Does the LDS Church "cover up" its past?

[Lachoneus]

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

Yes.

Consiglieri begins his list of cherry-picked quotes with these words:

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.

Unfortunately, consiglieri does not bother to provide direct references for any of his 22 quotes (although he does give a few dates). For those who are interested, the reference for the first quote is 22 The Deseret News (#20) 308-309,

[consiglieri]

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?

I disagree with why me on this. I do not believe it was ever a standard to have the 26-volume Journal of Discourses in one's home, and certainly not to actually read them.

But now they are available for free on-line!

Collected are sermons from various general authorities (not just Brigham Young), but Volume 1, pp. 50-51 contains one of his most oft-quoted references to the Adam-God Theory, if you want to check it out in the accompanying link.

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-01/

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Simply saying that Brigham Young said

[consiglieri]

Now, if the exalted Michael is

[semlogo]

Pahoran is making this way too difficult. It's obvious that Brigham Young was teaching that Adam was our God. You're right, consig.

Here is the only apologetic answer necessary: Brigham got it wrong. He made a mistake.

There, that wasn't so hard.

[Calm]

I disagree with why me on this. I do not believe it was ever a standard to have the 26-volume Journal of Discourses in one's home, and certainly not to actually read them.

But now they are available for free on-line!

Collected are sermons from various general authorities (not just Brigham Young), but Volume 1, pp. 50-51 contains one of his most oft-quoted references to the Adam-God Theory, if you want to check it out in the accompanying link.

http://www.journalof....org/volume-01/

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

My parents had it and actually read it, at least my mom. I now have the set and would crack it open myself save I'm afraid of cracking the spines. It would have been a significant investment to have it for most families. My parents also had the Church History by BH Roberts, several Nibley's works, Skousen's Thousand Year Series (read it when I was ten and laughed at how he dated everything so perfectly) and quite a few other books, but neither of my grandparents had these volumes (Grandma did have Evidences and Reconcilations, Science of Theology and a number of other church volumes though so between the two I have a nice collection.)

[why me]

I disagree with why me on this. I do not believe it was ever a standard to have the 26-volume Journal of Discourses in one's home, and certainly not to actually read them.

But now they are available for free on-line!

Collected are sermons from various general authorities (not just Brigham Young), but Volume 1, pp. 50-51 contains one of his most oft-quoted references to the Adam-God Theory, if you want to check it out in the accompanying link.

http://www.journalofdiscourses.org/volume-01/

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Actually, they were rather standard in a lds library. But not just these discourse, the discourses of other church leaders also. I don't think that many people took them all that seriously, especially the discourses of BY. But it was interesting to read what was said back then.

Also, we need to remember the history of the discourses of BY. The discourses are not exactly the exact words of BY. It is reported or from notes of others.

Here is what fair says about the lds church hiding its history:

The bind that critics find themselves in is that they want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to use sources written or derived from faithful Mormons and LDS Church leaders in order to maximize the shock value of what they present; but they also can't resist the "the Church hides and/or manipulates its history" claim.

In this case, the two approaches run at cross-purposes, and cancel each other out

[why me]

My parents had it and actually read it, at least my mom. I now have the set and would crack it open myself save I'm afraid of cracking the spines. It would have been a significant investment to have it for most families. My parents also had the Church History by BH Roberts, several Nibley's works, Skousen's Thousand Year Series (read it when I was ten and laughed at how he dated everything so perfectly) and quite a few other books, but neither of my grandparents had these volumes (Grandma did have Evidences and Reconcilations, Science of Theology and a number of other church volumes though so between the two I have a nice collection.)

And you prove my point. But this is consig just can't seem to get it. I remember the 1970's very well when most members that I visited would have the journals. They were standard to have in one's library. And they were actively sold and the people who can afford them would by them. Nothing was hidden. But the critics now attempt to make a lot of hay out of the *lds church hides its history* mantra as they attempt to lead people out of the church or attempt to prevent well meaning seekers not to seek out the lds church.

But I don't think that consig is with it these days. He seems to repeat the critica mantra as a question.

[why me]

Pahoran is making this way too difficult. It's obvious that Brigham Young was teaching that Adam was our God. You're right, consig.

Here is the only apologetic answer necessary: Brigham got it wrong. He made a mistake.

There, that wasn't so hard.

Not exctly. BY was a frontier man who was quick with his lips. But then, most GAs were that way back then. They spoke and said what they thought. It was an interesting time back then to be a mormon. It must have been exciting to be in Utah with these men and women who suffered persecution. Much was happening as we can see in the Discourses of the GAs.

But I never took what they said too seriously. I knew the context and the atmosphere. And I also knew that such 'statements' were not included in the D & C and that said much. Now if these statements were included in the d and c I think that we may have a problem. But they weren't and for good reason. They also were not said for inclusion in a book. And that says much too.

[why me]

Why would you think that?

I have known him for a long time on the boards. And his change of attitude can be dated to when he was released. He was very disappointed. But since he was the GD teacher for four years I do believe a change was necessary. It is tough to have the same teacher for a new cycle. What can a teacher say who has taught the new testament say again to a class that will be studying the new testament again? Good to have new blood and new perspectives.

[why me]

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.

To have the discourses in one's library was mainly for reference. I don't think that people would sit down and read them all from cover to cover. Many were reading the more current thoughts of the GAs put out by dessert books. This is what I meant.

Here is how it worked: Many would have a good lds library for reading and reference. When a member would give a talk, he or she may recite from this or that book in the library. But I really don't remember any members referencing the discourses for history or for shock value. I think that members understood the context of the discourses and what they were. Not doctrine but GAs making observations and opinions.

To my understanding when BY would give a talk, his words or comments were not mainly said for a book. And the discourses are a reflection of this. BY did not edited his discourses for flaws and mistakes when they were to be published for the saints in england. And this did create a problem when they were published.

But maybe I am mistaken in my understanding.

[why me]

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.

Okay, here is a site that may explain my viewpoint a little more. I think that it captures just how members viewed the discourses.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/seer_jd.htm

I hope that you and consig read it. It is only one page. Please read the article by Jones.

[why me]

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.

Okay, here is a site that may explain my viewpoint a little more. I think that it captures just how members viewed the discourses.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/seer_jd.htm

I hope that you and consig read it. It is only one page. Also, Jones wrote what he wrote inside a book that was published by Desseret books.

[Jeff K.]

Critics are great athletes. They leap all the time. Often making what we might call giant leaps. If you don't teach it and emphasise it, you must be hiding it. If its mentioned by a prophet or apostle, it must be doctrine, if a prophet or apostle doesn't mention it in conference, then either the doctrine changed, or you are hiding it again.

Giant leaps.

In some ways, people who at one time had the reputation of being faithful, or rather highly educated and erudite in the gospel, and then later becoming what some kind call a leading critic of it, remind me of Sidney Rigdon. As if there were some kind of perceived betrayal and so they must act with an emphasis on the unexplained that can be twisted or reflected to mean something sinister. It is unfortunate because it means that for them, it was never really about the church, but about their ego in the church. They may get off the train, but the church continues to move forward.

[semlogo]

Not exctly. BY was a frontier man who was quick with his lips. But then, most GAs were that way back then. They spoke and said what they thought. It was an interesting time back then to be a mormon. It must have been exciting to be in Utah with these men and women who suffered persecution. Much was happening as we can see in the Discourses of the GAs.

But I never took what they said too seriously. I knew the context and the atmosphere. And I also knew that such 'statements' were not included in the D & C and that said much. Now if these statements were included in the d and c I think that we may have a problem. But they weren't and for good reason. They also were not said for inclusion in a book. And that says much too.

Sure. I didn't say it was on solid ground, but BY did teach it. And I understand it was in the temple ceremony for a while.

[David T]

Actually, they were rather standard in a lds library. But not just these discourse, the discourses of other church leaders also. I don't think that many people took them all that seriously, especially the discourses of BY. But it was interesting to read what was said back then.

Also, we need to remember the history of the discourses of BY. The discourses are not exactly the exact words of BY. It is reported or from notes of others.

So we're clear, there is a difference between 'The Journal of Discourses' and 'The Discourses of Brigham Young'. The JoD is a 26-volume set including many, many sermons that are of other Church Leaders, and not Brigham Young - most of which were recorded by George Watt. The DBY selects a brief number of passages from BYs sermons from the JOD, and arranges them Thematically. It was prepared by John Widstoe. I have seen far more members with this in their libraries than the 26-volume monstrosity of the JoD.

[consiglieri]

My parents had it and actually read it, at least my mom. I now have the set and would crack it open myself save I'm afraid of cracking the spines. It would have been a significant investment to have it for most families. My parents also had the Church History by BH Roberts, several Nibley's works, Skousen's Thousand Year Series (read it when I was ten and laughed at how he dated everything so perfectly) and quite a few other books, but neither of my grandparents had these volumes (Grandma did have Evidences and Reconcilations, Science of Theology and a number of other church volumes though so between the two I have a nice collection.)

It sounds like you had some awesome parents, Cal!

[consiglieri]

The critics use the discourses for shock value

Is it possible to use the discourses as merely a means of finding the truth?

[consiglieri]

What can a teacher say who has taught the new testament say again to a class that will be studying the new testament again?

Well, considering I prepared about three-hours worth of material for every 40-minute class, I would expect the answer to your question in this case would be, "An awful lot!"

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[why me]

So we're clear, there is a difference between 'The Journal of Discourses' and 'The Discourses of Brigham Young'. The JoD is a 26-volume set including many, many sermons that are of other Church Leaders, and not Brigham Young - most of which were recorded by George Watt. The DBY selects a brief number of passages from BYs sermons from the JOD, and arranges them Thematically. It was prepared by John Widstoe. I have seen far more members with this in their libraries than the 26-volume monstrosity of the JoD.

Also, there are discourses of other church leaders in separate volumes. All published by the lds church. Nothing is hidden. My point was simple: members had these books in their libraries. Nothing was hidden. People scanned them and no one to my recollection received a shock and awe experience about what was said in those books. But today with the internet, anyone can claim anything and attempt to get away with it. It becomes a shock experience because the posts or websites attempt to create such an experience.

Thus, consig is wrong in claiming that the lds church covered up its past.

[why me]

Well, considering I prepared about three-hours worth of material for every 40-minute class, I would expect the answer to your question in this case would be, "An awful lot!"

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I know that you were hurt by the experience. And you are not alone in this experience. I have seen members who were so into their callings that when they are released they go into some kind of withdrawal. And in your case, it was enhanced by a feeling of hurt because you were released by what you considered a 'silencing' method.

In the lds church callings come and go. That is the way it has always been. Local ward callings do not last a lifetime.

[why me]

Sure. I didn't say it was on solid ground, but BY did teach it. And I understand it was in the temple ceremony for a while.

It really doesn't matter if he taught it or not. What he said is in the books that were published by the lds church. Nothing is hidden. And that is the point. Now we can all debate if he taught it or if it were ever doctrine. But it is certainly not hidden.

What is amazing is that people like yourself expect every manual to have something about adam-god etc. Or some other tidbit in the discourses of GAs. But really, it doesn't make any sense. If one wants to read about it, one can go to the books that were published by the lds church. They are certainly in the BYU library for all to read.

[why me]

It sounds like you had some awesome parents, Cal!

Since many members had such books in their libraries most did not consider them to be too special. Just normal lds parents and grandparents with a good collection of church books. Most old timers have good books that may not be published anymore. Nothing was hidden.

Now whether such books should be published again is a business decision. Would anyone buy them now? And I am sure that some of the books are still published in new editions.

[Deborah]

Sure. I didn't say it was on solid ground, but BY did teach it. And I understand it was in the temple ceremony for a while.

??? You understand or you know? I think your understanding is off.

I recall when I was a young convert that many LDS families had the JOD on their shelves. Right out in the open for anyone to read if they were so inclined. I always wished I had them. Now many of the things contained in them are included in other books. Yes, the church has truly hidden it's history. Shame on them.

[semlogo]

It really doesn't matter if he taught it or not. What he said is in the books that were published by the lds church. Nothing is hidden. And that is the point. Now we can all debate if he taught it or if it were ever doctrine. But it is certainly not hidden.

What is amazing is that people like yourself expect every manual to have something about adam-god etc. Or some other tidbit in the discourses of GAs. But really, it doesn't make any sense. If one wants to read about it, one can go to the books that were published by the lds church. They are certainly in the BYU library for all to read.

I never claimed that the church hid it. Nor do I expect the church to put it in the manual since it's false doctrine. Don't put words in my mouth.

Now some of the people on this board are another matter. They're definitely trying to cover it up.