Adam-God Theory/Doctrine

[ERayR]

Which begs the question, what is the significance of warehouse 13, why not 2 or 20?

I have explained this in a couple of past threads. Warehouse 13 is a SciFi TV program about an enormous, almost endless, warehouse where neat but often dangerous gadgets are stored away to keep them out of the wrong hands. I have my own mental Warehouse 13 where I store all these thing I don't understand and things that, if I allowed them might divert my attention from that personal revelation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the restoration. It allows me to maintain the relevant things while searching for answers on these other things and the mysteries.

Edited June 21, 2013 by ERayR

[Calm]

And it is Warehouse 13 because the previous 12 have been abandoned or destroyed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warehouse_13#history

Edited June 21, 2013 by calmoriah

[Nevo]

I have my own mental Warehouse 13 where I store all these thing I don't understand and things that, if I allowed them might divert my attention from that personal revelation of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and the restoration. It allows me to maintain the relevant things while searching for answers on these other things and the mysteries.

We have different approaches to dealing with historical issues, but I can respect this. Peace, brother Ray.

[SamIam]

There has been "good evidence for an authoritative declaration" for quite some time. As Don correctly noted, "it's quite clear what [brigham Young] said and what he meant." That you and Ahab prefer to remain oblivious does not mean that the evidence is not there.

My two bits in this conversation that I have avoided and probably should continue...If we value Brigham's teaching concerning his perceptions of the Adam/God statements, and if in them we find merit, then we should give equal weight and merit to his perceptions of how one would understand the doctrine - if at all....

Suppose a man should come here and tell you the very nature of our Father Adam--tell precisely how he was organized, his height, his proportions, the extent of his knowledge, tell you the agreement that was entered into, the amount of knowledge he had to forget to reduce himself to the capacity of a corruptible being! Suppose this could all be told to the congregations of the Saints, what would they know about it? Very little. There may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not. The spirit of revelation can reveal these things to the people, but unless they live so as to have the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ, they will remain a mystery, for there is a veil before the minds of the people, and they cannot be understood. Some of these principles have been taught to the Latter-day Saints, but who can understand them? (JD 13:263)

For my years of effort with this material no more true statement has been made than this one of President Young's that it would only be understood upon the principles of revelation, and the principles of revelation would only be manifest to those who would live so as to receive "the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Thus what I have observed from most who would discuss this information is the lack of evidence of the principles of revelation and not so much a lack of record of Brigham's comments made concerning Adam/God. In the absence of evidence of the principles of revelation then I believe Brigham Young has preceded your observations with his wisdom. Few understand it as few seek the revelation to do so and thus "they remain a mystery" to all who fail his counsel.

[Nevo]

For my years of effort with this material no more true statement has been made than this one of President Young's that it would only be understood upon the principles of revelation, and the principles of revelation would only be manifest to those who would live so as to receive "the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ."

I believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve collectively "live so as to receive 'the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ'" and they have rejected Adam-God for over a century. Yet there never seems to be a shortage of super Saints out there who claim that they've received special revelation on this subject and know better than the Brethren.

[SamIam]

I believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve collectively "live so as to receive 'the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ'" and they have rejected Adam-God for over a century. Yet there never seems to be a shortage of super Saints out there who claim that they've received special revelation on this subject and know better than the Brethren.

As well, I am the last person who would begrudge you that perspective. It is far more appropriate than those who claim special knowledge and would publicly attempt to undermine the council of the General Authorities as if these individuals had some claim to revelation that superseded that of the Leaders. The reason I have stayed out of the conversation until now is for that cause.

The challenge is for me that neither can I throw Brigham out with the bathwater either. I have always maintained a perspective that accepted that Brigham Young spoke truthfully and of something that was beyond my comprehension and thus was correct. I have also maintained that those like Elder McConkie who stated that Brigham Young would be accountable for the things he taught was also right. While on the surface they are two opposing perceptions I see them both as precisely correct for the reasoning of the perspectives of those who spoke the statements.

I genuinely feel that Brigham was trying to lead the saints to a better understanding of God, while Elder McConkie and others were simply trying to protect the body of the church from the miscalculations, misunderstandings and misconceptions that have surrounded this doctrine and thus had become a stumbling block to so many who didn't have the sense to maintain an area 13 as erayr references his mental storage facility.

Because of my effort to personally protect the counsel of each and sustain them both in what I consider the spirit of their comments, I have found that when the time came that as my line upon line precept upon precept process of increasing in knowledge, wisdom and understanding progressed to a certain point I had not shut the door on anything and was free to engage my further efforts in areas that naturally came up against Brigham's material even though I made no effort to force it prior to that time.

All I'll add further is that if you have had revelations on any subject, you probably have felt the often frustrating disconnect that occurs when you try to put into words that which your mind knows in terms of feelings. It is almost an impossible task to properly find the phrases and combinations of words that will convey to someone who lacks the spiritual insight on that subject the meanings you hope to share. However, when the spirit is with two individuals discussing such a subject each knows the other understands the matter and they share a union of common understanding.

Thus sustain the brethren and never seek anyone else's interpretations of Brigham Young's material. Find the spirit on the matter instead. Practically anyone that gets carried away in a public forum declaring they have certain knowledge of Adam /God lacks the complimentary behaviors that protects and sustains the brethren and thus they run the risk of deception on that principle alone.

However, you must also protect your own testimony that Brigham Young was a prophet of God as sure as any that have come since.It is vitally important that we recognize that Christ has led this church from the very beginning and that leading the body of the saints into darkened corners of misunderstandings of the Godhead is not on the agenda. However, protecting the saints from misunderstandings of the mysteries of the kingdom is on the agenda.

I believe that what you are characterizing as rejection of the material, is actually an effort to undermine its being bandied about by our detractors as a means of weakening the testimonies of the saints. It is a little like the principle of when Max Florence took unauthorized pictures of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple and tried to bribe the church. The churches response was to completely undermine his efforts by having Elder Talmage publish The House of the Lord with photos. It wasn't the first choice, but it quelled what would have been a sensational undermining of the Sacred nature of the temple. I accept the possibility of a similar application of the principle in the case of Brigham Young's teachings.

So perhaps an area 13 enables a person to hold onto that desire, to sustain all of the prophets, while awaiting a day when the spirit prompts you to properly consider upon vista's that naturally open to you in the course of your studies. If that day never comes then not discounting Brigham Young will keep the testimony of his prophetic status intact and sustaining the brethren will keep their status as the current leaders of the church intact and you will find nothing but blessings for maintaining a mature and respectful position on the matter.

Edited June 21, 2013 by SamIam

[ERayR]

I believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve collectively "live so as to receive 'the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ'" and they have rejected Adam-God for over a century. Yet there never seems to be a shortage of super Saints out there who claim that they've received special revelation on this subject and know better than the Brethren.

Nevo that one cuts both ways as there is never a shortage of super Saints who claim they know exactly what BY said and meant even without revelation. As I have posted earlier without being able to ask BY personally it all comes down to personal interpretation and which statement one wants to emphasize.

[Ahab]

I believe the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve collectively "live so as to receive 'the revelations of the Lord Jesus Christ'" and they have rejected Adam-God for over a century. Yet there never seems to be a shortage of super Saints out there who claim that they've received special revelation on this subject and know better than the Brethren.

There also never seems to be a shortage of the type of saint who will say the brethren don't agree with what a President of the Church has taught when in fact there is no disagreement. As I was trying to clarify by describing the difference between the theory and the doctrine, there are misunderstandings of our prophet's teachings with the people who misunderstand thinking their misunderstanding is correct, not realizing that what they think our prophets taught is not what they had in mind. Anyone familiar with anti-teachings of our teachings should be familiar with that concept, but that's only one of the options. A person doesn't need to be anti to have a misunderstanding, and both sides are going to think it's the other side that misunderstands. Thus there is only so much a person can say to express their ideas, and if the misunderstanding persists in misunderstanding the other can only hope that at some point the other will understand correctly.

I'm fine with knowing the Lord has the final say on this issue, and all other issues, but we don't have to wait until we die and go to the judgment bar in heaven before we find out what the Lord really thinks and has communicated through his prophets.

[SamIam]

Nevo that one cuts both ways as there is never a shortage of super Saints who claim they know exactly what BY said and meant even without revelation. As I have posted earlier without being able to ask BY personally it all comes down to personal interpretation and which statement one wants to emphasize.

However, really don't you think that it is not required to ask Brigham Young at all but instead to seek the same spirit that he possessed when he gleaned his understandings? The point being that even having President Young standing before you and your asking a question of him would require the intervention of that same spirit in order for him and you to glean if the understandings each possessed were shared by the other. Brigham won't know your heart without that same spirit that one could seek in his absence.

[ERayR]

However, really don't you think that it is not required to ask Brigham Young at all but instead to seek the same spirit that he possessed when he gleaned his understandings? The point being that even having President Young standing before you and your asking a question of him would require the intervention of that same spirit in order for him and you to glean if the understandings each possessed were shared by the other. Brigham won't know your heart without that same spirit that one could seek in his absence.

But that is one of the gifts of the spirit and all do not receive the same gifts.

D & C46:11 For all have not every ^agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

[SamIam]

But that is one of the gifts of the spirit and all do not receive the same gifts.

D & C46:11 For all have not every ^agift given unto them; for there are many gifts, and to every man is given a gift by the Spirit of God.

We'll leave it at that then.

[DBMormon]

If Brigham didn't intend to act as a doctrinal tutor, he was free to not repeatedly teach on the Adam-God subject. And there is nothing I have learned of Brigham that portrays him as cruel enough to rake Orson over the coals for not believing a concept that Brigham wasn't even teaching.

Actually, we appear to differ on how to obtain truth.

The Lord has provided many means for finding truth, means appropriate to the kinds of truth pursued. For Him to tell us everything would undermine the development of our own faculties of intelligence, which we need to do in order to become like Him.

And if He wanted to tell us everything, He wouldn't have given us minds to search truth out for ourselves, not told us to seek knowledge from the best books, and the like. And, indeed, most truths we learn about this world come from rational, empirical inquiry.

I've already mentioned how the Church has the people at the Joseph Smith Papers Project (where I did a 6-month internship) rely exclusively on historical evidence in determining the historical meaning of Joseph Smith's revelations, letters, and other texts. If the Church regards that as good enough for understanding what Joseph meant, I'm not sure why you think you it not good enough for you in understanding what Brigham meant.

But, and here is a crucial key, it's one thing to know what a historical figure meant by what they said, and it's another to know how God might use what they said as a springboard for teaching truths to you.

I fully affirm your ability to receive from the Spirit as you encounter Brigham Young's Adam sermons truths intended for you, whether or not these were what Brigham intended in the moment of speaking.

But in public discussion of a historical question--What did this historical figure mean in context when he said X?--the evidence appropriate to that discussion is publicly available historical evidence. I've provided sources for that, which you are free to engage or to ignore as you see fit.

On the basis of that voluminous and compelling evidence, I'm no more in doubt, and therefore no more in need of revelation to settle this historical question, than I am that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were intended to secure fundamental rights for American citizens.

That said, I congratulate you for seeking your own personal knowledge from God on what constitutes doctrinal truth, and I agree that you have right, obligation, and ability to do that.

This isn't something I want to continue to argue about, as it appears you don't either. But if you'd like to take the last word on whether Brigham's intent should be understood by historical evidence or by personal inspiration, please do.

Regards,

Don

Don, I am wondering if I can pay you to answer posts on my behalf. It would be a blessing to me and my credibility.

[DBMormon]

As well, I am the last person who would begrudge you that perspective. It is far more appropriate than those who claim special knowledge and would publicly attempt to undermine the council of the General Authorities as if these individuals had some claim to revelation that superseded that of the Leaders. The reason I have stayed out of the conversation until now is for that cause.

The challenge is for me that neither can I throw Brigham out with the bathwater either. I have always maintained a perspective that accepted that Brigham Young spoke truthfully and of something that was beyond my comprehension and thus was correct. I have also maintained that those like Elder McConkie who stated that Brigham Young would be accountable for the things he taught was also right. While on the surface they are two opposing perceptions I see them both as precisely correct for the reasoning of the perspectives of those who spoke the statements.

I genuinely feel that Brigham was trying to lead the saints to a better understanding of God, while Elder McConkie and others were simply trying to protect the body of the church from the miscalculations, misunderstandings and misconceptions that have surrounded this doctrine and thus had become a stumbling block to so many who didn't have the sense to maintain an area 13 as erayr references his mental storage facility.

Because of my effort to personally protect the counsel of each and sustain them both in what I consider the spirit of their comments, I have found that when the time came that as my line upon line precept upon precept process of increasing in knowledge, wisdom and understanding progressed to a certain point I had not shut the door on anything and was free to engage my further efforts in areas that naturally came up against Brigham's material even though I made no effort to force it prior to that time.

All I'll add further is that if you have had revelations on any subject, you probably have felt the often frustrating disconnect that occurs when you try to put into words that which your mind knows in terms of feelings. It is almost an impossible task to properly find the phrases and combinations of words that will convey to someone who lacks the spiritual insight on that subject the meanings you hope to share. However, when the spirit is with two individuals discussing such a subject each knows the other understands the matter and they share a union of common understanding.

Thus sustain the brethren and never seek anyone else's interpretations of Brigham Young's material. Find the spirit on the matter instead. Practically anyone that gets carried away in a public forum declaring they have certain knowledge of Adam /God lacks the complimentary behaviors that protects and sustains the brethren and thus they run the risk of deception on that principle alone.

However, you must also protect your own testimony that Brigham Young was a prophet of God as sure as any that have come since.It is vitally important that we recognize that Christ has led this church from the very beginning and that leading the body of the saints into darkened corners of misunderstandings of the Godhead is not on the agenda. However, protecting the saints from misunderstandings of the mysteries of the kingdom is on the agenda.

I believe that what you are characterizing as rejection of the material, is actually an effort to undermine its being bandied about by our detractors as a means of weakening the testimonies of the saints. It is a little like the principle of when Max Florence took unauthorized pictures of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple and tried to bribe the church. The churches response was to completely undermine his efforts by having Elder Talmage publish The House of the Lord with photos. It wasn't the first choice, but it quelled what would have been a sensational undermining of the Sacred nature of the temple. I accept the possibility of a similar application of the principle in the case of Brigham Young's teachings.

So perhaps an area 13 enables a person to hold onto that desire, to sustain all of the prophets, while awaiting a day when the spirit prompts you to properly consider upon vista's that naturally open to you in the course of your studies. If that day never comes then not discounting Brigham Young will keep the testimony of his prophetic status intact and sustaining the brethren will keep their status as the current leaders of the church intact and you will find nothing but blessings for maintaining a mature and respectful position on the matter.

I sometimes bridge these ideas that way as well

[Tacenda]

Don, I am wondering if I can pay you to answer posts on my behalf. It would be a blessing to me and my credibility.

You ought to hear him in person! In fact, if Don's willing he'd be a great interview for your podcast.

[Jude2]

Some years ago I went through a lot of these quotes and came to a conclusion. I think the first time the idea popped out of Brigham’s mouth he misspoke. When someone pointed it out to him he began perseverating upon it and bang there was the Adam God theory. Some of the brethren tried to go along with him, some kept quiet and others resisted. Soon as he was dead and gone they got rid of it.

[SamIam]

Some years ago I went through a lot of these quotes and came to a conclusion. I think the first time the idea popped out of Brigham’s mouth he misspoke. When someone pointed it out to him he began perseverating upon it and bang there was the Adam God theory. Some of the brethren tried to go along with him, some kept quiet and others resisted. Soon as he was dead and gone they got rid of it.

Ridiculous-You may have this forum confused with another. http://www.fictionpost.com/forums/

Drive by insults are not well received here.

[Jude2]

Ridiculous-You may have this forum confused with another. http://www.fictionpost.com/forums/

Ya don’t need to be rude!

Look I didn’t draw this conclusion on a whim, I actually looked up as many quotes as I could and tried to read them in context.

Maybe there’s a quote earlier than this April 1852 one, I don’t known but Young’s theory whatever it was seems to develop after this point in time.

(sorry I need this lengthy quote to make my point)

“….It is in regard to the character of the well-beloved Son of God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views. Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, He has a body, with parts the same as you and I have; … His son Jesus Christ has become a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, …but He is not a person of tabernacle ….I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.….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. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. ... They came here, organized the raw material, …When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. 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; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession….It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost…..”

Point one; He says Adam is Michael, and he separates the Father from Michael, which is church doctrine.

Point two; Adam and Eve did come to this earth with perfect bodies until they partook of the fruit. I’ll stick to the Biblical teaching of from the dust of the earth until we receive further light and knowledge.

Point three; God the Father/Elohim is “the first of the human family”, for he is an immortal man.

This is not contradicting Joseph Smith when he said.

“He [Adam] is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all tha have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. …The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.”

Not the same as ‘first of the human family’. Adam/Michael is Patriarch of this earthly family but God the Father was the first within our knowledge of existence to take on human- hood.

Point four; He is alluding to something Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett discourse;

“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God…he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”

Now Brigham Young;

“When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. 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…”

The basic idea is our Father in Heaven played the same Messiah role as Jesus played but on another earth, in another galaxy. ( I know I know I’m speculating)

The only problem here is the line “HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.” I don’t think it actually fits into the paragraph, I mean where did it come from? It seems misplaced.

I think he just started meditating on it and thought it came from God. The theory seems to grow and change from one quote to another, I can’t make heads or tails of it. Joseph said he got things confused at times, like running off to Boston to find treasure, not all promptings come from God.

I really did come to the conclusion rather carefully. There were 12 + apostles with some dieing and being replace over the years and not many of these spoke on the Adam God theory one way or another. Then there was that argument with brave Orson standing up to the Lion of the Lord.

When the Church was restored to the earth the Lord gave a system of checks and balances where the Quorum of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles have to come into agreement in order for doctrine to change. In this case it really did work, in the long run.

And then this quote;

“….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…”

The Saints in general were not accepting the theory and sometimes the church body gets things right!

[SamIam]

Ya don’t need to be rude!

Look I didn’t draw this conclusion on a whim, I actually looked up as many quotes as I could and tried to read them in context.

Maybe there’s a quote earlier than this April 1852 one, I don’t known but Young’s theory whatever it was seems to develop after this point in time.

Point one; Point two; Point three; Point four....................

It's always interesting to me that because someone might step in to defend someone who is dead, who cannot defend themselves from spurious ill-thought comments that their "rudeness" somehow supersedes the inconsiderate observations made by original person who inconsiderately commented on those passed.

Maybe you failed to consider the implications of your comment but lets take a look at it:

Some years ago I went through a lot of these quotes and came to a conclusion. I think the first time the idea popped out of Brigham’s mouth he misspoke. When someone pointed it out to him he began perseverating upon it and bang there was the Adam God theory. Some of the brethren tried to go along with him, some kept quiet and others resisted. Soon as he was dead and gone they got rid of it.

Point one: In your mind Brigham's ego enabled him to make a mistake and then perpetuate a defense of his mistake to the point it makes him a liar.

Point two: Some of the brethren, ie President Kimball, George Q Cannon, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff etc, etc, etc keep quiet and just to placate the deception act like they agree and sustain the concept publicly themselves - thus according to your logic, they become liars as well.

Point Three: Finally the ego-maniac, who can't be trusted to teach the church sound doctrine passes away and in a collective sigh of relief "they", whoever "they" are, sweep it under the rug and hope nobody notices.

Frankly, your defense of your position by quoting all of the various quotes is a nice touch that I wish more people did around here instead of just tossing opinions without giving others a chance to consider upon the things that inspired them. However, in your case what you are defending is an egregious oversight of condemnation of the Lords anointed.

What is troubling to me is that if you are as well read as you claim to be, why in that process did you not come away with a little knowledge of the people you accuse. By the same process, I can honestly say that I have grown to know them, to know their character, their hearts, the sincerity of their dedication to the kingdom of God. Thus while you may consider my observations rude, I consider yours insulting to individuals that I consider my friends. It is apparent that you might reread all that you have ever read and try to understand the hearts and minds of the people you accuse so casually to find that they are, none of them, capable of what you describe. In your simple, ill thought, and I believe probably not intentionally considered observations, you cast dispersions of guile and deception on some of the greatest men to stand upon the face of the earth. Multiple prophets of God and a slew of apostles were caught in your widely cast net and I thought that at least warranted a hint of sarcastic humor.

Such casual treatment of God's anointed is one of these last days mentalities seen more and more commonly in the saints who, having lost a sense of respect for anything sacred, be it a man's honor, his religion or anything else that in our "lack of natural affections" we simply do not recognize as in error. In no way should this be construed to mean that you need to blindly accept everything spoken but Brigham Young teaches an invaluable lesson in the anecdote concerning an errant thought he once had of Joseph. He allowed himself one time to casually allow the thought (paraphrased) that Joseph couldn't hold on to a dollar to save his life. Upon recognition of the source and nature of thought as of Satan, he never permitted another negative comment to escape his lips as he felt that the first little complaint or misjudgment of Joseph could well align him with all of the others that had apostatized by allowing such thoughts to fester into unrighteous judgments which cost them their salvation. Upon that principle, I feel many often make grevious errors in perpetrating such thoughts as your original ones.

Edited June 23, 2013 by SamIam

[Glenn101]

When people read the Journal of Discourses for quote mining purposes, a distorted viewpoint can easily be garnered concerning the viewpoints of any of those people quoted.

I think that to put the Adam-God theory into perspective, that all of Brigham Young's pronouncements on the nature of God, Jesus, Adam, and their relationships should be undertaken and published. I think that a different picture would be presented.

Glenn

[Jude2]

SamIam; Point one: In your mind Brigham's ego enabled him to make a mistake and then perpetuate a defense of his mistake to the point it makes him a liar.

No a lie is any communication with the intent to deceive, Young was not trying to deceive anyone, he honestly thought he was right. But yes he did have an ego.

I guess I look at prophets differently than you, I see men with flaws who overcome. In the Book of Mormon I see men who were bigots, the whole story is about how they overcame their bigotry through Christ like love. It does not bother me if President Young had some of his own faults to overcome.

SamIam; Point Three: Finally the ego-maniac, who can't be trusted to teach the church sound doctrine passes away and in a collective sigh of relief "they", whoever "they" are, sweep it under the rug and hope nobody notices.

I never accepted ‘when the prophet speaks the thinking is done’ kind of attitude. Paul wrote we see through a glass darkly, he never claimed to understand the infinite and I don’t think Br. Brigham did either. McConkie had to back track on some of his pronouncements after receiving further light and knowledge. The Church was setup with those checks and balances and when the Quorums act then I’ll follow. If they go astray then it’s on their heads.

In the mean time I have the responsibility to ponder the scriptures.

[DonBradley]

Don, I am wondering if I can pay you to answer posts on my behalf. It would be a blessing to me and my credibility.

Aw thanks! =)

Don

[SamIam]

SamIam; Point one: In your mind Brigham's ego enabled him to make a mistake and then perpetuate a defense of his mistake to the point it makes him a liar.

No a lie is any communication with the intent to deceive, Young was not trying to deceive anyone, he honestly thought he was right. But yes he did have an ego.

I guess I look at prophets differently than you, I see men with flaws who overcome. In the Book of Mormon I see men who were bigots, the whole story is about how they overcame their bigotry through Christ like love. It does not bother me if President Young had some of his own faults to overcome.

I realize that I come off as a bit outside of expectations for directness and candor. However, what is not perceived is that generally when I am curt and short it is the result of people claiming to be one thing and then speaking in a way that undermines their very position. I am by all measures the most impatient with those who claim to be LDS but then do damage by the duplicity of their arguments which undermine the very organization to which they claim fealty.

The lack of continuity of claiming to be devout LDS and then discrediting several prophets and apostles is hypocritical to me and I recognize that this sometime pervasive niceness expectation of LDS enables those amongst us who are speaking out of both sides of their mouth to feel wonderfully unchallenged and empowered to be unwitting accomplices to those that are the genuine detractors or that undermine those of weaker understandings.

In your latest response I sense that you are simply equivocating trying to back pedal away from your first positions.

SamIam; Point one: In your mind Brigham's ego enabled him to make a mistake and then perpetuate a defense of his mistake to the point it makes him a liar.

No a lie is any communication with the intent to deceive, Young was not trying to deceive anyone, he honestly thought he was right. But yes he did have an ego.

I guess I look at prophets differently than you, I see men with flaws who overcome. In the Book of Mormon I see men who were bigots, the whole story is about how they overcame their bigotry through Christ like love. It does not bother me if President Young had some of his own faults to overcome.

This hole gets deeper and deeper….First you respond that Brigham did not tell a lie because he didn't intend to perpetrate a lie and that he was not trying to deceive anyone. However, that is categorically not what you stated – again let’s examine your original observations.

Some years ago I went through a lot of these quotes and came to a conclusion. I think the first time the idea popped out of Brigham’s mouth he misspoke. When someone pointed it out to him he began perseverating upon it and bang there was the Adam God theory. Some of the brethren tried to go along with him, some kept quiet and others resisted. Soon as he was dead and gone they got rid of it.

If we stop at the point where you claim Brigham misspoke maybe we could let you off with “Young was not trying to deceive anyone” however your very next line states that he was informed of his mistake. Somebody pointed it out to him and then you indicate that he ignored the counsel and went on making up stuff. At the moment of your claim that he was informed and then went contrary to correct instruction, you have called Brigham a liar and a deceiver. How can we claim that he didn’t know what he was doing if someone has told him what he was doing? Complete equivocation and this is what I characterize as speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

Next those very same people who told him he was mistaken simply throw in the towel and help continue the process of deception. They all become aware and then complicit – the case against is in your own words.

I’m not even going to detail address your next statement about prophets of the Book of Mormon being bigots only to say that since you do not provide names or examples that the contrast of those who overcome “their bigotry through Christ like love” is another widely cast net that can only reference the Nephi’s, Ammon’s, Alma’s, Moroni’s and such as they are the only examples we have of those exercising Christ like love. Certainly not Laman, Lemuel, Nehor, Korihor, Sherem … Your entire application of the word bigot to the righteous in the Book of Mormon is a clarion call that someone is completely in a very worrisome place with their testimony and understanding of fundamental principles of the gospel.

SamIam; Point Three: Finally the ego-maniac, who can't be trusted to teach the church sound doctrine passes away and in a collective sigh of relief "they", whoever "they" are, sweep it under the rug and hope nobody notices.

I never accepted ‘when the prophet speaks the thinking is done’ kind of attitude. Paul wrote we see through a glass darkly, he never claimed to understand the infinite and I don’t think Br. Brigham did either. McConkie had to back track on some of his pronouncements after receiving further light and knowledge. The Church was setup with those checks and balances and when the Quorums act then I’ll follow. If they go astray then it’s on their heads.

In the mean time I have the responsibility to ponder the scriptures.

This response here is just a throw-back cliché. Anticipating this common ill thought defense I stated in my response to which you were replying this, “In no way should this be construed to mean that you need to blindly accept everything spoken.” I actually hoped to forestall this ever so common appeal to blind faith – but you ignored my effort. Thus since no one has implied the “thinking is done” requirement the disclaimer seems quasi-significant without affirmation by our conversation. I can’t see why you’re throwing that card down on the table as it was intentionally dealt with prior.

I have no overriding desire to be kind and pleasant because my greater desire is to be effective. You may think I am defending Brigham’s honesty and integrity, and to some degree perhaps I am although quite frankly it is not his integrity that is questioned here. The fundamental thing I am trying to point out more than anything else is that you are not being honest with yourself. You manifest symptoms of disenchantment and faith conflict and crisis. Some people try to rationalize their way along through this process and often do not succeed. That is the cause of my abrupt and direct challenge to you. Step back, assess where you are and fix the problems so that you do not lose the most precious things you have. Find out which way you face ( a reference to this Boyd K. Packer Talk - http://www.zionsbest.com/face.html ) and then stay there come heck or high water

You have been repeatedly warned about personal comments. You are suspended.

[Jude2]

SamIam; If we stop at the point where you claim Brigham misspoke maybe we could let you off with “Young was not trying to deceive anyone” however your very next line states that he was informed of his mistake.

You’re reading into that statement more than my intent. Someone, perhaps the scribes as they compared notes, went back to him and asked Br Bingham to clarify his statement, did he want to leave it as is? Feeling that everything which came from his mouth was from the Spirit he began pondering down the wrong paths and his theory grew.

I want to show you something;

From Joseph Smith;

“I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible….” (King Follet dis)

And now Br. Brigham

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…I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. (JD vol 2, I think)

Very very different approaches. I as a dedicated Mormon, ‘true blue through and through’ have the right and responsibility to ponder the scriptures.

We are not a cult, we are not asked to blindly fall off the cliff.

Have you read Massacre at Mountain Meadow? It’s a good example of Stake Presidents and Bishops leading their flocks astray. In a Stake High Council meeting one man, Laban Morrill, stood up to these leaders and said, “Do not our principles of right teach us to return good for evil and do good to those who despitefully use us?“ He then demanded to know by what authority they were planning this attack, they had none. If there had just been more who sought the Lord’s will at that time we could have avoided the whole incident.

With this Adam God doctrine it is the apostate fundamentalist groups who still today cling to it. Those groups who have molested little girls, they believe this false doctrine. That says something about it don’t ya think???

SamIam; You manifest symptoms of disenchantment and faith conflict and crisis.

Really?

If President Monson with the Twelve step forward and declare it’s time to revive plural marriage, I’ll be first in line. Although I think it is scripturally wrong and I dread it, if President Monson with the Twelve decided to give women the priesthood, I’ll be last in line but I’ll be there, (who in the world wants to hear their neighbors confessions).

What I’m saying is I’ll follow the prophet as long as he follows the Lord’s instructions revealed to Joseph Smith and found in the D&C.

Stop using inflammatory examples like child molesters.

[Calm]

Those groups who have molested little girls, they believe this false doctrine. That says something about it don’t ya think???

Logical fallacy, there are plenty of molesters who believe the Theory of Gravity and that the earth orbits the sun, doesn't mean we should doubt those two concepts.

[Lachoneus]

I want to show you something;

From Joseph Smith;

“I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible….” (King Follet dis)

And now Br. Brigham

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…I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. (JD vol 2, I think)

Very very different approaches.

Not different at all. Let me show you something. Let's add a little context. Here is a little more of the Brigham Young quote with the part you quoted bolded.

Supposing that Adam was formed actually out of clay, out of the same kind of material from which bricks are formed; that with this matter God made the pattern of a man, and breathed into it the breath of life, and left it there, in that state of supposed perfection, he would have been an adobie to this day. He would not have known anything.

Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. 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. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.

But suppose Adam was made and fashioned the same as we make adobies; if he had never drunk of the bitter cup, the Lord might have talked to him to this day, and he would have continued as he was to all eternity, never advancing one particle in the school of intelligence. This idea opens up a field of light to the intelligent mind. How can you know truth but by its opposite, or light but by its opposite? The absence of light is darkness. How can sweetness be known but by its opposite, bitter? It is by this means that we obtain all intelligence. This is "Mormonism," and it is founded upon all truth, upon every principle of true philosophy; in fact the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true philosophy in existence. There is not one particle of it that is not strictly philosophical, though you and I may not understand all the fulness of it, but we will if we continue faithful.

(2 JD 6-7)

Joseph Smith teaches that God is an exalted Man and that men can advance to become like Him. Brigham Young teaches that the man Adam was NOT literally made out of clay like an adobie brick. Otherwise Adam could not advance in intelligence. Those who are faithful will eventually obtain a fulness of intelligence.

I don't see the difference in their approaches. See what a little context can do?