Great Adam-God Discussion

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is because you own it all.   Others try to dismiss things like AG theory as not being taught or spin it like some do with the Adam senior/junior dichotomoy.  Brigham certainly said a lot about Adam God.  Sort of tough to sweep it under the rug but many do.

On this we agree.  I own it completely.  I see no reason to sweep it away therefore I see no problem.  Problems only occur when we reject truth.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What matters is a prophet ought to know who God is.  JS said this was the first principle of revealed religion.   So either Brigham or Spencer were wrong.   And being wrong about who God is is petty serious and casts suspicion on whether or not the LDS church is God's church.   Pretty simple really.

I think Joseph and Brigham did know.
As for Spencer, I would be interested to find out if what he knew was the same as what he said publicly. 

Making the LDS Church look more mainstream has been a key job for the prophet ever since polygamy went away.  We don't like our peculiar doctrines any more - they keep the converts away and that prevents the dissemination of the more important first principles like faith in Christ and Baptism.

I think I'd downplay polygamy and Adam-God too if it got more men to come to Christ.
But at some point we have to move beyond the first principles.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I know what you believe, but this is a topic that is extremely important and it is very disturbing for many to see that two Prophets of God disagree on who our God is and who  the father of Christ is.

So is that the only issue people have with Adam being God?

That one prophet disagreed with a previous prophet's revelation?  Other than that the doctrine is all good?
I'd like to hope that is the only thing people find troubling about this teaching.  If it is the case, ignoring Pres. Kimball's non-revelatory warning becomes much easier.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not for me.  Maybe for some.  And despite what Teancum might say I am not ignoring it.  I see the contradiction.  It's just not a problem.

Problem - noun

• A difficulty that has to be resolved or dealt with. I have no difficulty with Adam-God, nor with the Church's current disbelief in it.  It doesn't affect me at all.
• A question to be answered, schoolwork exercise. I have answered the question of Adam-God to my satisfaction, through both schoolwork (study) and prayer.
• A puzzling circumstance. I am not puzzled by Adam-God at all.  Maybe a little puzzled as to why it offends others so much, but that's still not a problem.

Like I said.  Not a problem unless you make it one.  A self-manufactured problem.
I feel exactly the same about Joseph and plural marriage.

Well, there we go... Some good clarity:  you acknowledge it as a contradiction.  I'm satisfied with agreeing that it is a contradiction.  And leaving it at that. 

For some, the contradiction represents a problem (per the definitions you cited).  For others, it does not. 

[ERayR]

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You stated that there were no claimed revelations to disavow President Young's that he received for the Adam/God doctrine, correct?   Or do you believe President Kimball did receive a revelation?

If you don't believe it's possible for "a later Prophet" to "declare current teachings of our Prophet to be false doctrine without even receiving a revelation", then you must believe President Kimball had to have received a revelation to disavow the Adam/God teachings (since he did exactly what I described above).

Faulty logic.  Your conclusion is not correct.  That is not what I said.  Until you retract I am through discoursing with you.

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, ERayR said:

And you know this how?  Just because I don't see as problem something that you do does not mean I am pretending to not see it.  It is a bit disingenuous of you to impugn my honesty and intelligence this way.

Nope i never said you were dishonest nor unintelligent because you see problems.  I said I do not understand why they are problems to you other than we view some things differently.

[notHagoth7]

5 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Nope i never said you were dishonest nor unintelligent because you see problems.  I said I do not understand why they are problems to you other than we view some things differently.

I'm guessing this post was intended as a response to Teancum.

Being that you instead cited yourself, your intent/context might be more clear by citing Teancum too (or instead).

[ALarson]

29 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Faulty logic.  Your conclusion is not correct.  That is not what I said.  Until you retract I am through discoursing with you.

Hey, you're the one dodging the question and the issue.

Either you believe that President Kimball received a revelation that caused him to disavow Brigham Young's revelation regarding the Adam/God teachings and  then call it "false doctrine" or he did that without receiving a revelation.  Which do you believe?

[ALarson]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So is that the only issue people have with Adam being God?

No, as shown in discussions here, there are other issues members have with it (including how he taught Jesus was conceived).

One thing I agree with that others have stated here, JLHPROF, is that you do not dodge questions or make excuses....you own your beliefs.  We may disagree on most topics, but you have my utmost respect and I always enjoy reading your posts and learning more about your beliefs.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

For some, the contradiction represents a problem (per the definitions you cited).  For others, it does not. 

Which by definition makes the problem person specific, not specific to the Church.

[JulieM]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which by definition makes the problem person specific, not specific to the Church.

But it was the church's (LDS) prophets who have caused the problem.  One prophet calls this teaching doctrine that was revealed to him by God, another one calls it "false doctrine" and other prophets have stayed silent on this subject (including our current one).  Is there much of a more important topic than knowing who our prophet believes is our God or who fathered Jesus Christ?

Edited September 27, 2016 by JulieM

[rockpond]

53 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Which by definition makes the problem person specific, not specific to the Church.

Which is why I said that I agreed with your use of contradiction. There are contradictions.  Some are able to work around those contradictions.  For others, because of how they have even taught in the church and how they have internalized those teachings, the contradictions become problems. 

While the "problem" may be dependent on the person, you cannot dismiss the church's influence.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

No, as shown in discussions here, there are other issues members have with it (including how he taught Jesus was conceived).

One thing I agree with that others have stated here, JLHPROF, is that you do not dodge questions or make excuses....you own your beliefs.  We may disagree on most topics, but you have my utmost respect and I always enjoy reading your posts and learning more about your beliefs.

I agree, I enjoy dialoguing with JLHPROF because of his openness, even though we frequently disagree.  I have great respect for him. 

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I'd be interested in hearing your response to Corbin Volluz' work (either the podcast or his article).

I am hearing impaired so do not do podcasts. I read his opus and came across this quote " it is difficult to find anything from Brigham Young on the subject of Adam without at least some reference to the Adam God Doctrine close at hand." Aside from the general snarky tone, this is in fact not true. Corbin seems to have only used material that supports his thesis.

 As I have said, I have been through the Journal of Discourses checking out the rabbit holes. There is a lot about Adam, Father Adam, etc. in his sermons. but so many of them that demonstrate an "orthodox" understanding of God, the Father, Jesus, and Adam (Michael the Archangel). Very little of that can be ascribed to as anything like Adam-God. I remember going through this very same thing in detail fifteen years ago or so. I cannot remember the actual year now. I did not have access to an online set of the Journal of Discourses as now exist (https://journalofdiscourses.com). I spent a lot of time digging through everything I could find on the subject and as a result came away confused more than anything else. There is not a coherent Adam-God doctrine espoused.

Eldon Watson noted that approximately 1500 sermons by Brigham Young were recorded. Of those sermons, 324 appear in the JOD. Only 20 of those discourses can be described as having anything to do with Adam-God. Watson also gives examples of possible if not probable punctuation errors and actual recording errors in some of those talks. (http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm)

The problem may not be that an Adam-God story was taught, but that the Adam-God theory as interpreted by some is incorrect.

As I noted in my earlier post, it would behoove anyone who has questions raised by the specter of false doctrines past read all that they can on the subject rather than relying upon any one source. There are a lot of resources out there, some friendly and some not so friendly. 

Glenn

 

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I love how you use the fact that members DON'T believe the revelation of a prophet any longer to show that the revelations are unreliable.
Somehow I think if Adam-God was still the doctrine taught in the Church you would find a way to use that to show the revelations are unreliable.

I also love that you claim the Church was led into apostasy for 50 years by Adam-God, yet:
1. You don't believe the Church was ever NOT in apostasy or valid
2. You don't believe the disavowal of Adam-God came by revelation any more than you believe the revelation that gave it to us.

Sorry, but your hypocrisy is showing.

 

Adam-God was taught by BY from 1855 till his death and taught in the temple until 1905. That's 50 years of members (from a current believers standpoint) being led in apostasy. BY claimed to have received the doctrine by revelation. All I'm suggesting is that that being the case it doesn't put revelation or prophets in good standing or make them very reliable if the church can be in apostasy for 50 years

[rockpond]

18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am hearing impaired so do not do podcasts. I read his opus and came across this quote " it is difficult to find anything from Brigham Young on the subject of Adam without at least some reference to the Adam God Doctrine close at hand." Aside from the general snarky tone, this is in fact not true. Corbin seems to have only used material that supports his thesis.

 As I have said, I have been through the Journal of Discourses checking out the rabbit holes. There is a lot about Adam, Father Adam, etc. in his sermons. but so many of them that demonstrate an "orthodox" understanding of God, the Father, Jesus, and Adam (Michael the Archangel). Very little of that can be ascribed to as anything like Adam-God. I remember going through this very same thing in detail fifteen years ago or so. I cannot remember the actual year now. I did not have access to an online set of the Journal of Discourses as now exist (https://journalofdiscourses.com). I spent a lot of time digging through everything I could find on the subject and as a result came away confused more than anything else. There is not a coherent Adam-God doctrine espoused.

Eldon Watson noted that approximately 1500 sermons by Brigham Young were recorded. Of those sermons, 324 appear in the JOD. Only 20 of those discourses can be described as having anything to do with Adam-God. Watson also gives examples of possible if not probable punctuation errors and actual recording errors in some of those talks. (http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm)

The problem may not be that an Adam-God story was taught, but that the Adam-God theory as interpreted by some is incorrect.

As I noted in my earlier post, it would behoove anyone who has questions raised by the specter of false doctrines past read all that they can on the subject rather than relying upon any one source. There are a lot of resources out there, some friendly and some not so friendly. 

Glenn

 

I've gone to a number of sources.  It seems clear to me what BY believed and taught regarding Adam as our God, the father of our Spirits.  I can't dismiss his clear statements on the grounds of some possible punctuation errors or that it was only 20 sermons.  Including the lecture at the veil.  I don't see it as a "specter of false doctrine".  I don't have a problem with BY having believed it or taught it as doctrine.

I have a problem with hiding it, dismissing it, and trying to pretend it was never taught.

 

[ERayR]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

Hey, you're the one dodging the question and the issue.

Either you believe that President Kimball received a revelation that caused him to disavow Brigham Young's revelation regarding the Adam/God teachings and  then call it "false doctrine" or he did that without receiving a revelation.  Which do you believe?

One thing I believe is that if President Kimball had received a revelation he would have said so.  Whether or not he was correct, I haven't made up my mind.  I am still studying that and waiting on my own revelation.

[ERayR]

11 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I am hearing impaired so do not do podcasts. I read his opus and came across this quote " it is difficult to find anything from Brigham Young on the subject of Adam without at least some reference to the Adam God Doctrine close at hand." Aside from the general snarky tone, this is in fact not true. Corbin seems to have only used material that supports his thesis.

 As I have said, I have been through the Journal of Discourses checking out the rabbit holes. There is a lot about Adam, Father Adam, etc. in his sermons. but so many of them that demonstrate an "orthodox" understanding of God, the Father, Jesus, and Adam (Michael the Archangel). Very little of that can be ascribed to as anything like Adam-God. I remember going through this very same thing in detail fifteen years ago or so. I cannot remember the actual year now. I did not have access to an online set of the Journal of Discourses as now exist (https://journalofdiscourses.com). I spent a lot of time digging through everything I could find on the subject and as a result came away confused more than anything else. There is not a coherent Adam-God doctrine espoused.

Eldon Watson noted that approximately 1500 sermons by Brigham Young were recorded. Of those sermons, 324 appear in the JOD. Only 20 of those discourses can be described as having anything to do with Adam-God. Watson also gives examples of possible if not probable punctuation errors and actual recording errors in some of those talks. (http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm)

The problem may not be that an Adam-God story was taught, but that the Adam-God theory as interpreted by some is incorrect.

As I noted in my earlier post, it would behoove anyone who has questions raised by the specter of false doctrines past read all that they can on the subject rather than relying upon any one source. There are a lot of resources out there, some friendly and some not so friendly. 

Glenn

 

This, to me, is the problem in a nutshell.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, ERayR said:

One thing I believe is that if President Kimball had received a revelation he would have said so.  Whether or not he was correct, I haven't made up my mind.  I am still studying that and waiting on my own revelation.

I understand where you're at and agree that one has to study these topics and pray about them too.  One thing that I wonder about is this:  do we hear about all the revelations the Prophets receive?  I honestly don't know (because we wouldn't hear about them  ). 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I understand where you're at and agree that one has to study these topics and pray about them too.  One thing that I wonder about is this:  do we hear about all the revelations the Prophets receive?  I honestly don't know (because we wouldn't hear about them  ).

I don't believe we need to hear about every revelation the prophets receive.
However in a Church that operates on common consent any revelation not presented to the Church is not binding.
If that "unrevealed revelation" (to coin a phrase) is a matter of doctrine and it contradicts a previous revelation then we are under no obligation to accept it as anything other than opinion.

As I've said before, which is worse -  being presented with two competing claims of revelation and deciding for ourselves or being foolish enough to assume a revelation where none was claimed.

[DBMormon]

On 9/22/2016 at 11:09 PM, Flexible said:

Well that's an interesting theory. He had Adam-God included in the lecture at the veil in the St George Temple.  Was that part of the joke too?  I think you can put that explanation to rest. 

the mental gymnastics we use to avoid the mess.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

the mental gymnastics we use to avoid the mess.

There's no mess and no gymnastics necessary.
Just understand Brigham precisely as recorded.  Study what he taught.  Pray a little.

Decide - was he right or wrong?
If he was right it doesn't matter what current leaders think.
If he was wrong it doesn't matter what he taught.
It's only a mess if you can't handle studying things out for yourself and need to be told what to think.

Edited September 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[DBMormon]

what is odd is Brigham says we need to accept the Adam-God Doctrine otherwise our salvation is at peril.  McConkie said whoever accepts the adam-God doctrine does so at the risk of peril to their salvation.... ughhh what's a mormon to do.

also When you listen to the data it becomes apparent the Church was deceptive in trying to whitewash this and have people think there was nothing to it.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

what is odd is Brigham says we need to accept the Adam-God Doctrine otherwise our salvation is at peril.  McConkie said whoever accepts the adam-God doctrine does so at the risk of peril to their salvation.... ughhh what's a mormon to do.

Find out for themselves.
This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Nobody is getting this based on what either Brigham Young OR Bruce R. McConkie taught.
Nobody is getting this based on what President Monson teaches either.

Quote

also When you listen to the data it becomes apparent the Church was deceptive in trying to whitewash this and have people think there was nothing to it.

Don't you ever tire of being so cynical?  It must be exhausting.
The Church is more concerned with members coming to Christ and entering his kingdom through authoritative baptism.
Higher doctrines presented up front do nothing but keep people from accepting Christ.  Better to wait, at least until they have the gift of the Holy Ghost whereby the truth of ALL things can be made known.

Perhaps if more people operated by the Holy Ghost when confronted with new or unusual doctrines we'd have fewer faith crises.

Edited September 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Find out for themselves.
This is life eternal, to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
Nobody is getting this based on what either Brigham Young OR Bruce R. McConkie taught.
Nobody is getting this based on what President Monson teaches either.

Then why even need Prophets?  If they contradict each other and disavow past Prophet's teachings or even worse, just stay completely silent on all deeper doctrinal topics?  We pretty much now just hear the teachings of Christ from the pulpit at General Conference (love one another, live a chaste life, live the golden rule).  Not that those aren't important, they are.  But when have we ever heard any type of doctrinal discussion from our current Prophet?  He tells nice, feel good stories or makes the people laugh and yes, is a dear, sweet man who we love. But, he apparently had a revelation and we hear about it from someone else, not from him.  That is odd and members are taking note here.

.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There's no mess and no gymnastics necessary.
Just understand Brigham precisely as recorded.  Study what he taught.  Pray a little.

Decide - was he right or wrong?
If he was right it doesn't matter what current leaders think.
If he was wrong it doesn't matter what he taught.
It's only a mess if you can't handle studying things out for yourself and need to be told what to think.

While what you've written here is great and works for you, for me, and probably for Bill.  It ignores much of the reality of the situation.

Because of the 14 Fundamentals/Follow the Prophet doctrine that many members were raised on, they aren't really able to faithfully process this contradiction in which:

• Prophets are in direct disagreement on something as important as the nature of God.
• Prophets and apostles are claiming our salvation depends on getting it right, and yet they disagree.
• There is a lack of openness coming from the Church publications regarding the Adam-God doctrine.

You statements above require a member to acknowledge that prophets can repeatedly and publicly teach false principles.  While true, when I reached that same conclusion for myself it did create a "mess" in which my religious life is often at odds with the vast majority of fellow Mormons in my life (including my wife and other family members).

While I respect the thought pattern you have been able to internalize, it is still important to acknowledge the struggle that this presents for so many of our fellow Latter-day Saints.