

34 And the ^afirst man of all men have I called ^bAdam, which is ^cmany.

I think it is prefectly reasonable that God the Father was an "Adam" on another world. However, I would agree with the current teachings of the Church that is it is not possible for God the Father / (Earth) Adam / Michael the ArchAngel to have been the same person.

[USU78]

The context is obvious, I would think.

Modern Church leaders have gone on record as denying the Adam-God Theory; Elder McConkie going so far as saying those who believe it "don't deserve to be saved."

Does this sound in any way like a "cover up" to you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Uh, no, it doesn't to me. Sounds more like a very public reminder [witness the ease of retrieval after this many years] to the 20th Century polygs, inside and outside the Church, and their useful idiots that Adam-G-d had long ago been rejected. You need to remember context my Cisalpine friend. The Church's agenda is not always what the Sunstonians think it is.

[SilverKnight]

With regard to polygamy, the LDS church unquestionably covers up its past.

I don't blame them either, it is an embarrassment they wish would just go away.

Since its been outlawed for 100 years, there is some justification in their attempts to distance themselves from it and sweep it under the rug.

[Pahoran]

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

Of course you do. Given your current ideological stance, what else could you believe?

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

Naturally. There's nothing like killing two birds with one stone, after all.

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.

Call for references, please. In what official publications, and under whose name, can I find these official denials?

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?

Yes. It's not the least bit obvious to me.

What is obvious to me is this: when one is completely hostile towards another person or institution, one tends to view all that person's, or institution's, acts through a lens of utmost suspicion.

Those who view the Church without complete hostility find that the phenomenon described can be explained in reasonable terms, and without recourse to paranoid conspiracy theories.

The fact is that -- contrary to what you have implied above -- Brigham Young's teachings about Adam were ambiguous; he did not teach one single consistent "doctrine." The one you have chosen as if it represented such a doctrine (it does not) is also anomalous: it is clearly contrary to canonical LDS doctrine.

A further fact is that, with the exception of a couple of passages in the Journal of Discourses, most of Brigham's teachings about Adam are rather obscure. Maniacal conspiracy theorists may fondly imagine to themselves a picture of the leaders of the Church carefully reading through those obscure sources and then even more carefully tucking them under their pillows at night; but that is not the case.

Thus, when the passage of time caused these anomalous and ambiguous statements to be forgotten -- entirely without anything that any normally functioning person would regard as a "cover-up" -- anti-Mormons who gleefully quote-mined those passages -- as you have here -- were given the short shrift they rightly deserved.

The only fair and reasonable assumption for anyone to make about the various explanations that were put forth is that the people offering them actually believed them to be true.

Only in the days of electronically searchable text -- something for which anti-Mormons cannot take credit -- have these passages become available to anyone; thus, the hysterical screams of "cover-up!!" are not only untrue, they are also extremely uncharitable. And therefore, of course, unChristian.

Any thoughts as to why this should be the case?

Any thoughts as to whether Consiglieri has stopped beating his wife? Any thoughts as to why people of a certain ideological persuasion can't help asking loaded questions?

Any other examples are welcome.

But not counterexamples. Got it.

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.

Of course you're not. You're saying it's an admirable thing, and that everybody does it, everywhere.

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

Actually I think we come much farther in coming to grips with reality when we recognise and accept that something else is the case.

You asked me a question in another forum. I have now revised my answer. In your own words, I say: I believe the answer to this question is an unqualified, "Yes."

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

You asked me a question in another forum. I have now revised my answer. In your own words, I say: I believe the answer to this question is an unqualified, "Yes."

Just so everybody here knows what you are talking about, Pahoran, the question in the other forum was whether you think I am an anti-Mormon.

Thank you for finally answering the question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

Just so everybody here knows what you are talking about, Pahoran, the question in the other forum was whether you think I am an anti-Mormon.

Thank you for finally answering the question.

You are misrepresenting the discussion. I already answered the question; I have now revised my answer.

And you have an unanswered CFR before you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

Consiglieri, why don't you spend your time in putting together some of those really amazing bullseye posts? Now that is something worth reading, rather rehashing stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with your salvation or mine.

He is not in a bull's eye mood. I think that when consig was released from his GD teacher calling it had a negative impact on his testimony. I do trace his rebellion to that release. But I could be wrong.

[why me]

The context is obvious, I would think.

Modern Church leaders have gone on record as denying the Adam-God Theory; Elder McConkie going so far as saying those who believe it "don't deserve to be saved."

Does this sound in any way like a "cover up" to you?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

But I don't see a cover up since it was discussed in the past for all to read.

[why me]

This is what I love about "cover ups" and conspiracy theories. Everyone knows about them so how can they be so secret.

Not to mention the fact that many members have the Journal of Discourses of BY. It was a standard to have the volumes in one's home library. No cover up there. However before the internet, most members did not really care what was in them or what BY said. It was only with the advent of the Internet that lds critics want to make hay about what BY believed or didn't believe.

[Senator]

I think that when consig was released from his GD teacher calling it had a negative impact on his testimony. I do trace his rebellion to that release. But I could be wrong.

Why would you think that?

[consiglieri]

You are misrepresenting the discussion. I already answered the question; I have now revised my answer.

And you have an unanswered CFR before you.

Regards,

Pahoran

I've previously answered the CFR earlier in this thread.

And if you think Brigham Young was inconsistent in his presentation of Adam-God, you should review the sources more carefully. He taught it repeatedly, publicly and consistently for 30-years.

The fact you are not aware of that only goes to show how effective the cover-up has been.

Perhaps you would like to come to the other board and defend your labeling of me as an anti-Mormon?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

I've previously answered the CFR earlier in this thread.

Where, please? I have reviewed the thread, and do not see it.

In what official publications, and under whose name, can I find these official denials? This is your CFR. A letter from a GA to an individual is not "official."

And if you think Brigham Young was inconsistent in his presentation of Adam-God, you should review the sources more carefully. He taught it repeatedly, publicly and consistently for 30-years.

Really?

His first recorded statement on the subject was in 1852. He died in 1877. I agree that one of us needs to "review the sources more carefully," but I don't think it's me.

Brigham's teachings on the subject are only "consistent" if you cherry-pick those that tell the same story.

The fact you are not aware of that only goes to show how effective the cover-up has been.

He said, smugly.

I understand you're a lawyer. The above is a rather typically unscrupulous lawyerly rhetorical trick.

Remind me to hire you if ever I'm guilty of something.

Perhaps you would like to come to the other board and defend your labeling of me as an anti-Mormon?

If I go back to that sty, it will be to discuss something that interests me.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

Brigham's teachings on the subject are only "consistent" if you cherry-pick those that tell the same story.

Step aside, Pahoran. I'm going to need a bit of elbow room . . .

_____________________________________________

1. The main premise of the Adam-God Theory is that Adam is our Father and God. In fact, this main premise is the only part of the Adam-God Theory that Brigham Young appears to have claimed as a result of direct revelation:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God.

Comment: It would appear from statements made by Brigham Young (to be considered presently) that the revelation that "Adam is our father and our God" means more specifically, (1) Adam had experienced mortality on another world in the past, had lived righteously there and had attained unto exaltation, thus qualifying himself (together with his companion Eve) to engage in the work of the gods--that of creation; (2) Adam then became the father of our spirits by begetting them in the premortal existence; and, (3) Adam, as the father of our spirits, created this world (under the direction of Jehovah and Elohim) and is the immediate god over this world--this earth is Adam's first creation, and so far his only creation.

2. Brigham Young taught that Adam and Eve were exalted beings (i.e., gods) when they came to earth:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.

Comment: Brigham Young states Adam came into Eden with a celestial body. This directly implies that Adam had received a glorified, celestial body of flesh and bone prior to his advent on this earth. This would presumably have occurred by his living righteously in mortality on another world and his subsequently receiving exaltation.

Brigham Young also says Adam "brought Eve, one of his wives, with him." If Eve were Adam's wife before they came to Eden, it is likely that this so because they were married by the priesthood on the former world where they both dwelt and from which they were both exalted.

3. He (Adam) is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

Comment: Brigham Young restates that part of the Adam-God Theory he claimed as revelation. He also adds the idea that Adam is "the only God with whom we have to do." This suggests not that there are no other gods beside Adam (this would contradict everything else Brigham Young ever said on the subject), but rather that Adam is the god who presides immediately over this earth, subject to the jurisdiction and authority of other gods, specifically Jehovah and Elohim.

4. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve.

Comment: Once again Brigham Young labels Adam ("the first of the human family") as "the Father."

He goes on to state that Adam's body ("tabernacle") was begotten by Adam's Father in heaven in the same manner as anyone else's in mortality. What does Brigham Young mean when he says that "Adam's body" was begotten by his (Adam's) "Father in Heaven"?

Possibly this: Adam's Father in Heaven did for him what Adam, who is our Father in heaven, did for us--namely, came to a world and commenced the propagation of the species in mortality. In other words, just as our "Father in heaven (Adam)" came to this world to "beget" all the physical bodies for his spirit children, even so Adam's "Father in heaven (Elohim?)" came to a previous world to "beget" all the physical bodies for his spirit children, among whom was Michael/Adam. This would explain why Brigham Young would say that Adam's body was begotten by Adam's Father in Heaven in the same sense that our physical tabernacles were begotten by Adam and Eve. Not that Adam's Father in heaven personally begot Adam's physical body, but that Adam's Father in heaven initiated the process by which Adam's body was begotten on a previous world, even as Adam did for us.

5. You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible: but it is not, to my understanding. . . . What is the reason I do not (believe Adam was created of the dust of the earth)? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

And again,

Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; . . . Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was made upon any other principle.

Comment: Brigham Young emphasized that Adam was not created literally from the dust of this earth, but that he was created the same way as anyone else. In the second of the two quotes above, he informs us that Adam was created not on this earth but on some other world. It is reasonable to suppose Brigham Young meant that Adam was born in mortality upon a previous earth, even as we were "made" upon this earth.

Further, a question is raised as to what is meant by the phrase, "created from the dust of the earth." It is apparent that the scriptures and Brigham Young used this phrase in much the same way--as a euphemism for being born naturally into mortality. That being "created from the dust of the earth" is a symbolic expression meaning mortal birth is indicated in the Book of Moses:

And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying . . . Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying: That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven. (Moses 6:59).

In this passage, the mortal birth ("by water, and blood, and the spirit") is equated with being created from "the dust of the earth."

Therefore, when the scriptures or Brigham Young say that Adam was created "of the dust of the earth" or "of the dust of an earth," we should not envision the sculpting of a life-size man-shaped clay figure. Both the scriptures and Brigham Young are instead apparently referring in symbolic language to the mortal birth we all undergo. Therefore, when Brigham Young says that "Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth," he is in effect saying that Adam was not born into mortality on this earth, but that he was born into mortality on another world prior to this one.

6. Some have grumbled because I believe our God so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know this doctrine to be true.

Comment: Brigham Young here restates his main thesis that Adam is our god and the immediate god over this planet and its inhabitants.

Further, this quote demonstrates the historical fact that Brigham Young's theory was not warmly welcomed by all members of the Church. Many, including general authorities and apostles such as Orson Pratt did indeed "grumble" about this teaching, which is doubtless at least partially responsible for its subsequent suppression, and the introduction in its place of the

[Pahoran]

Step aside, Pahoran. I'm going to need a bit of elbow room . . .

And you typed all of that in just 18 minutes? Either you're a fantastically fast typist, or you were cutting and pasting from somewhere. Where did you get this screed from?

Any questions?

Yes: when might we expect you to answer the CFR before you, instead of delivering canned sermons?

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

[Pahoran]

I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

I guess you will; I suppose you have to take your "wins" wherever you can find them.

In the meantime, it's a rule of the forum that you are expected to provide sources for cut-and-paste citations.

That's now two CFR's you've defaulted on, Consig.

Are you going to tell us your sources?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mudcat]

Not to mention the fact that many members have the Journal of Discourses of BY. It was a standard to have the volumes in one's home library. No cover up there. However before the internet, most members did not really care what was in them or what BY said. It was only with the advent of the Internet that lds critics want to make hay about what BY believed or didn't believe.

Bold mine. That is an interesting observation.

A standard of sorts to have something that you didn't really care a whit about. I dunno what to make of that. Why do you think that was?

As far as the critics "making hay" over the matter. Well, seems BY said it more than once. BY did lead the CoJCoLDS as it's Prophet. The CoJCoLDS seems to promote the notion that one should follow a/the Prophet.

If I take your post as factual. Then on some basis, the standard LDS person, must have had grounds to dismiss whatever BY said. I dunno what to make of that either.

Seems to me there was a standard to have the teachings of a Prophet of the CoJCoLDS that you were completely dismissive.

I don't get it really. I'm not trying to take you to task on the matter, but it certainly makes no sense to me.

I

[consiglieri]

I guess you will; I suppose you have to take your "wins" wherever you can find them.

In the meantime, it's a rule of the forum that you are expected to provide sources for cut-and-paste citations.

That's now two CFR's you've defaulted on, Consig.

Are you going to tell us your sources?

Regards,

Pahoran

Do let me know when you actually want to engage the issue at hand, Pahoran, instead of trying to change the subject.

Here is what I want you to answer:

Were you familiar with the 22 citations to Brigham Young I provided?

A simple yes or no will do.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

Do let me know when you actually want to engage the issue at hand, Pahoran, instead of trying to change the subject.

As you perfectly well know, Consig, I am engaging the issue at hand. As you perfectly well know, Consig, I am making no attempt at all to change the subject.

Here is what I want you to answer:

Were you familiar with the 22 citations to Brigham Young I provided?

A simple yes or no will do.

Not so fast there, Consig.

I asked my questions first; therefore, it is fair and reasonable to expect that I get to get my answers first. You don't get to impose conditions upon whether or not you will answer.

Here, for your convenience, are my still-unanswered questions:

1: What is the source of the long cut-and-paste screed found in post 89? The one that's approximately 25% Brigham and 75% editorial commentary intended to "help" readers interpret Brigham's words in the standard, canonical anti-Mormon way?

2: In what official sources can we read that "It is officially denied that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing?" Note that you made this bald, unqualified assertion right in the middle of your OP; pretending that I am "trying to change the subject" by questioning it is a barefaced falsehood.

I await your answers.

Not your obfuscations; not your distraction tactics; just your answers.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nomad]

I've also read alot about BY's Adam/God musings. I came away from my study of the issue convinced that BY was never saying what modern critics and apostates think he was saying. I grant that alot of what he said is kind of hard to understand. But I think he had a firm idea of what he was trying to say, and I don't think it was that the "Adam" portrayed in the temple endowment is or was "God the Father" as we understand it. In fact, I think I understand what BY was trying to get across, although I'm not interested in discussing the issue on an online message board. I think it's all a tempest in a teapot anyway. A nonissue.

[consiglieri]

I've also read alot about BY's Adam/God musings. I came away from my study of the issue convinced that BY was never saying what modern critics and apostates think he was saying. I grant that alot of what he said is kind of hard to understand. But I think he had a firm idea of what he was trying to say, and I don't think it was that the "Adam" portrayed in the temple endowment is or was "God the Father" as we understand it. In fact, I think I understand what BY was trying to get across, although I'm not interested in discussing the issue on an online message board. I think it's all a tempest in a teapot anyway. A nonissue.

During my first ten years in the Church, I too found it difficult to understand what Brigham Young was saying.

I came to realize that the fault was not Brigham Young's, but mine, because I was trying to make him say what modern Mormonism teaches.

Once I was able to be respectful enough to President Young to allow him to speak for himself, it immediately became crystal clear what he was saying; and what he was saying is something markedly different from what modern Mormonism teaches.

If the LDS Church agreed with you that it is a "tempest in a teapot," I think they would not be so reluctant to discuss the issue, or so eager to damn to hell anybody who has the temerity to believe what President Young taught.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SilverKnight]

Adam-God would be a non-issue (or at least a very minor issue) Brigham Young's successor Wilford Woodruff had not have said 'The Lord will never permit the prophet to lead the church astray'.

[consiglieri]

1: What is the source of the long cut-and-paste screed found in post 89? The one that's approximately 25% Brigham and 75% editorial commentary intended to "help" readers interpret Brigham's words in the standard, canonical anti-Mormon way?

2: In what official sources can we read that "It is officially denied that Brigham Young ever taught such a thing?" Note that you made this bald, unqualified assertion right in the middle of your OP; pretending that I am "trying to change the subject" by questioning it is a barefaced falsehood.

1. The source for the quotations is my own research into statements by Brigham Young from some 20-years ago. Now that you have your answer, what are you going to do with the content?

2. What official sources?

We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. 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, p. 77

Now, please be so kind as to answer my question:

Were you familiar with the 22 citations to Brigham Young I provided?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Pahoran]

1. The source for the quotations is my own research into statements by Brigham Young from some 20-years ago.

And that includes the editorialising? Was that from 20 years ago, too?

Now that you have your answer, what are you going to do with the content?

All in good time...

2. What official sources?

We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. 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, p. 77

Thank you. After all the ducking and weaving, you've finally come clean: President Kimball correctly points out a number 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." He names A-G as one of these.

Now, of course, to say that something is "alleged" to have happened is NOT a denial that it did. Rather, it takes no position as to whether it happened or not. Since President Kimball was talking about a set of statements, and since what someone said and what someone else thinks they meant are not necessarily the same thing, his use of the word "alleged" is exactly correct.

And your calling it a "denial" is false.

Now, please be so kind as to answer my question:

Were you familiar with the 22 citations to Brigham Young I provided?

You mean the 22 citations to only 17 actual statements?

Generally, yes.

Was I already familiar with the spin you were taking on them?

Of course. I've read the Tanners on this subject.

Regards,

Pahoran