Tradition In The Church

[JLHPROF]

Untrue.

It was not stenographically reported.

 

I hate that excuse.  The principles he taught in the KFD were carried forward and espoused elsewhere (with one possible exception) by those who heard it live and in Joseph's other teachings (Temple).  That alone should verify what he said.

The misquote/primary source/misinterpret/opinion excuses can get us out of believing anything we don't like if there isn't a bulletproof record.

 

...Bloody academics....

[Coreyb]

I don't know, I think a lot of Brigham Young's teachings will stand the test of time, perhaps better than say Joseph Fielding Smith's and definitely better than the pre-Presidency teachings of Ezra Taft Benson.  In fact, I think we tend to pay more attendtion when Joseph Smith, Brigham Young have stated something than others.  While we may have thrown the Adam God Theory overboard, i think many Mormons still go with Brigham's approach to the Creation Story than say Joseph Fielding Smith's.

Brighams version of the creation story is Adam God! It's completely integral to his theology. If you mean by his version of creation his comment that the rib story is figurative, that's just one small aspect of a much larger narrative and he isn't the only or first one to teach it.

[Stone holm]

Brighams version of the creation story is Adam God! It's completely integral to his theology. If you mean by his version of creation his comment that the rib story is figurative, that's just one small aspect of a much larger narrative and he isn't the only or first one to teach it.

No referring to his comments that the creation story was basically fable and that Adam and Eve were transplants, he said much about the Creation that made sense without the idea that Adam was a god before he came here. That was just part.

[Coreyb]

No referring to his comments that the creation story was basically fable and that Adam and Eve were transplants, he said much about the Creation that made sense without the idea that Adam was a god before he came here. That was just part.

He thought they were transplants because he believed them to be resurrected beings (gods).

[theplains]

Two traditions that varied but did either lead people "astray"?  No.  Just different opinions with no conclusive proof as to who was right.

 

In Islamic theology, there are two prevailing traditions - that Jesus was not crucified and that

he was crucified but he did not die.  Belief in both of these traditions has led people astray

even though there is no conclusive proof of which is right.

 

Hindus deny the resurrection and instead follow traditional teachings of reincarnation. This

too leads people astray even though there is no conclusive proof of which is right.

 

Regards,

Jim

[3DOP]

I agree that its ridiculous the way we some times belittle our past leaders. I do feel that the only way for a president to have his teaching stay truly viable years after he is gone is to write them down and present them to the quorums and the church body for common consent, and then add them to our standard works. Fortunately or unfortunately Brigham Young did not do this with his Adam God revelation, and it has not remained viable in the current church. 

 

Excellent point...If I were LDS I couldn't abandon Brother Brigham.

 

I wouldn't try it, but if anybody needs belittling, why not current leaders? I just can't join the crowd who is so confident that NOW is better than ever. Even if I believed in biological evolution (I don't), does it follow that human sciences never make a wrong turn? Is a constant moving in the correct direction inevitable?

Edited April 5, 2014 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

He thought they were transplants because he believed them to be resurrected beings (gods).

That is not the only way to read it.

[why me]

The catholic faith had wonderful traditions when I was a boy,especially in dress. Women and girls would come to church in modest dress with a veil on their heads which resembled lace. This was a sign of respect to god and personal holiness. We boys would need to wear our best clothes too, usually a suit and tie. And the mass was very traditional especially the old latin mass. Much tradition was found in that mass. And the nuns wore black and white with only their face showing the skin. These were wonderful catholic traditions that gave the church an old school look.

[Vance]

I know plenty of Mormons who throw Paul under the bus

It is almost as if it was Peter that first threw Paul under the bus,

 

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

  16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

Just saying.

[3DOP]

 

It is almost as if it was Peter that first threw Paul under the bus,

 

2 Pet 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

  16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

 

Just saying.

 

 

Vance hi. 

 

That passage has been very important in my faith journey.  I would think that "our beloved brother Paul" would appreciate the wisdom of it as well too, especially in light of the way St. Paul's writings have been misunderstood throughout history. As I take it, and I suspect you as well, the message of the Holy Ghost here is that if our doctrine be based on a preponderance of St. Paul, we might have cause for concern. As a rule, we should interpret St. Paul in light of the rest of the New Testament, as opposed to the rest of the New Testament, in the light of St. Paul. This, in my opinion, is how Martin Luther and so many others have come to doctrinal shipwreck. 

 

Regards,

 

3DOP

Edited April 6, 2014 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Vance hi. 

 

That passage has been very important in my faith journey.  I would think that "our beloved brother Paul" would appreciate the wisdom of it as well too, especially in light of the way St. Paul's writings have been misunderstood throughout history. As I take it, and I suspect you as well, the message of the Holy Ghost here is that if our doctrine be based on a preponderance of St. Paul, we might have cause for concern. As a rule, we should interpret St. Paul in light of the rest of the New Testament, as opposed to the rest of the New Testament, in the light of St. Paul. This, in my opinion, is how Martin Luther and so many others have come to doctrinal shipwreck. 

 

Regards,

 

3DOP

Paul's verbose and convoluted writing style lends itself to being misunderstood.

[cdowis]

"Adam God"

 

As I have posted previously, I have some evidence that this was created as a joke to test the members of the church. (Do you remember where he said not to believe everything that the leaders said)

 

 I suppose It then simply got out of hand where BY himself got caught up in it and it took on a life of its own.

Edited April 6, 2014 by cdowis

[3DOP]

Paul's verbose and convoluted writing style lends itself to being misunderstood.

 It seems like it is enough to recognize with St. Peter that it may be easily misunderstood. I do not see any reason to criticise Scriptures approved by our churches as being "convoluted" or "verbose". If it is good enough for the Holy Ghost, who are we to complain?

[Stone holm]

It seems like it is enough to recognize with St. Peter that it may be easily misunderstood. I do not see any reason to criticise Scriptures approved by our churches as being "convoluted" or "verbose". If it is good enough for the Holy Ghost, who are we to complain?

Not singling out any Churches, but his writings are convoluted. One of my main objections to joining the LDS Church many years ago was not any objection to the BOM, or Joseph Smith, but that the Church accepted the writings of Paul.

[Coreyb]

"Adam God"

 

As I have posted previously, I have some evidence that this was created as a joke to test the members of the church. (Do you remember where he said not to believe everything that the leaders said)

 

 I suppose It then simply got out of hand where BY himself got caught up in it and it took on a life of its own.

CFR that evidence

[cdowis]

"CFR"  

 

This is third hand information from a post many decades ago on compuserve.  Don't have all the details, but BY was visiting an outlying area and began a discussion with the church leader there.  He basically told him that he was going to make a great joke with the members of the church.

 

JS had a great sense of humor and BY had assisted him with some of those jokes. One evening in Nauvoo, JS played the role of a drunkard, slurring "I am a most profitable profit" to play a joke on Daniel Wells.  Wells then went to BY (who was in on the joke)who said "Yes, we have have a real problem with him." Daniel then responded, "I would rather have a drunk prophet, than none at all." JS then appeared from a room and congratulated him on his faithfulness. It was a test.

 

BY had also told the saints not to accept everything the leaders said, but to get their own testimony of their words (don't have the reference).

 

Putting this all together lead me to that conclusion.  Like Daniel Wells, BY was testing the church members if they sheepishly accepted some nonsense doctrine.  

Edited April 6, 2014 by cdowis

[JLHPROF]

"CFR"  

 

This is third hand information from a post many decades ago on compuserve.  Don't have all the details, but BY was visiting an outlying area and began a discussion with the church leader there.  He basically told him that he was going to make a great joke with the members of the church.

 

JS had a great sense of humor and BY had assisted him with some of those jokes. One evening in Nauvoo, JS played the role of a drunkard, slurring "I am a most profitable profit" to play a joke on Daniel Wells.  Wells then went to BY (who was in on the joke)who said "Yes, we have have a real problem with him." Daniel then responded, "I would rather have a drunk prophet, than none at all." JS then appeared from a room and congratulated him on his faithfulness. It was a test.

 

BY had also told the saints not to accept everything the leaders said, but to get their own testimony of their words (don't have the reference).

 

Putting this all together lead me to that conclusion.  Like Daniel Wells, BY was testing the church members if they sheepishly accepted some nonsense doctrine.  

 

Some "joke" - considering he personally added the Adam-God doctrinal lecture to the Temple Endowment, the most sacred rites in all of Mormonism, where it remained for a quarter century.

 

I think that is a bigger insult against Brigham than all the crap being dumped on him right now.

Edited April 6, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Stone holm]

Some "joke" - considering he personally added the Adam-God doctrinal lecture to the Temple Endowment, the most sacred rites in all of Mormonism, where it remained for a quarter century.

 

I think that is a bigger insult against Brigham than all the crap being dumped on him right now.

I agree.

[cdowis]

Some "joke" - considering he personally added the Adam-God doctrinal lecture to the Temple Endowment, the most sacred rites in all of Mormonism, where it remained for a quarter century.

 

 

 

As I said, it eventually got out of control.

 

Elder McConkie pointed out that BY contradicted himself, "What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe."

Edited April 6, 2014 by cdowis

[Coreyb]

As I said, it eventually got out of control.

 

Elder McConkie pointed out that BY contradicted himself, "What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe."

Probably the Brigham that added his doctrine to the temple endowment and threatened other apostles for preaching against it

[JLHPROF]

Probably the Brigham that added his doctrine to the temple endowment and threatened other apostles for preaching against it

 

Yep, that Brigham.  I like that Brigham.