Great Adam-God Discussion

[Rivers]

4 hours ago, BCSpace said:

What's to discuss?  Only these two facts make sense:

1) Adam-God is not, and never was, LDS doctrine (and that includes Nutall which actually demonstrates 2 below).

2) Adam Sr - Adam Jr is the only explanation that fits the evidence.

The Adam Sr/Adam Jr theory is briefly discussed in the interview. Corbin argues that BY would have clarified his statements to the members of the church if that were the case. 

 

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, 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. 

As I said, it took on a life of its own.  As McConkie pointed out,

"But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe."

One must find a theory that explains that change in doctrine, and this theory, while not perfect, provides a clue to that answer.

Perhaps you can provide for us your view on that change.

[halconero]

I have no problem with believing both Young and McConkie. Moses had a miraculous vision akin to the Endowment, learned of the Messianic Mission, had the knowledge of a Divine Redeemer who was the Son of God, and learned the purposes of exaltation. Evidently he was prepared to teach the people this.

Yet what did he end up teaching? One God, Jehovah. How are you redeemed? By adherence to the ordinances of sacrifice in the Tabernacle. Why? Because they were disobedient and unwilling to learn. Was this a deception given that Moses knew more? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Was it a commandment from God to both prepare the Israelites and keep sacred truths from wide dissemination? Also yes.

Later Israelites would be condemned for worshipping a Queen of Heaven and the Council of the Gods. Partly because they were idolatrous conceptions of them, but also because such truths, even though they were truths, were not doctrinal. Doctrinal being defined as "authorized" to be taught within the Gospel framework.

I have no problem with what Brigham Young taught. I largely believe it. It makes sense to me, and are truths that "taste" good to me and clarify points ranging from plural marriage to exaltation where all other attempts of explanation fall flat in a variety of ways. Yet I'm also fine with these truths not being doctrinal, or authorized to be taught, right now. In that sense I have no problem with sustaining Bruce R. McConkie, and rightly believe that anyone widely preaching these, especially in the Church setting, should be subject to the discipline of the Church. Were an Israelite to be teaching them vision of Moses in the PofGP to the people of Israel, it would be the same. It is true, but it is not doctrinal.

The reason why it is not doctrinal is largely due to the same reasons why Moses' revelations were not doctrinal in his day. Both Joseph and Brigham repeatedly remarked on the reluctance of the Saints to accept their harder truths. They were too inconvenient, and too hard. In reality, the truths taught were not all that complex. I feel personally that they are remarkably simple and easy to understand. Where I faltered upon originally reading them was my initial ability to accept them. I railed against the concepts. Furthermore, it is evident that the Saints were not upholding their covenants in other areas. We have stories of unauthorized plural marriages conducted for sensuous and disgusting reasons, of evil practices related to an unrighteous practice of the United Order, Saints taking upon themselves the roles of judge and executioner, when all these keys belonged to the one anointed to do so, and within the strictest obligations and covenants.

So I believe strongly that the key was turned in the "locked" position on a number of truths, ordinances, and practices. The Saints got the doctrine they deserved. I can sustain both the teachings of President Young and Elder McConkie without contradiction, simply because I believe in Priesthood keys and their ability to both seal up and loose truths and Ordinances. When they're sealed up, it becomes unlawful for me to either teach or administer them.

So for now I teach that God is God, Christ is Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That is sufficient. What I believe regarding their names, identities, and deeper roles remains something private. Sometimes I'll share in the quietest of settings (and occasionally Internet forums ), but those are rare.

Edited September 23, 2016 by halconero

[Bobbieaware]

38 minutes ago, halconero said:

I have no problem with believing both Young and McConkie. Moses had a miraculous vision akin to the Endowment, learned of the Messianic Mission, had the knowledge of a Divine Redeemer who was the Son of God, and learned the purposes of exaltation. Evidently he was prepared to teach the people this.

Yet what did he end up teaching? One God, Jehovah. How are you redeemed? By adherence to the ordinances of sacrifice in the Tabernacle. Why? Because they were disobedient and unwilling to learn. Was this a deception given that Moses knew more? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Was it a commandment from God to both prepare the Israelites and keep sacred truths from wide dissemination? Also yes.

Later Israelites would be condemned for worshipping a Queen of Heaven and the Council of the Gods. Partly because they were idolatrous conceptions of them, but also because such truths, even though they were truths, were not doctrinal. Doctrinal being defined as "authorized" to be taught within the Gospel framework.

I have no problem with what Brigham Young taught. I largely believe it. It makes sense to me, and are truths that "taste" good to me and clarify points ranging from plural marriage to exaltation where all other attempts of explanation fall flat in a variety of ways. Yet I'm also fine with these truths not being doctrinal, or authorized to be taught, right now. I'm that sense I have no problem with sustaining Bruce R. McConkie, and rightly believe that anyone widely preaching these, especially in the Church setting, should be subject to the discipline of the Church. Were and Israelite to be teaching them vision of Moses in the PofGP to the people of Israel, it would be the same. It is true, but it is not doctrinal.

The reason why it is not doctrinal is largely due to the same reasons why Moses' revelations were not doctrinal in his day. Both Joseph and Brigham repeatedly remarked on the reluctance of the Saints to accept their harder truths. They were too inconvenient, and too hard. In reality, the truths taught were not all that complex. I feel personally that they are remarkably simple and easy to understand. Where I faltered upon originally reading them was my initial ability to accept them. I railed against the concepts. Furthermore, it is evident that the Saints were not upholding their covenants in other areas. We have stories of unauthorized plural marriages conducted for sensuous and disgusting reasons, of evil practices related to an unrighteous practice of the United Order, Saints taking upon themselves the roles of judge and executioner, when all these keys belonged to the one anointed to do so, and within the strictest obligations and covenants.

So I believe strongly that the key was turned in the "locked" position on a number of truths, ordinances, and practices. The Saints got the doctrine they deserved. I can sustain both the teachings of President Young and Elder McConkie without contradiction, simply because I believe in Priesthood keys and their ability to both seal up and loose truths and Ordinances. When they're sealed up, it becomes unlawful for me to either teach or administer them.

So for now I teach that God is God, Christ is Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That is sufficient. What I believe regarding their names, identities, and deeper roles remains something private. Sometimes I'll share in the quietest of settings (and occasionally Internet forums ), but those are rare.

In this post, you have very well summarized exactly how I think and feel. If I ever need to explain to someone how a gospel concept can be ultimately true while simultaneously also being non-doctrinal, I will refer them to this post. There are several accounts of prophets having visions wherein profound gospel truths (mysteries) were revealed, but immediately after being taught those deeper truths these holy men were solemnly warned it was unlawful for them to share anything about what they learned with any another man.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, halconero said:

I have no problem with believing both Young and McConkie. Moses had a miraculous vision akin to the Endowment, learned of the Messianic Mission, had the knowledge of a Divine Redeemer who was the Son of God, and learned the purposes of exaltation. Evidently he was prepared to teach the people this.

That is a good point, differentiating deeper, eternal truths given to a prophet (too sacred to share) from the more basic doctrine of that prophet's day (widely published).

The Adam-God doctrine relationships seem to consist of: The Lord God (who is Jehovah, the father of Michael / God the Father); God the Father of the Only Begotten (who is Michael); Adam (the paradisaical and mortal incarnation of God the Father / Michael); and Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father / Michael; which as you pointed out Moses seems to contradict in the canonized writings revealed to Joseph Smith:

Moses 6:50-54: “And he [Jehovah, The Lord God, the father of God the Father / Michael] called upon our father Adam [Michael] by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh [making us the children of The Lord God / Jehovah, not God the Father / Michael*]. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me …in the name of mine Only Begotten Son [making The Lord God / Jehovah the father of Jesus, the Only Begotten Son*], who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ… And our father Adam [Michael] spake unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said: Why is it that men [thy spirit children before they were in the flesh*; and my progeny in the flesh] must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Adam [Michael]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son [Jesus] of God [Michael] hath atoned for original guilt…”

Moses 1:32-34: “…worlds without number have I [God the Father/Michael] created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I [Michael*] called Adam, which is many.” Here we have Michael referring to Himself as Adam in the third person (as also in Moses 2: 1, 26-27).

Moses 4: 28, 29: “And I, the Lord God* [Jehovah the Father of God the Father / Michael], said unto mine Only Begotten [pre-mortal Jesus]: Behold, the man* [mortal Michael / Adam] is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, Therefore I [Michael], the Lord God*, will send him* [mortal Michael / Adam, or myself] forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he [mortal Michael / Adam, or myself] was taken…” Here we have Michael, the father of the Only Begotten, simultaneously speak and act as Jehovah (the Lord God, who is not the father the Only Begotten) and/or as Michael, and then again in the third person as Adam (the subject spoken about, as also in Moses 3:18).

* concepts that seem contradict the Adam-God doctrine

How do you find the current doctrine in its contradiction serving as a schoolmaster for the deeper truths?

[halconero]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

In this post, you have very well summarized exactly how I think and feel. If I ever need to explain to someone how a gospel concept can be ultimately true while simultaneously also being non-doctrinal, I will refer them to this post. There are several accounts of prophets having visions wherein profound gospel truths (mysteries) were revealed, but immediately after being taught those deeper truths these holy men were solemnly warned it was unlawful for them to share anything about what they learned with any another man.

Yup. To the point where the commandment to keep mum means they have to obscure their teachings or sayings. It's a pattern throughout scripture, from Jesus and the Messianic Secret, through Moses, to John Taylor in France.

[halconero]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That is a good point, differentiating deeper, eternal truths given to a prophet (too sacred to share) from the more basic doctrine of that prophet's day (widely published).

The Adam-God doctrine relationships seem to consist of: The Lord God (who is Jehovah, the father of Michael / God the Father); God the Father of the Only Begotten (who is Michael); Adam (the paradisaical and mortal incarnation of God the Father / Michael); and Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father / Michael; which as you pointed out Moses seems to contradict in the canonized writings revealed to Joseph Smith:

Moses 6:50-54: “And he [Jehovah, The Lord God, the father of God the Father / Michael] called upon our father Adam [Michael] by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh [making us the children of The Lord God / Jehovah, not God the Father / Michael*]. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me …in the name of mine Only Begotten Son [making The Lord God / Jehovah the father of Jesus, the Only Begotten Son*], who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ… And our father Adam [Michael] spake unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said: Why is it that men [thy spirit children before they were in the flesh*; and my progeny in the flesh] must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Adam [Michael]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son [Jesus] of God [Michael] hath atoned for original guilt…”

Moses 1:32-34: “…worlds without number have I [God the Father/Michael] created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I [Michael*] called Adam, which is many.” Here we have Michael referring to Himself as Adam in the third person (as also in Moses 2: 1, 26-27).

Moses 4: 28, 29: “And I, the Lord God* [Jehovah the Father of God the Father / Michael], said unto mine Only Begotten [pre-mortal Jesus]: Behold, the man* [mortal Michael / Adam] is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, Therefore I [Michael], the Lord God*, will send him* [mortal Michael / Adam, or myself] forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he [mortal Michael / Adam, or myself] was taken…” Here we have Michael, the father of the Only Begotten, simultaneously speak and act as Jehovah (the Lord God, who is not the father the Only Begotten) and/or as Michael, and then again in the third person as Adam (the subject spoken about, as also in Moses 3:18).

* concepts that seem contradict the Adam-God doctrine

How do you find the current doctrine in its contradiction serving as a schoolmaster for the deeper truths?

I actually find Moses to be one of the more supportive scriptures of the doctrine. Today and tomorrow are both busy with work and writing the LSAT (for those of you who knew of my writing the MCAT...let's just say plans have changed for a variety of reasons) on Saturday. I'll elaborate Saturday afternoon after I've done the exam, cleaned my house for the first time in two weeks, gone grocery shopping, eaten an entire pizza in celebration, and watched 3 episodes of the Office because my brain needs to turn off for a bit.

Over my personal time studying the doctrine I've compiled scriptures from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and others which support the Adam-God truth (not a theory for me, but not doctrinal either, as I elaborated on in my original post). I'm happy to share a few of them. The first point that Moses contradicts Adam-God is a bit of a longer one to answer.

Your second question is a bit simpler to answer, but as it stands currently, it is more important for the Saints to understand the saving truths related to Adam rather than what I consider to be the exalting truths related to Adam. The exalting truths of Adam were attempted to be taught by Joseph Smith, elaborated on by Brigham Young, but simply put we weren't ready for them as a Church. The saving truths of Adam, and the doctrine currently disseminated, is that we are fallen beings like him. That to be fallen doesn't mean to be sinful, but to be subject to death, temptation, sickness, and travail. That reliance on Jesus Christ for salvation, obedience to the ordinances he gives us, and heeding the counsel of his prophets is necessary to turn this fall into a necessary journey. That is an "Adam-truth" consistent with Adam-God, but more pertinent and easily accepted for now. Yet, there remain hints and preparations for the exalting truths, and those are largely to be found in the temple. Out of respect for the fact this is a public forum, the rules of this board, and most of all for the temple, I won't elaborate much. What I'll say is that we come to a greater understanding of Adam's nature, and the character of his wife and the relevance of her name. At baptism we taken upon ourselves the name of Christ. Exaltation requires taking upon ourselves the names of Adam and Eve. These are all shadows of things to come. Previously taught openly and clearly in a number of circumstances in phrases ranging from "You must learn to become Gods yourselves," to lectures taught by the prophets. For now though, the shadow of exaltation works to prepare the Saints, and the saving portions of the doctrine are what we concentrate on, as we haven't as a community become quite ready enough to move up the proverbial ladder from salvation to exaltation.

As I said earlier, I'll share more information on what I consider to be a clear understanding of the truths previously taught, scripture to support them, and how it makes sense of many of our current doctrines. Just don't go around sharing what I said in Sunday School or Sacrament.

[Tacenda]

"The Adam-God doctrine has not been abandoned. It has gone underground. The endowment still very clearly declares that Eve is the Mother of All Living, and that Earth is patterned after the world where Adam “used to live.”

These are vestiges of Adam-God Doctrine.

Just like all occultic groups, the LDS church hides his true doctrine behind a veneer of simple religion that is palatable for the masses. If you have ears to hear, the temple teaches, in code, the true doctrine. Adam is God. Still."

Me: The above is quoted from the comment section of the podcast. And Corbin made a good observation when he mentions how the church may need to watch how they go underground with this Adam/God theory. Once more people realize the truth and that it is in our temples, they'll see that the church denying it and not agreeing with it, but the ones who are, are the polygamist sects out there. They are in the BY camp. IMO, they might join up with them instead. 

When the guest Corbin, mentions how BY believed Jesus is the literal son of Adam, that didn't sit well with me at all. I can see how the Christian world sees us as a cult and not Christian. 

Maybe the church is placating the rest of Christianity with their denials, but it sure seems like the church is not being honest, as Corbin mentions, a requirement for a recommend is that we are honest in all our dealings, of which the church fell/falls short.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, Teancum said:

I highly doubt the church will do an essay.  Most prominent among many of Brigham's odd teachings they simply ignore it as the position is it was never adopted as official doctrine.  But clearly that ignores the fact that the Prophet, Seer and Revelator at that time did not seem to know who or what God really was......

Brigham Young is responsible for most of our Temple Ceremony. He knew whom Adam and God really were. 

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

"The Adam-God doctrine has not been abandoned. It has gone underground. The endowment still very clearly declares that Eve is the Mother of All Living, and that Earth is patterned after the world where Adam “used to live.”

These are vestiges of Adam-God Doctrine.

Just like all occultic groups, the LDS church hides his true doctrine behind a veneer of simple religion that is palatable for the masses. If you have ears to hear, the temple teaches, in code, the true doctrine. Adam is God. Still."

Me: The above is quoted from the comment section of the podcast. And Corbin made a good observation when he mentions how the church may need to watch how they go underground with this Adam/God theory. Once more people realize the truth and that it is in our temples, they'll see that the church denying it and not agreeing with it, but the ones who are, are the polygamist sects out there. They are in the BY camp. IMO, they might join up with them instead. 

When the guest Corbin, mentions how BY believed Jesus is the literal son of Adam, that didn't sit well with me at all. I can see how the Christian world sees us as a cult and not Christian. 

Maybe the church is placating the rest of Christianity with their denials, but it sure seems like the church is not being honest, as Corbin mentions, a requirement for a recommend is that we are honest in all our dealings, of which the church fell/falls short.

Christ is a literal son of Adam and Eve through Mary his earthly mother.

I could not care less about what the rest of Christianity thinks of the LDS.

Edited September 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Christ is a literal son of Adam and Eve through Mary his earthly mother.

I could not care less about what the rest of Christianity thinks of the LDS.

I guess this is a new one on me, since late last night and hearing it from the podcast. 

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, Rivers said:

I hope Bro. Reel doesn't mind me posting this but this probably the best discussion I've heard regarding the Adam-God teachings of Brigham Young.  The history of this teaching and how church leaders have dealt with it for is fascinating. It's a big long I must warn.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/09/premium-adam-god-historical-subterfuge/

I'm now eager to see how the church deals  with this topic in the near future.  No essay on it yet.

This was an excellent podcast, thanks for posting about it!  

One thought I had after this podcast was this.  The statements of Joseph Smith seem like they act on a higher plane than the statements of Brigham Young or any of the leaders since him.  It seems like we privilege those statements as more inspired.  Even though BY was prophet for over 30 years, much longer than Joseph led the church.  

I also seems to me that we privilege the current leaders over the past leaders, with the exception of Joseph Smith, his statements seem to carry additional weight.  If I were to graph this out on a chart to measure the authority of the statements of church leaders, it would look like an inverse bell curve.  Is this what we can expect going into the future.  Will current leaders statements always carry more weight than past leaders with the exception of Joseph Smith?  

[VideoGameJunkie]

Anyone who's been through the temple endowment and seen the video shouldn't be confused on this issue.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, halconero said:

Yup. To the point where the commandment to keep mum means they have to obscure their teachings or sayings. It's a pattern throughout scripture, from Jesus and the Messianic Secret, through Moses, to John Taylor in France.

If Brigham Young had one real weakness it was in this area.
Things Joseph kept from the body of the Church during his life Brigham spent his entire Presidency making them public and opening them to all members of the Church.
Unfortunately that path backfire a bit and by the time of the death of John Taylor much began to be removed from public member view.  Post-Manifesto polygamy by so many leading authorities is good evidence of this.
Brigham tried so hard to reveal things to everyone but not everyone was up for accepting them.  Probably why Joseph kept so much for a select few during his lifetime.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, halconero said:

I have no problem with believing both Young and McConkie. Moses had a miraculous vision akin to the Endowment, learned of the Messianic Mission, had the knowledge of a Divine Redeemer who was the Son of God, and learned the purposes of exaltation. Evidently he was prepared to teach the people this.

Yet what did he end up teaching? One God, Jehovah. How are you redeemed? By adherence to the ordinances of sacrifice in the Tabernacle. Why? Because they were disobedient and unwilling to learn. Was this a deception given that Moses knew more? In the strictest sense of the word, yes. Was it a commandment from God to both prepare the Israelites and keep sacred truths from wide dissemination? Also yes.

Later Israelites would be condemned for worshipping a Queen of Heaven and the Council of the Gods. Partly because they were idolatrous conceptions of them, but also because such truths, even though they were truths, were not doctrinal. Doctrinal being defined as "authorized" to be taught within the Gospel framework.

I have no problem with what Brigham Young taught. I largely believe it. It makes sense to me, and are truths that "taste" good to me and clarify points ranging from plural marriage to exaltation where all other attempts of explanation fall flat in a variety of ways. Yet I'm also fine with these truths not being doctrinal, or authorized to be taught, right now. I'm that sense I have no problem with sustaining Bruce R. McConkie, and rightly believe that anyone widely preaching these, especially in the Church setting, should be subject to the discipline of the Church. Were and Israelite to be teaching them vision of Moses in the PofGP to the people of Israel, it would be the same. It is true, but it is not doctrinal.

The reason why it is not doctrinal is largely due to the same reasons why Moses' revelations were not doctrinal in his day. Both Joseph and Brigham repeatedly remarked on the reluctance of the Saints to accept their harder truths. They were too inconvenient, and too hard. In reality, the truths taught were not all that complex. I feel personally that they are remarkably simple and easy to understand. Where I faltered upon originally reading them was my initial ability to accept them. I railed against the concepts. Furthermore, it is evident that the Saints were not upholding their covenants in other areas. We have stories of unauthorized plural marriages conducted for sensuous and disgusting reasons, of evil practices related to an unrighteous practice of the United Order, Saints taking upon themselves the roles of judge and executioner, when all these keys belonged to the one anointed to do so, and within the strictest obligations and covenants.

So I believe strongly that the key was turned in the "locked" position on a number of truths, ordinances, and practices. The Saints got the doctrine they deserved. I can sustain both the teachings of President Young and Elder McConkie without contradiction, simply because I believe in Priesthood keys and their ability to both seal up and loose truths and Ordinances. When they're sealed up, it becomes unlawful for me to either teach or administer them.

So for now I teach that God is God, Christ is Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That is sufficient. What I believe regarding their names, identities, and deeper roles remains something private. Sometimes I'll share in the quietest of settings (and occasionally Internet forums ), but those are rare.

What a great post!
I agree with almost all you wrote here, most especially with the parts I have highlighted.

I'd give multiple rep points if I could.
 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Anyone who's been through the temple endowment and seen the video shouldn't be confused on this issue.

It's a lot deeper than that. You should investigate a little before making absolute statements.

The teaching that Adam is God the Father of our spirits and the only god with whom we have to deal, was clearly taught in the temple in the Lecture at the Veil for many years in the 19th century.

When we consider that a prophet of God taught about the identity and nature of God, only to have other prophets claim his teachings as a heresy, it gets a little complicated. At the very least we have dueling prophets. Brigham taught that if you didn't accept Adam/God you would be damned. Kimball and McConkie taught that if you accept Adam/God, you would be damned.

It opens the question of how we can have confidence in the teachings of the prophet, when future prophets may simply disavow the teaching. Think about it. The only reason you believe that it is better to follow the current prophet over past prophets is because the current prophet told you that. Either way, a prophet of God was very wrong about what is perhaps the most essential element of religion; Who is God? Latter-day prophets don't agree on that fundamental question.

It's a fascinating discussion and issue to consider.

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I guess this is a new one on me, since late last night and hearing it from the podcast. 

It is right here in the Christian Bible.

SEE: Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him" .
Just maybe you should pay a lot less attention to podcasts, and a lot more to what the Church actually teaches.

[thesometimesaint]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a lot deeper than that. You should investigate a little before making absolute statements.

The teaching that Adam is God the Father of our spirits and the only god with whom we have to deal, was clearly taught in the temple in the Lecture at the Veil for many years in the 19th century.

When we consider that a prophet of God taught about the identity and nature of God, only to have other prophets claim his teachings as a heresy, it gets a little complicated. At the very least we have dueling prophets. Brigham taught that if you didn't accept Adam/God you would be damned. Kimball and McConkie taught that if you accept Adam/God, you would be damned.

It opens the question of how we can have confidence in the teachings of the prophet, when future prophets may simply disavow the teaching. Think about it. The only reason you believe that it is better to follow the current prophet over past prophets is because the current prophet told you that. Either way, a prophet of God was very wrong about what is perhaps the most essential element of religion; Who is God? Latter-day prophets don't agree on that fundamental question.

It's a fascinating discussion and issue to consider.

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

That is some seriously weak apologetics.

Adam/God was taught on multiple occasions and was even part of the temple teachings at the veil. So the "single occasion" bit just doesn't work.

It doesn't change the fact that either Brigham Young misidentified God in a consistent teaching of false doctrine or Spencer Kimball wasn't aware that Brigham was right. Either way, the prophet, in one case or another, didn't know who God is. And a statement on Mormon Newsroom, as nice as it sounds can't cover that discrepancy.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing at this point to acknowledge that every member should carefully consider for themselves what they believe and not rely merely on authoritative claims of others.

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Personally I am interested in what is actually true and have no interest whatsoever in what the Church approves to be true.
And as HJW points out this has no relationship to Brigham and Adam-God which was not a single statement nor taken out of context.
I will concede that it is not officially binding for the Church (although I would consider it might be officially binding on all who were taught it as part of their endowment).

But again, approval of the Church has no weight in whether a fact is true or not.

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is some seriously weak apologetics.

Adam/God was taught on multiple occasions and was even part of the temple teachings at the veil. So the "single occasion" bit just doesn't work.

It doesn't change the fact that either Brigham Young misidentified God in a consistent teaching of false doctrine or Spencer Kimball wasn't aware that Brigham was right. Either way, the prophet, in one case or another, didn't know who God is. And a statement on Mormon Newsroom, as nice as it sounds can't cover that discrepancy.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing at this point to acknowledge that every member should carefully consider for themselves what they believe and not rely merely on authoritative claims of others.

Brigham Young, by way of Joseph Smith, is the source of our modern Temple Ceremony he know well who God and Adam are.

The only things that I am required to believe are those things in our Scriptures. Adam=God has never met that requirement.

 

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Personally I am interested in what is actually true and have no interest whatsoever in what the Church approves to be true.
And as HJW points out this has no relationship to Brigham and Adam-God which was not a single statement nor taken out of context.
I will concede that it is not officially binding for the Church (although I would consider it might be officially binding on all who were taught it as part of their endowment).

But again, approval of the Church has no weight in whether a fact is true or not.

Humm, How far are you willing to take this irrational line of thought? Is Jesus the Christ? Is this his Church? Should I be a member?
At some point we have agree with what the Church claims or there is no point in belonging to it.

Edited September 23, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Brigham Young, by way of Joseph Smith, is the source of our modern Temple Ceremony he know well who God and Adam are.

The only things that I am required to believe are those things in our Scriptures. Adam=God has never met that requirement.

 

Who wrote scripture (presumably)? Prophets at best, anyone else with a pen and scroll at worst. Why do you privilege scripture over Brigham Young or any other modern prophet?

Likely it's because that's what a prophet taught. So which one is right? Brigham, Spencer, the scripture, the prophet that said you should listen more to the scripture than other prophets? We all have to make decisions on those kinds of questions but I think it's useful to understand that reasonable people can come to different conclusions. It's not clear cut and frankly I think God is fine with that. I think we're more into dogma than He is.

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is right here in the Christian Bible.

SEE: Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him" .
Just maybe you should pay a lot less attention to podcasts, and a lot more to what the Church actually teaches.

Just maybe you should tell me how, when it doesn't have Adam anywhere in the scripture you provided. It doesn't list Adam as God. Please!!

 

[Tacenda]

42 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That is some seriously weak apologetics.

Adam/God was taught on multiple occasions and was even part of the temple teachings at the veil. So the "single occasion" bit just doesn't work.

It doesn't change the fact that either Brigham Young misidentified God in a consistent teaching of false doctrine or Spencer Kimball wasn't aware that Brigham was right. Either way, the prophet, in one case or another, didn't know who God is. And a statement on Mormon Newsroom, as nice as it sounds can't cover that discrepancy.

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing at this point to acknowledge that every member should carefully consider for themselves what they believe and not rely merely on authoritative claims of others.

I went to the temple plenty, and didn't even catch the Adam/God thing.