Great Adam-God Discussion

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Which of the 14 Fundamentals contradicts the doctrine of Christ in relation to His servants' obligations and His commandments to the saints concerning their relationship with them as recorded in 3 Nephi 11-12?

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any reference to most of these in that scripture.  Contradictions become irrelevant if the issues in the 14 fundamentals aren't even being touched upon.
And as I've said before these are brilliantly written.  Nothing blatantly false, but all so easily misapplied that people don't even recognize the error.

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

[notHagoth7]

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You don't need to invite me to "take the issue up in prayer".  

? Why wouldn't that be a general, ongoing need for each of us? (For most, the issue won't be resolved to anyone's satisfaction without such.)

Or had I misunderstood you?

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Can you cite examples that were given by church leaders more recently than the teaching of the 14 Fundamentals?  Because the 14 Fundamentals were taught in October 2010 General Conference.  They were also published in a slightly modified but no less troubling form in the Teachings of the Presidents:  Benson manual (used in Priesthood and RS) for 2015 curriculum.  If you've got something that was taught by church leaders more recently to "undo" these harmful teachings, please share.

I see this goes back over 30 years. Perhaps a separate thread on what was actually taught there, and how it has been interpreted since, might be of greater benefit than derailing this thread? If so, I'd gladly explore it in greater detail and discuss it with you there.

49 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The problem isn't that BY erroneously taught Adam-God.  The problem is that the Church is still unable to properly deal with it.

Erroneously: I'm not yet well versed enough on everything he said on the topic to comment on your assertion there. 

Unable: I'd imagine it is quite able.

Properly: Even *if*, for the sake of discussion, one were to agree with the assertion that BY taught erroneously on the matter, what would be a proper manner of resolving such, in your opinion?

Edited September 28, 2016 by notHagoth7

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

? Why wouldn't that be a general, ongoing need for each of us? (For most, the issue won't be resolved to anyone's satisfaction without such.)

Or had I misunderstood you?

I see this goes back over 30 years. Perhaps a separate thread on what was actually taught there, and how it has been interpreted since, might be of greater benefit than derailing this thread? If so, I'd gladly explore it in greater detail and discuss it with you there.

Erroneously: I'm not yet well versed enough on everything he said on the topic to comment on your assertion there. 

Unable: I'd imagine it is quite able.

Properly: Even *if*, for the sake of discussion, one were to agree with the assertion that BY taught erroneously on the matter, what would be a proper manner of resolving such, in your opinion?

It is a general, ongoing need for each of us.  That's why you don't need to instruct me to do so.  You make the false assumption that I haven't.

There is no need to start another thread on the 14 Fundamentals.  It's been discussed in detail.  Many times.  My point is that you are claiming a certain role for prophets.  While I agree with your claim, I am pointing out that it is NOT what the current Church leadership teaches regarding the role of prophets.  The most recent official church teachings regarding prophets are the 14 Fundamentals.

You're right "unable" may not be the right word.  The Church is unwilling to deal with BY's past teachings.

How could they resolve?  Publish another gospel topics essay that acknowledges what BY taught without skirting around it and claiming that it was something other than it was.  Then disavow the 14 Fundamentals false doctrine and remove it from the archives.

[notHagoth7]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is a general, ongoing need for each of us.  That's why you don't need to instruct me to do so.  You make the false assumption that I haven't.

Thank you for clarifying.

In a discussion forum, where I neither know you personally (yet) nor claim to understand your current situation (although I do recall some previous discussions), some things will occasionally be said that might not apply to your current situation, but that still might benefit others here. (If one were to also factor that same consideration to the overall core of this thread, it could alleviate a number of concerns about statements made by church leaders over the years.) 

I hope to make amends if there was unintentional offense. 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, notHagoth7 said:

Thank you for clarifying.

In a discussion forum, where I neither know you personally (yet) nor claim to understand your current situation (although I do recall some previous discussions), some things will occasionally be said that might not apply to your current situation, but that still might benefit others here. (If one were to also factor that same consideration to the overall core of this thread, it could alleviate a number of concerns about statements made by church leaders over the years.) 

I hope to make amends if there was unintentional offense. 

There was no offense.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any reference to most of these in that scripture.  Contradictions become irrelevant if the issues in the 14 fundamentals aren't even being touched upon.
And as I've said before these are brilliantly written.  Nothing blatantly false, but all so easily misapplied that people don't even recognize the error.

I think each of these fundamentals ties directly to a few points of the doctrine of Christ as set forth in 3 Nephi 11 and 12, reflecting the expectations of those who fulfil the doctrine by becoming as little children and inheriting the kingdom of God (11:37, 39):

There shall be no disputations (11: 22; i.e. the spirit of contention, 11:29) among the leadership or between the saints and the leadership, whether interpersonally or on points of doctrine (11:28). This is the spirit of charity expressed as unity and harmony (11:30).

These servants are given authority (11:21, 41) to lead the way along the correct course, through word and ordinance to membership in the kingdom of God (11:33) which leads to the visit with fire and with the Holy Ghost (11:35; 12:1) and a remission of sins (12:2). This is the way in which all things are fulfilled (12:46).

The servants the Lord chooses are for the people of their own time and place, and are to “declare the words which I have spoken (11:41). The people are to give heed unto the words of those the Lord has chosen from among them to minister and to be their servants (12:1); and more blessed are they who believe in their words and testimony (12:2).

I think adherence to these simple points of doctrine, and the rest of the doctrine of Christ explained in these chapters, prevent misapplication.

[halconero]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any reference to most of these in that scripture.  Contradictions become irrelevant if the issues in the 14 fundamentals aren't even being touched upon.
And as I've said before these are brilliantly written.  Nothing blatantly false, but all so easily misapplied that people don't even recognize the error.

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

Yeah, I don't see any particular conflict here. I agree with all of these. President Monson is the Lord's Anointed on the Earth right now. He holds the keys of administration, including ordinances and doctrine, and acting under those keys leads to salvation.

[James Tunney]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any reference to most of these in that scripture.  Contradictions become irrelevant if the issues in the 14 fundamentals aren't even being touched upon.
And as I've said before these are brilliantly written.  Nothing blatantly false, but all so easily misapplied that people don't even recognize the error.

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

In the wrong hands, these 14 fundamentals could cause a lot of mischief.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Johnnie Cake]

First of all.  I applaud you on being able to capture my post in the 30 seconds that it was actually posted online...for soon after posting it I deleted it thinking my tone too harsh for this board.  But since you've posted let me respond.

15 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

? The intent has always been that we shouldn't blindly rely on *any* claim to revelation from any mortal. Instead, personal inspiration (a direct relationship with God) is the rock upon which Christ would build his church. The intent is to commune with God for guidance. Joseph taught the same. As did Brigham. As did earlier prophets.

And yet this is exactly what happened with Adam God and the Priesthood ban...with few exceptions, members blindly accepted these claimed revelations and followed their prophets...can you give me an example of any recent modern claimed revelation where this is not the norm or expectation?  Once a claimed controversial revelation has been pronounced and implemented, experience has shown that it takes decades of quiet behind the scenes agitation for the oligarchy to reverse itself and submit to societal pressures.  It took 50 years to finely reject the heretical apostate teachings of Brigham young's Adam God and another 130 to finally reject his bigotry and racist  priesthood ban.  Can we not expect the same pattern to repeat itself on woman and LGBTQ issues in the future...yet in the mean time people will suffer. Your rock...seems to resemble sand

15 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

You're assuming such things *are* missteps. I think it can be a larger misstep to rashly label an intentional statement as a misstep. Often things which are are said/done with foresight and with very specific intent, have a purpose which isn't initially fathomed, including the two examples you cited.

Or sometimes they can be exactly what they appear...racism and bigotry.  But I would love to hear how you spin the intended foresight and specific intent...given your current advantage of hindsight...of the ban and Adam God.  Please help me understand how sending the church into apostasy for 50 years or banning all worthy males had purpose? 

15 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Or, a firm, bedrock foundation. 

Seems like you're building your sky scrapers with straw rather than steal...

[Gray]

14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe I'm blind but I don't see any reference to most of these in that scripture.  Contradictions become irrelevant if the issues in the 14 fundamentals aren't even being touched upon.
And as I've said before these are brilliantly written.  Nothing blatantly false, but all so easily misapplied that people don't even recognize the error.

 

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

As I recall, isn't it your position that a current prophet doesn't automatically trump a dead prophet?

[halconero]

37 minutes ago, Gray said:

As I recall, isn't it your position that a current prophet doesn't automatically trump a dead prophet?

I can't speak for JLHPROF, but as someone with similar views to his, "trump" isn't the word I would use. The 14 Fundamentals directly use the words "vital" and "important" in very specific contexts, and interpreting those as a catch-all "trumps" is creating a situational dilemma which in my opinion doesn't really exist. Why is a living prophet more vital than the standard works? Partly because no interpretation of scripture is private, and the living prophet gives directly spiritual application and interpretation of the standards works pertinent to the Lord's people during his life time. Why is he more important than a dead prophet? Well, there could be a number of reasons, but I would argue that most important of all is the keys to priesthood ordinances which he holds, essential to the salvation of the living and the dead. When I baptized my friend Jairos a few months back I did so acting under the keys of President Monson via my Bishop. I did baptize him under President Hinckley's keys, Joseph Fielding Smith's keys, but President Monson's.

If you hold the truths of priesthood keys being passed down, and that the living oracles of God direct His people in the knowledge necessary for their immediate salvation, but which doesn't necessarily reveal or establish ALL truth, then the 14 Fundamentals don't present any huge barriers for an Adam-God believer who is faithful to the Lord's established leadership. Again, that's speaking for myself though.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, James Tunney said:

In the wrong hands, these 14 fundamentals could cause a lot of mischief.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

In the wrong hands, these 14 fundamentals have caused a lot of mischief.

#fixeditforyou

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

As I recall, isn't it your position that a current prophet doesn't automatically trump a dead prophet?

Absolutely.
As I've said before it's the way in which the 14 fundamentals are written.  Some very clever double speak.
 

1. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
2. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

More vital and more important exactly as phrased are 100% correct.
Brigham Young taught:

• "Joseph Once told me to go to his own house to attend a meeting with him. He said that He would not go without me. I went and Hiram Preached upon the Bible Book of Mormon & Covenants and said we must take them as our guide alone. He preached vary lengthy untill he nearly wearied the people out. When he Closed Joseph told me to get up. I did so. I took the Books and piled them all up on top of Each other. I then said that I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of any thing Els. When I got through Hyrum got up and made a Confession for not including the living Oracles."

But this is almost always misinterpreted to mean that they can contradict the standard works or a dead prophet.  I see nothing "vital" in the contradiction of God's revelations.  Joseph also clearly taught that no revelation can contradict a prior revelation.

So it's easy to see how these statements are written correctly and applied completely incorrectly by most.
 

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Absolutely.
As I've said before it's the way in which the 14 fundamentals are written.  Some very clever double speak.
 

1. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
2. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

More vital and more important exactly as phrased are 100% correct.
Brigham Young taught:

• "Joseph Once told me to go to his own house to attend a meeting with him. He said that He would not go without me. I went and Hiram Preached upon the Bible Book of Mormon & Covenants and said we must take them as our guide alone. He preached vary lengthy untill he nearly wearied the people out. When he Closed Joseph told me to get up. I did so. I took the Books and piled them all up on top of Each other. I then said that I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of any thing Els. When I got through Hyrum got up and made a Confession for not including the living Oracles."

But this is almost always misinterpreted to mean that they can contradict the standard works or a dead prophet.  I see nothing "vital" in the contradiction of God's revelations.  Joseph also clearly taught that no revelation can contradict a prior revelation.

So it's easy to see how these statements are written correctly and applied completely incorrectly by most.
 

I fear that statement "follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of anything else" can be taken to indicate blind obedience to the prophet rather than the need to receive a personal confirmation through the Spirit regarding their teachings.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I fear that statement "follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of anything else" can be taken to indicate blind obedience to the prophet rather than the need to receive a personal confirmation through the Spirit regarding their teachings.

There's a pretty well known quote from Brigham saying the exact same thing.

So if he was able to hold both viewpoints without contradiction, perhaps there is something we aren't seeing.

[Jeanne]

Huh..why are we discussing this...Brigham Young is a dead Prophet.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Huh..why are we discussing this...Brigham Young is a dead Prophet.

Because truth is eternal no matter who is doubting it at any given moment. 

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Because truth is eternal no matter who is doubting it at any given moment. 

Might it not be better  to state this thus:  Because truth is eternal no matter who is doubting it at any given moment...except when its not.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Might it not be better  to state this thus:  Because truth is eternal no matter who is doubting it at any given moment...except when its not.

Nope.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

In the wrong hands, these 14 fundamentals have caused a lot of mischief.

#fixeditforyou

That applies to any/everything! You said it yourself: wrong hands. LOL

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Might it not be better  to state this thus:  Because truth is eternal no matter who is doubting it at any given moment...except when its not.

In light of all the discussion here, this is my take too..how would one know at any given moment what is true..when lessons are on former prophets and some things are disavowed and/or sometimes not even enclosed in the lessons, what is really eternal truth?  Doesn't eternal mean forever?

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

In light of all the discussion here, this is my take too..how would one know at any given moment what is true..when lessons are on former prophets and some things are disavowed and/or sometimes not even enclosed in the lessons, what is really eternal truth? 

Brigham's eternal truths were True (1855-1905) until they weren't True (1905-present day) 

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

 

Doesn't eternal mean forever?

Not in the LDS Church...words have their own unique meanings that have no relations to the meanings found in a common dictionary

Edited September 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Brigham's eternal truths were True (1855-1905) until they weren't True (1905-present day) 

Not in the LDS Church...words have their own unique meanings that have no relations to the meanings found in a common dictionary

Brigham's eternal truths about those of African descent were actually true until 1978.  When they were less true.  And until 2014(?) when the gospel topic essay was published and they weren't true and he was racist.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Brigham's eternal truths about those of African descent were actually true until 1978.  When they were less true.  And until 2014(?) when the gospel topic essay was published and they weren't true and he was racist.

 

Actually...according to the essays...Brigham's eternal truths about those of African descent was just plain old bigotry and racism...from 1852 on

Edited September 28, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[JLHPROF]

21 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Brigham's eternal truths were True (1855-1905) until they weren't True (1905-present day) 

No, actually they were either always true or never true.
All that changed is the Church pronouncement on the subject.  But neither Brigham saying he was or Spencer saying he wasn't made Adam into Heavenly Father nor removed him from that office.

What we say has zero impact on eternal truths.

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Brigham's eternal truths about those of African descent were actually true until 1978.  When they were less true.  And until 2014(?) when the gospel topic essay was published and they weren't true and he was racist.

And yes, that even applies to the priesthood ban.
Either the doctrines taught until 1978 were true or they weren't.  Changing the doctrines we teach as a Church had no effect on what actually occurred all those millennia ago.