Does the LDS Church "cover up" its past?

[semlogo]

??? 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.

FAIR confirms that it was:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_temples/Endowment/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22

[consiglieri]

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

Bingo!

Hence the title of this thread.

And by the way, I can think of few better ways of hiding something than sticking it here and there in over 26-volumes that nobody ever read anyway.

And then completing omitting it from the compilation of Brigham Young's teachings in Discourses of Brigham Young.

And then completely omitting it from the more recent Brigham Young edition of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church.

As a side-note, only a couple of Brigham's Adam-God statements are in the Journal of Discourses, anyway. Many were in newspapers and other forums, including the lecture at the veil in the temple endowment that has now been completely deleted.

The last vestige of it was the statement that the Creation account was "purely figurative so far as the man and the woman are concerned."

But that, too went by the wayside recently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

I haven't seen anyone attempting to cover anything up in this discussion. I have however seen people attempt to explain what was and was not pertinent.

[Deborah]

FAIR confirms that it was:

Interesting, but it appears it's still somewhat speculative. In any case it didn't last long. The presentation of the endowment has changed over time, even in my lifetime, but it doesn't change the endowment.

[semlogo]

Bingo!

Hence the title of this thread.

And by the way, I can think of few better ways of hiding something than sticking it here and there in over 26-volumes that nobody ever read anyway.

And then completing omitting it from the compilation of Brigham Young's teachings in Discourses of Brigham Young.

And then completely omitting it from the more recent Brigham Young edition of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church.

As a side-note, only a couple of Brigham's Adam-God statements are in the Journal of Discourses, anyway. Many were in newspapers and other forums, including the lecture at the veil in the temple endowment that has now been completely deleted.

The last vestige of it was the statement that the Creation account was "purely figurative so far as the man and the woman are concerned."

But that, too went by the wayside recently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I understand where you're coming from, but the object of lesson manuals is to teach true doctrine, not false doctrine. Wouldn't it be confusing to include doctrine the church now considers false in the manuals?

[semlogo]

I haven't seen anyone attempting to cover anything up in this discussion. I have however seen people attempt to explain what was and was not pertinent.

I don't know about that, but the evidence does not suggest he taught Adam-God but rather Adam Sr./Jr.

Here's one.

[Pahoran]

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

Anything is possible; but when has there ever been a "critic" of the Church who had the slightest interest in finding the truth?

Bingo!

Hence the title of this thread.

So when you gave "an unqualified 'yes'" to your own question of "Does the LDS Church 'cover up' its past," you were equating "the LDS Church" with "some of the people on this board." Is that it?

Thank you for demonstrating how your accusation relies upon mangling the English language with your private definition of "the LDS Church."

And by the way, I can think of few better ways of hiding something than sticking it here and there in over 26-volumes that nobody ever read anyway.

So, according to you, Brigham spaced his A-G remarks over a period of years so that they would be interspersed among other talks in a compilation published in England, and that way nobody would notice?

Thank you for demonstrating how your accusation relies upon the most absurdly paranoid conspiracy theory yet seen.

And then completing omitting it from the compilation of Brigham Young's teachings in Discourses of Brigham Young.

And then completely omitting it from the more recent Brigham Young edition of Teachings of the Presidents of the Church.

Because, of course, false doctrines that disappeared over a century ago are so completely relevant to the LDS life and teaching today; is that it?

Clearly, Consig, you don't understand the purpose of teaching manuals in the Church. After four years in a teaching calling, you still didn't understand it.

As a side-note, only a couple of Brigham's Adam-God statements are in the Journal of Discourses, anyway. Many were in newspapers and other forums, including the lecture at the veil in the temple endowment that has now been completely deleted.

The last vestige of it was the statement that the Creation account was <Temple content snipped>

No. It was not.

I'm not going to debate that point with you, Consig; the Temple is sacred to believing Latter-day Saints.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

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.

So your answer to the question in the title of the thread is "No." That's good to know.

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

Really? Who?

And how?

Here's one.

So you're telling us that an alternative theory is, in your view, a "cover-up."

That's a clever way of loading the dice; either we agree with Jerry, Sandy and you about how those remarks are to be interpreted, or we're trying to "cover up" something or other.

No room for honest differences of opinion in your universe, is there?

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

I'm not going to debate that point with you, Consig; the Temple is sacred to believing Latter-day Saints.

Was it sacred when the lecture at the veil taught the Adam-God Theory?

But back to my question which you still have not answered:

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

Why are you so loathe to give a simple yes or no?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Really? Who?

You.

And how?

Obfuscation.

[semlogo]

So your answer to the question in the title of the thread is "No." That's good to know.

Correct, so far as I know.

Really? Who?

And how?

So you're telling us that an alternative theory is, in your view, a "cover-up."

That's a clever way of loading the dice; either we agree with Jerry, Sandy and you about how those remarks are to be interpreted, or we're trying to "cover up" something or other.

No room for honest differences of opinion in your universe, is there?

Regards,

Pahoran

Yes, it's a form of cover-up. BY was crystal clear as to what he meant. Making up alternative theories out of thin air to hide what BY taught is a form of cover up.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well.... If anything this thread has been entertaining. Thanks to Consig and Pahoran.

[Pahoran]

Consig,

you jeered, showing your true attitude towards things the Latter-day Saints hold sacred:

Was it sacred when the lecture at the veil taught the Adam-God Theory?

It was always sacred. Did you really have to ask?

You then falsely asserted, as you have habitually done throughout this thread:

But back to my question which you still have not answered:

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

For my answer, which you falsely claim I did not give, I refer you to post #100 on this thread.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Yes, it's a form of cover-up. BY was crystal clear as to what he meant. Making up alternative theories out of thin air to hide what BY taught is a form of cover up.

You are attributing motives without evidence. Difficult as it is for you to grasp, it really is possible for people to genuinely hold different opinions than you do.

The asinumption that anyone with an alternative view has made it up "out of thin air to hide what BY taught" is unavailable on the evidence, and merely demonstrates your intolerance for opinions you don't share.

Regards,

Pahoran

[semlogo]

You are attributing motives without evidence. Difficult as it is for you to grasp, it really is possible for people to genuinely hold different opinions than you do.

The asinumption that anyone with an alternative view has made it up "out of thin air to hide what BY taught" is unavailable on the evidence, and merely demonstrates your intolerance for opinions you don't share.

Regards,

Pahoran

Fair enough. It doesn't seem that way to me, but I admit to not being a mind reader.

[Nomad]

semlogo:

BY was crystal clear as to what he meant. Making up alternative theories out of thin air to hide what BY taught is a form of cover up.

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.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, it's a form of cover-up. BY was crystal clear as to what he meant. Making up alternative theories out of thin air to hide what BY taught is a form of cover up.

That they are "making up alternative theories out of thin air" is your own jaundiced opinion -- one that reflects a remarkable degree of hubris. We're supposed to accept your view of things without question or challenge, and if we don't, we are guilty of cover up?

I have to say I am amazed.

It does, however, open a rather enlightening window into the critic's mindset as it pertains to things Mormon.

[Kevin Christensen]

"When it repudiates a paradigm, a scientific community simultaneously renounces, as a fit subject for professional scrutiny, most of the books and articles in which that paradigm had been embodied."? Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 167.

In the chapter from which I got the quote, Kuhn talks about how science histories routinely get rewritten in light of the current paradigm. Specifically, the rewriting is not of original historical documents, but of TEXTBOOK presentation. The point of the textbook is to bring students into the current paradigm. The text books are written in a mode of advocacy for the current paradigm. They are for institutional indoctrination. Frankly, Kuhn says, they are often inaccurate, depicting the progress of science and leading inevitably, brick by brick, to the edifice that is today's thought. And never mind impetus theory, phlogistons, and the ether. It's about training people to operate in an acceptable mode of thought for current practice.

However, the LDS community (to me, just as much "The Church" as some guy who got a job writing a manual or a calling to teach a class) also has extensive resources that write and publish in the mode of inquiry. I think it was Daniel Peterson and David Honey who are an interesting essay on on "Advocacy and Inquiry." To the extent that I am aware of the use the resources available for those involved in inquiry, I see the LDS community involved an epic, even herculean effort of un-coverup. Archives, books, CDs, now DVDs, conferences, etc.

The reason why I'm not fussed about "cover up" is because I've found that within the LDS community (and my definition of church, ekklesia, assembly) is directed more towards the assembly of people as such, rather than towards a leader or two, much less the notions of some low level, well-meaning bureaucrat. And I imagine the bureaucrat as probably of ISTJ temperament, oriented towards duty, responsibility, and tradition, (which actually are excellent qualities for a bureaucrat to have, President Hinkley being an excellent example. I'm occasionally irritated that some material does not think through the issue of preparing LDS students for what they can expect to encounter, being more concerned with setting out current basics. As a teacher, and at times, as part of a class, I point such things out. But whether I'm irritated or not, I don't generalize my irritation at a concept of "the Church" that ignores the wide interest among--and vast resources for--interested members. I've got a good half dozen articles on the Adam God business at my fingertips, from Van Hale, to Dialogue articles, to Eugene Seiach, to FAIR, plus my old InfoBase CDs, and probably much better ones since. And I loved teaching from the Brigham Young Priesthood manual. I think it was the best manual in decades, so much better than anything else I'd been given that I found it's flaws minor. Nothing in that book kept me from knowing about polygamy and Adam God. Nothing about it canceled out or negated the other sources I have. Growing up near Salt Lake City, I went on youth trips to the Lion House, and we watched Dean Jagger as Brigham Young with wives in two a half dozen times. I knew already. And I knew about Adam God already. And I just can't get excited about it. I don't have sock-puppet view of prophets.

It happens that of all my readings on Adam God, the most interesting and meaningful to me was the Dialogue essay on the decades long conflict between Young and Orson Pratt on that topic. And how they managed to work through and their differences and pride, and defend one another, and strive to build up Zion.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[semlogo]

That they are "making up alternative theories out of thin air" is your own jaundiced opinion -- one that reflects a remarkable degree of hubris. We're supposed to accept your view of things without question or challenge, and if we don't, we are guilty of cover up?

I have to say I am amazed.

It does, however, open a rather enlightening window into the critic's mindset as it pertains to things Mormon.

Whatever the motivation, certainly the theory is made up out of mid air.

I'm a believing member - I'm not not of the opinion that you have to engage in BS to defend the church. BY was wrong - he was human. End of story.

Do you always accuse people who disagree with you of being "critics"?

[consiglieri]

It was always sacred. Did you really have to ask?

Since you believe Brigham Young's lecture at the veil was sacred, does that mean you believe the Adam-God Theory?

For my answer, which you falsely claim I did not give, I refer you to post #100 on this thread.

By this, you must mean your admission that you were aware of these Brigham Young quotes before I gave them:

Generally, yes.

So, if you are aware of these Brigham Young quotes (as I figured you were), and yet you engage in endless obfuscation to avoid dealing with their substance, does it not follow that you are part of the cover-up, Pahoran?

Confession is good for the soul.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It does, however, open a rather enlightening window into the critic's mindset as it pertains to things Mormon.

It is remarkable how quickly the apologists turn on their own.

I'm sorry you had to see that, semlogo.

You are correct. Do not allow yourself to be bullied into submission.

Pahoran, Scott Lloyd and Nomad are the ones in error.

And those who do not kowtow to their erroneous position must be put in their place.

It doesn't make their position any more correct.

But it helps them to sleep at night, I suppose.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

It happens that of all my readings on Adam God, the most interesting and meaningful to me was the Dialogue essay on the decades long conflict between Young and Orson Pratt on that topic. And how they managed to work through and their differences and pride, and defend one another, and strive to build up Zion.

I think I'm getting a major league man crush on Kevin C.

[semlogo]

It is remarkable how quickly the apologists turn on their own.

I'm sorry you had to see that, semlogo.

You are correct. Do not allow yourself to be bullied into submission.

Pahoran, Scott Lloyd and Nomad are the ones in error.

And those who do not kowtow to their erroneous position must be put in their place.

It doesn't make their position any more correct.

But it helps them to sleep at night, I suppose.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Unfortunately there's a lot of cannibalism here among the faithful. I'm sure the anonymity of the internet encourages that sort of thing.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, if you are aware of these Brigham Young quotes (as I figured you were), and yet you engage in endless obfuscation to avoid dealing with their substance, does it not follow that you are part of the cover-up, Pahoran?

Confession is good for the soul.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

I am having a hard time figuring out this line. So if Pahoran knew about all 22 of these quotes, and lets say he does indeed obfuscates, how is that the "Church covering up it's past"?

The reality is that Pahoran new about them, that alone does not suggest a cover up. Now, if Pahoran indeed obfuscates then one might be able to claim that "Pahoran is covering up the churches past".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But it helps them to sleep at night, I suppose.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yes, that is the sole motivating factor in their cursade. It is that they will sleep better at night defending something they don't really believe.