Apologies...Again

[Ahab]

The A/G theory/doctrine that we have been discussing here

Don't you see how mahy people could have many ideas about what that theory and/or doctrine could be?

To be specific, I suggest you think about each idea separately, rather than thinking everybody will know what you're talking about as "the A/G theory" or "the A/G doctrine". There are at least some elements in all of those ideas that are true, evene though some might be false depending on what you're thinking about. Adam is our Father, for example, as the one who we all descended from on this planet. But Adam also has a Father and we can also refer to his Father as our Father too, even though some might feel more comfortable referring to his Father as our Grandfather (which is still a Father, btw).

Anyway, you're not being clear or specific, and I would appreciate it if you were.

[savedbygrace]

I actually tried to post something to the threads that ended up being locked mid-post. So, here is it again:

Jeremiah 20:7 (NIV) O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.

Jeremiah 4:10 (NIV) Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, 'You will have peace,' when the sword is at our throats."

Jeremiah 15:18 (NIV) Why is my pain unending and my wound grievous and incurable? Will you be to me like a deceptive brook, like a spring that fails?

Jeremiah thought of God as unreliable and capable of deception.

The Bible, however, also declares concerning God:

Titus 1:2 (NIV) a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

Did Jeremiah lie? Did Jeremiah teach false doctrine concerning the nature of God? What do you think?

Context is often important in determining just what someone really believed about something. Sometimes this context is very extensive. Sometimes it is completely unavailable. Did Brigham Young really believe what he taught (or, what we think he taught)? But, here is a little additional context for Brigham Young's teaching about Adam in relation to God--in case you are interested.

It is quotes like the one I just provided (and there are a number of them but I have no access to my notes to provide more at the moment) that led to Bruce R. McConkie saying what he did about Brigham Young contradicting Brigham Young.

There are two positions that have been taken up by many people who spend any great length of time researching this issue. One position is that Brigham Young was testing the Saints. Evidence for this position can be found in that President Young would make remarks of the falsest nature just to twit Orson Pratt and send him on a tirade. He even did this just before a Council meeting. And, all during this time he also issued warnings that he might teach false teachings so that the people might be damned unless they get the Spirit of the Lord in their lives so as to know the difference when he was teaching things that were true and things that were false.

Another position is that Brigham Young simply misunderstood something that Joseph Smith taught because of his own previous, religious traditions. Recall that traditional Christianity held to the idea that the person known as the Ancient of Days in the Bible was none other than God the Father (a view inherited in part from Judaism, adherents of which saw this as God). Along comes Joseph Smith identifying the Ancient of Days as Adam and obliquely referring to Adam as a god in a sense of organizational structure, and I can see why such an idea would take off for some, particularly under the influence of Heber C. Kimball, who (so far as I am aware) is the earliest person to have taught such an idea as was repeated by Brigham Young. Brigham Young also would jokingly refer to Kimball as his prophet from time to time.

This said, President Young never presented his ideas for doctrine and told the Saints that he "neither care[d] nor inquire[d] how" this is, and also stated to the Saints at other places that they should not concern themselves over it. That is not something that he would do if he intended the remarks to be believed and to become Church doctrine. I've been researching this issue for decades, have amassed several, large binders and folders full of information relative to this issue, and have yet to come to any solid conclusion about it. What I do know is that it never became doctrine of the Church.

Hello Mormonmason, thankyou for your reply.

I don't think that Jeremiah believed that God is a deceiver even though he accused God of this in a moment of despair, much the same as you or I might if some calamity happened in our life, might we not feel that we didn't deserve it. In Jer Ch 1 V 8 God says 'Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, this was at the beginning when Jeremiah was commissioned and was reluctant, being so young. Again God says, V 18 ' And I for my part I ahve made you a fortified city, an iron pillar,a bronze wall, against the whole land - against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests and the people of the land. 19 They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you says the Lord to deliver you'

However Jeremiah found himself being beaten,abused and threatened with death over years, without even being allowed the comfort of a wife and family. So if he cried out against God in his unhappiness who could blame him? But he still continued to prohesy for 40 years, so God was faithful, there is no deception in God, he does not lie, he did sustain the prophet so that his word was accomplished. The fact that Jeremiah felt forsaken is understandable, as did our Lord Jesus on the cross, but we know that the Father had not forsaken him as he was fulfilling his divine purpose.

[savedbygrace]

this has been an interesting discussion which has shown that there is no agreement even amongst those faithful mormons who have engaged in the discussion. I am not now LDS, I left the church many years ago, but Adam/God was not one of the reasons for my leaving, in fact I did not know of it until I was well on my way out. By then it was just another confirmation for me that mormonism isn't what it claims to be. There are those on here who honestly believe, based upon the writings of BY and his contemporaries that he did teach the doctrine clearly and unambiguously to the church, and it would seem that it was accepted. The convoluted thoughts of Ahab and Mormonmason needed to justify and make acceptable this doctrine to themselves, are not at all convincing even to those other faithful mormons who have taken part. Did BY teach it as written: Yes undoubtedly. Is it a false doctrine Yes. Is it condemned as such by church authorities: Yes. Did BY lie, probably not in his mind, as a supposed prophet he was teaching what he believed to be the revealed truth. Is it the truth: No Is he a false prophet, well that is your problem to decide yes or no, but I don't think this doctrine is going to go away, and it will continue to be one of many reasons why people leave the church, or, in this day and age of technology and online resources, why many people will not join the church. So I suppose that is where it has to be left, thanks to everyone.

Edited March 15, 2013 by savedbygrace

[Brian 2.0]

this has been an interesting discussion which has shown that there is no agreement even amongst those faithful mormons who have engaged in the discussion. I am not now LDS, I left the church many years ago, but Adam/God was not one of the reasons for my leaving, in fact I did not know of it until I was well on my way out. By then it was just another confirmation for me that mormonism isn't what it claims to be. There are those on here who honestly believe, based upon the writings of BY and his contemporaries that he did teach the doctrine clearly and unambiguously to the church, and it would seem that it was accepted. The convoluted thoughts of Ahab and Mormonmason needed to justify and make acceptable this doctrine to themselves, are not at all convincing even to those other faithful mormons who have taken part. Did BY teach it as written: Yes undoubtedly. Is it a false doctrine Yes. Is it condemned as such by church authorities: Yes. Did BY lie, probably not in his mind, as a supposed prophet he was teaching what he believed to be the revealed truth. Is it the truth: No Is he a false prophet, well that is your problem to decide yes or no, but I don't think this doctrine is going to go away, and it will continue to be one of many reasons why people leave the church, or, in this day and age of technology and online resources, why many people will not join the church. So I suppose that is where it has to be left, thanks to everyone.

May I asked the reason for your post? Were you just curious what current LDS thought on this matter and how they reconciled it? Or where you trying to inform current LDS on the matter and show how their thoughts on it might be inconsistent?

Just curious if you got what you wanted or if you learned anything new from it.

[Ahab]

this has been an interesting discussion which has shown that there is no agreement even amongst those faithful mormons who have engaged in the discussion. I am not now LDS, I left the church many years ago, but Adam/God was not one of the reasons for my leaving, in fact I did not know of it until I was well on my way out. By then it was just another confirmation for me that mormonism isn't what it claims to be. There are those on here who honestly believe, based upon the writings of BY and his contemporaries that he did teach the doctrine clearly and unambiguously to the church, and it would seem that it was accepted. The convoluted thoughts of Ahab and Mormonmason needed to justify and make acceptable this doctrine to themselves, are not at all convincing even to those other faithful mormons who have taken part. Did BY teach it as written: Yes undoubtedly. Is it a false doctrine Yes. Is it condemned as such by church authorities: Yes. Did BY lie, probably not in his mind, as a supposed prophet he was teaching what he believed to be the revealed truth. Is it the truth: No Is he a false prophet, well that is your problem to decide yes or no, but I don't think this doctrine is going to go away, and it will continue to be one of many reasons why people leave the church, or, in this day and age of technology and online resources, why many people will not join the church. So I suppose that is where it has to be left, thanks to everyone.

Very little of what you are saying is true, although I'm sure you believe all of it, and a discussion on each point would probably be pointless and a waste of my time. Probably. What Church leaders have actually taught is what is important, though, rather than a summary or explanation of their thoughts as written by me or you.

[savedbygrace]

May I asked the reason for your post? Were you just curious what current LDS thought on this matter and how they reconciled it? Or where you trying to inform current LDS on the matter and show how their thoughts on it might be inconsistent?

Just curious if you got what you wanted or if you learned anything new from it.

Hello Brian 2.0 this is rather difficult to answer, and I don't want to get into the discussion again as I feel it has come to its natural end. When I was leaving the church I learned about this, and was shocked rigid, however it was one of many things. But it still fascinates me because it is so off the wall, and doesn't seem to fit even in your theology, hence the reaction of church leaders. So i think it was curiosity as to whether any more information is available, it would appear not. What have I learned, that there are some really honest LDS who acknowledge that they just don't know, and haven't tried to develop a complicated explanation for it. They simply do not know, but they do believe it was taught as it was written and acknowledge that fact. They were also very generous and gracious in their replies, they didn't become defensive or accusatory, and that was great. So I learned that mormons are nice honest people, well I knew that already, but it was confirmed

Edited March 15, 2013 by savedbygrace

[ALarson]

Hello Brian 2.0 this is rather difficult to answer, and I don't want to get into the discussion again as I feel it has come to its natural end. When I was leaving the church I learned about this, and was shocked rigid, however it was one of many things. But it still fascinates me because it is so off the wall, and doesn't seem to fit even in your theology, hence the reaction of church leaders. So i think it was curiosity as to whether any more information is available, it would appear not. What have I learned, that there are some really honest LDS who acknowledge that they just don't know, and haven't tried to develop a complicated explanation for it. They simply do not know, but they do believe it was taught as it was written and acknowledge that fact. They were also very generous and gracious in their replies, they didn't become defensive or accusatory, and that was great. So I learned that mormons are nice honest people, well I knew that already, but it was confirmed

Very well stated savedbygrace. I agree (and I think you add a lot to this board).

[savedbygrace]

We should probably be aware that some portions of the Journal of Discourses are not transcribed or printed correctly in all places. I have found several examples over the years where the printing is erroneous and where the Discourses differ in content from official, printed sources such as in the Deseret News and so forth. Unfortunately, I lost my notes containing these examples in a move long ago and will have to look it all up all over again. I am not looking forward to doing that again....

Bit like the Bible then

[savedbygrace]

Very well stated savedbygrace. I agree (and I think you add a lot to this board).

Thankyou for your kindness, but I am not sure the moderators agree as I seem to continue to fall fowl of them, God bless.

[savedbygrace]

I don't wish to resurrect the pros and cons of the A/G doctrine, but I have a question which has really come ouit of my reply to Brian 2.0's question above. I said that I felt that it was so off the wall, which it reallys seems to be at least to me, and probably to many others in and out of mormonism. So the question is: what would you do if the present president of the church completely turned things around and declared the A/G doctrine as truth, taught as doctrine by BY, prophet seer and revelator, and from now on is to be accepted as official doctrine of the church and accepted as such by the faithful.?

Why am I asking? I suppose I would like to gain some insight into how it would feel to be put into the position of having to accept a doctrine which seems at odds with what has formerly been believed.

[CASteinman]

I don't wish to resurrect the pros and cons of the A/G doctrine, but I have a question which has really come ouit of my reply to Brian 2.0's question above. I said that I felt that it was so off the wall, which it reallys seems to be at least to me, and probably to many others in and out of mormonism. So the question is: what would you do if the present president of the church completely turned things around and declared the A/G doctrine as truth, taught as doctrine by BY, prophet seer and revelator, and from now on is to be accepted as official doctrine of the church and accepted as such by the faithful.?

Why am I asking? I suppose I would like to gain some insight into how it would feel to be put into the position of having to accept a doctrine which seems at odds with what has formerly been believed.

For myself... I would be OK with it because I have never mentally or emotionally rejected AG.

However, I do believe God rejected it, so I think your scenario would not occur.