Great Adam-God Discussion

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, Tacenda said:

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

It was discontinued as a temple teaching in the early 20th century, maybe even the very late 19th so you wouldn't have heard it there. But as discussed in the podcast there are remnants of it if you know what to look for.

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Tacenda said:

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

It's a lot harder to spot since the Lecture at the Veil was dropped.
Best question to ask yourself - which three Gods/godhead are presiding over the creation?

[halconero]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

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.

JHLPROF has never claimed that this isn't Christ's Church, nor that anyone should leave. Heck, he's one of the strongest proponents of priesthood keys that I've encountered.

The point that has been made previously is that what is doctrinal is determined by priesthood keys. Doctrine is simply authorized and sanctioned teachings. While the keys on a doctrine are turned, that is what is appropriately taught and disseminated to members of Christ's Church. That doesn't mean doctrine explains every truth there is, or sometimes directly obscures higher truths. We know that there is more God than one. Yet the doctrine in Moses' day was that there was only one, and only one which Israel should worship, Jehovah (Yahweh for you pedants). Does this contradict the notion of the Godhead? Three Gods acting as one God? On the surface level, you betcha! That doesn't invalidate Moses as a prophet, nor doesn't it mean Paul and Moses were "dueling" prophets. Within a doctrinal context it simply means that Paul was authorized to teach what Moses could not. Doctrine =/= Truth. It's a false equivalency. It doesn't devalue doctrine, or its teaching and saving ability. Doctrine is that which is necessary to know and do for a member of Christ's church to achieve salvation.

[halconero]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's a lot harder to spot since the Lecture at the Veil was dropped.
Best question to ask yourself - which three Gods/godhead are presiding over the creation?

Exactly. Notice which God makes the recommendation, and which one is affirms or authorizes it.

I won't even get into Elohim. That one is its own lovely topic. I guess Jehovah is too.

[thesometimesaint]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It's a lot harder to spot since the Lecture at the Veil was dropped.
Best question to ask yourself - which three Gods/godhead are presiding over the creation?

Presiding is God the Father. Even if God the Son is conducting the meeting.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, thesometimesaint said:

Presiding is God the Father. Even if God the Son is conducting the meeting.

And the third member of the Godhead that creates the earth?

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, halconero said:

JHLPROF has never claimed that this isn't Christ's Church, nor that anyone should leave. Heck, he's one of the strongest proponents of priesthood keys that I've encountered.

The point that has been made previously is that what is doctrinal is determined by priesthood keys. Doctrine is simply authorized and sanctioned teachings. While the keys on a doctrine are turned, that is what is appropriately taught and disseminated to members of Christ's Church. That doesn't mean doctrine explains every truth there is, or sometimes directly obscures higher truths. We know that there is more God than one. Yet the doctrine in Moses' day was that there was only one, and only one which Israel should worship, Jehovah (Yahweh for you pedants). Does this contradict the notion of the Godhead? Three Gods acting as one God? On the surface level, you betcha! That doesn't invalidate Moses as a prophet, nor doesn't it mean Paul and Moses were "dueling" prophets. Within a doctrinal context it simply means that Paul was authorized to teach what Moses could not. Doctrine =/= Truth. It's a false equivalency. It doesn't devalue doctrine, or its teaching and saving ability. Doctrine is that which is necessary to know and do for a member of Christ's church to achieve salvation.

The church shouldn't hide the truth, especially when non members might gravitate to the truth better than the church being the same as the average Christian church. The church's plan of progression is quite exciting to many.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church shouldn't hide the truth, especially when non members might gravitate to the truth better than the church being the same as the average Christian church. The church's plan of progression is quite exciting to many.

1. Non-members are unlikely to gravitate to anything seen in our day as "weird".
2. Any doctrines withheld at the command of God are no different than what Moses did when the Children of Israel rejected the higher laws.  He gave them lower laws.
I believe that's what happened with the Church today as well.
3. Eternal progression, especially to becoming like God, is considered one of our weird doctrines to most non-member Christians, and even to a few members.

Edited September 23, 2016 by JLHPROF

[halconero]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church shouldn't hide the truth, especially when non members might gravitate to the truth better than the church being the same as the average Christian church. The church's plan of progression is quite exciting to many.

What if God commands them?

That's like saying Christ shouldn't have hid that he was the Messiah. He's Christ, he can decided what's right and proper to reveal. Likewise, if Christ is the head of this Church (and I believe he is), he retains that right to decide what is good and proper to reveal.

Edited September 23, 2016 by halconero

[halconero]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the third member of the Godhead that creates the earth?

"Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages … are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator." - Joseph Smith, Jr.

If that lines up with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, that just throws in two ideas:

1) We need to consider the possibility of more than one Godhead

2) We need to rethink how the Godhead operates in a mortal/divine context

These two ideas don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

[halconero]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Elder Christofferson said something interesting at a Calgary meeting recently, at which I was in attendance. It wasn't inferred either, as it was an obviously and largely discussed topic among the YSA for a few weeks before they moved on to the more regular concerns of dating, movie nights, NCMO's and marriage. It was that the date of the 2nd coming isn't necessarily fixed, but dependent on the Church getting its act together.

This is derailing slightly, but from what I've studied, there was good indication that the 2nd Coming could have happened far sooner in our history, and was largely dependent on the Church's willingness to sustain and protect Joseph Smith in all circumstances, being willing to sustain and practice all laws, ordinances, and truths necessary to usher in the 2nd Coming. On the one hand, I could see this being a weakness of Brigham Young, on the other, knowing his absolute devotion and friendship to Joseph I could see it being him trying to urgently bring to pass the necessary conditions for an 1890 return of Christ. By the time of Wilford Woodruff, it was becoming evident that this would not happen. Read President Woodruff's remarks on 1890, and his almost sad attitude regarding the change in Adam-God teachings and plural marriage and you can almost sense the loss.

[thesometimesaint]

3 minutes ago, halconero said:

JHLPROF has never claimed that this isn't Christ's Church, nor that anyone should leave. Heck, he's one of the strongest proponents of priesthood keys that I've encountered.

The point that has been made previously is that what is doctrinal is determined by priesthood keys. Doctrine is simply authorized and sanctioned teachings. While the keys on a doctrine are turned, that is what is appropriately taught and disseminated to members of Christ's Church. That doesn't mean doctrine explains every truth there is, or sometimes directly obscures higher truths. We know that there is more God than one. Yet the doctrine in Moses' day was that there was only one, and only one which Israel should worship, Jehovah (Yahweh for you pedants). Does this contradict the notion of the Godhead? Three Gods acting as one God? On the surface level, you betcha! That doesn't invalidate Moses as a prophet, nor doesn't it mean Paul and Moses were "dueling" prophets. Within a doctrinal context it simply means that Paul was authorized to teach what Moses could not. Doctrine =/= Truth. It's a false equivalency. It doesn't devalue doctrine, or its teaching and saving ability. Doctrine is that which is necessary to know and do for a member of Christ's church to achieve salvation.

I have not demanded his resignation. He is a worthy active member from every thing I've seen. May he live long and prosper.

This just s theoretical discussion on what Church doctrine is. Adam = God has never met the requirements of "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" let alone "Common Consent", as defined by the Church.

[halconero]

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I have not demanded his resignation. He is a worthy active member from every thing I've seen. May he live long and prosper.

This just s theoretical discussion on what Church doctrine is. Adam = God has never met the requirements of "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" let alone "Common Consent", as defined by the Church.

I never said you're demanding his resignation. This is good LSAT study for me right now, especially in my chapter on Assumption Arguments right before on the table. You're making an assumption which isn't there. On the other hand you've inferred that his line of thought naturally leads him to conclude that doctrine is worthless, which he nor I isn't arguing.

As for your 2nd Statement, it's an internet forum on Mormon Dialogue. Of course it's a theoretical discussion. Yet I've also provided multiple examples of incidents wherein what was true was not also doctrine. I'm beating an already dead horse, but I'll point out once again that there are doctrinal (by your definition) incidents of doctrine contradicting or at least obscuring Gospel truths, out of sacred respect for those truths, the unrighteousness of the Church, or both. In those aforementioned cases, the prophet/leader of that time taught those truths to select members, and even sometimes wider audiences, then strictly forbid them from taking it further.

So go ahead. I agree with you that Adam-God isn't doctrinal. It shouldn't be taught in Church. The current prophets and apostles forbid it. Yet you can't say that Brigham Young didn't teach it as truth, that Joseph Smith didn't hint at it strongly (and in some accounts directly taught it in private), or formed temple ordinances around it. But I 100% back you in saying that such incidents aren't binding on members currently.

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, halconero said:

Elder Christofferson said something interesting at a Calgary meeting recently, at which I was in attendance. It wasn't inferred either, as it was an obviously and largely discussed topic among the YSA for a few weeks before they moved on to the more regular concerns of dating, movie nights, NCMO's and marriage. It was that the date of the 2nd coming isn't necessarily fixed, but dependent on the Church getting its act together.

This is derailing slightly, but from what I've studied, there was good indication that the 2nd Coming could have happened far sooner in our history, and was largely dependent on the Church's willingness to sustain and protect Joseph Smith in all circumstances, being willing to sustain and practice all laws, ordinances, and truths necessary to usher in the 2nd Coming. On the one hand, I could see this being a weakness of Brigham Young, on the other, knowing his absolute devotion and friendship to Joseph I could see it being him trying to urgently bring to pass the necessary conditions for an 1890 return of Christ. By the time of Wilford Woodruff, it was becoming evident that this would not happen. Read President Woodruff's remarks on 1890, and his almost sad attitude regarding the change in Adam-God teachings and plural marriage and you can almost sense the loss.

Read an interesting teaching from Joseph Smith recently:

• Remarks on the comeing of the Son of Man by Joseph Smith the Prophet. Made in Nauvoo -
  Christ says no man knoweth the day or the hour when the Son of Man cometh. This is a sweeping argument for sectarianism against Latter day ism. Did Christ speak this as a general principle throughout all generations Oh no he spoke in the present tense no man that was then liveing upon the footstool of God knew the day or the hour But he did not say that there was no man throughout all generations that should not know the day or the hour. No for this would be in flat contradiction with other scripture for the prophet says that God will do nothing but what he will reveal unto his Servants the prophets consequently if it is not made known to the Prophets it will not come to pass; again we find Paul 1st of Thesslonians 5th Chapter expressly points out the characters who shall not know the day nor the hour when the Son of Man cometh for says he it will come upon them as the theif or unawares.  Who are they they are the children of darkness or night. But to the Saints he says yea are not of the night nor of darkness of that that day should come upon you unawares. John the revelator says 14 chap 7th verse that the hour of his judgements is come they are precursers or forerunners of the comeing of Christ, read Matthew 24 Chap and all the Prophets. He says then shall they see the Sign of the comeing of the Son of Man in the clouds of Heaven. How are we to see it Ans. As the lighting up of the morning or the dawning of the morning cometh from the east and shineth unto the west — So also is the comeing of the Son of Man. The dawning of the morning makes its appearance in the east and moves along gradualy so also will the comeing of the Son of Man be. it will be small at its first appearance and gradually becomes larger untill every eye shall see it.  Shall the Saints understand it Oh yes. Paul says so.  Shall the wicked understand Oh no they attribute it to a natural cause. They will probably suppose it is two great comets comeing in contact with each other. It will be small at first and will grow larger and larger untill it will be all in a blaze so that every eye shall see it.

[JLHPROF]

15 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

This just s theoretical discussion on what Church doctrine is. Adam = God has never met the requirements of "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" let alone "Common Consent", as defined by the Church.

Not exactly.
This is a theoretical discussion on which teachings can be considered to be true.  I don't care what Church doctrine is.  I only care what is true.

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, halconero said:

"Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages … are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator." - Joseph Smith, Jr.

If that lines up with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, that just throws in two ideas:

1) We need to consider the possibility of more than one Godhead

2) We need to rethink how the Godhead operates in a mortal/divine context

These two ideas don't necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.

Well I am positive of #1 - because the creation Godhead in the temple is clearly different from the Godhead on earth.
And as for the three personages - that brings up even more interesting things.
 

[halconero]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well I am positive of #1 - because the creation Godhead in the temple is clearly different from the Godhead on earth.
And as for the three personages - that brings up even more interesting things.
 

I'm still waiting on that Third Personage. I know there are some strong beliefs that that Personage has already come, and who they are, but I'm of the inclination that it's the One Mighty and Strong, Son of Aaron, and the preparer of the Sons of Levi to offer up an offering in righteosness preparatory to the 2nd Coming. I also believe they'll operate within the confines of the Church, so I'm not to worried about joining a breakaway sect.

[thesometimesaint]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the third member of the Godhead that creates the earth?

 

The Holy Ghost is not Michael/Adam.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

 

The Holy Ghost is not Michael/Adam.

I agree.
I am not talking about the Holy Ghost.
I asked who is the third member of the Godhead that creates the earth?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, halconero said:

I'm still waiting on that Third Personage. I know there are some strong beliefs that that Personage has already come, and who they are, but I'm of the inclination that it's the One Mighty and Strong.

The One Mighty and Strong = resurrected Joseph Smith in my opinion.
But I know official Church teaching is that it referred to Edward Partridge.  Just doesn't sound like Edward Partridge to me.

D&C 85:7
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;

D&C 90 (addressing Joseph Smith)
14 And from time to time, as shall be manifested by the Comforter, receive revelations to unfold the mysteries of the kingdom;
15 And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people.
16 And this shall be your business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.

But that doesn't stop the "third personage" from also being the One Might and Strong as you suspect. 

[halconero]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The One Mighty and Strong = resurrected Joseph Smith in my opinion.
But I know official Church teaching is that it referred to Edward Partridge.  Just doesn't sound like Edward Partridge to me.

D&C 85:7
And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;

D&C 90 (addressing Joseph Smith)
14 And from time to time, as shall be manifested by the Comforter, receive revelations to unfold the mysteries of the kingdom;
15 And set in order the churches, and study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people.
16 And this shall be your business and mission in all your lives, to preside in council, and set in order all the affairs of this church and kingdom.

But that doesn't stop the "third personage" from also being the One Might and Strong as you suspect. 

Interestingly, the same quote where the Edward Partridge position comes from also states this (from Joseph F. Smith, also a believer in Adam-God during his time as a side note):

"If, however, there are those who will still insist that the prophecy concerning the coming of "one mighty and strong" is still to be regarded as relating to the future, let the Latter-day Saints know that he will be a future bishop of the Church who will be with the Saints in Zion, Jackson county, Missouri, when the Lord shall establish them in that land; and he will be so blessed with the spirit and power of his calling that he will be able to set in order the house of God, pertaining to the department of the work under his jurisdiction; and in righteousness and justice will "arrange by lot the inheritances of the Saints." He will hold the same high and exalted station that Edward Partridge held; for the latter was called to do just this kind of work—that is, to set in order the house of God pertaining to settling the Saints upon their inheritances."

While a resurrected Joseph Smith is possible, I see this as the Presiding Bishop of that future time not setting in order the Church, but specifically the temple. As the quote from D&C indicates, the One Mighty and Strong has divine characteristics.

How this jives with my other comments on being a Son of Aaron and the one to set in order the Levites is the conditions/prophecies (at least according to me) that there will come a day wherein a Son of Aaron has his credentials presented before the First Presidency either by genealogy or revelation (probably a combination) and is appointed to the position of Presiding Bishop without counselors. Hence why D&C 128 says that the Saints must offer up a book of the dead a necessary condition before the Sons of Levi do once again offer up a sacrifice in righteousness. It will be this Presiding Bishop which purifies the Levites, sets in order the House of God, or aspects of the temple, and then performs that last offering as a fulfillment of the Aaronic Priesthood's duty on the earth, lest the earth be utterly wasted at Christ's coming. The reason why I added that last bit is because Joseph Smith still taught as late as 1844 that Elijah still needed to come to restore all things, despite coming to Kirtland. He also taught that to be an Elijah was more than a name, but a title meaning forerunner. As John the Baptist, very likely the authoritative High Priest/Presiding Bishop of the Aaronic Priesthood (by ancestry, though not recognized by apostate Israel in Christ's time) was the forerunner before Christ's 1st coming, so to would the head of the Aaronic Prisethood come before Christ's 2nd coming to prepare the way, and have that same Spirit of Elias/Elijah as Joseph Smith said John the Baptist had. It seems likely to me that D&C 2, the only scripture repeated in all the canonical works, has reference to more than just Kirtland, but to a necessary last offering preparatory for the Saviour's coming.

How does that tie in to the 3rd Personage? It was indicated by Joseph that the Father was the Head of the Patriarchal order (makes sense...he's the Father after all), and the Son was the head of the Melchezidek Order (It's the Order after Him), leaving the Holy Ghost to be the head of the Aaronic Order. A Presiding Father, a Presiding Messiah (Anointed one, with a proxy anointed represented in the President of the Church), and a Presiding Bishop/Aaronic High Priest. When we consider those Presidencies which have existed on the Earth, I can only think of two explicit instances wherein a President served without counselors. Adam and Christ. The scriptures indicate that a Presiding Bishop of the Aaronic Priesthood will also hold that Presidency without counselors, and in my opinion not only because of his ancestry, but because of His nature. He's the 3rd Personage and the physical forerunner of Christ.

Anyways, that's my wall of text, and while I'm passionate about the idea, I think you and are both in the same place that if we're wrong about either of our ideas we won't be utterly shaken.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, halconero said:

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.

All LDS doctrine can certainly be interpreted through an Adam-God lens, and it is interesting to consider God’s words to Moses as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price to be saving and not exalting truths; after all, there is always more to be revealed individually through temple worship whereby those who are given commandments not a few and revelations in their time must keep them (D&C 59:4, 21).

I’m thinking this paradigm would be a paraphrase of the attitude of Nephi: “And, notwithstanding we believe in [Adam-God], we keep the law of [Christ], and look forward with steadfastness unto [Adam-God], until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law [(or the saving doctrines of the Restoration)] given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in [Adam-God] because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. And we talk of [Adam-God], we rejoice in [Adam-God], we preach of [Adam-God], we prophesy of [Adam-God], and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins [and their exaltation]. Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in [Adam-God], and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in [Adam-God], that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away. And now behold …the right way is to believe in [Adam-God] and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets [who revealed Adam-God] and the [saving doctrines of the Restoration]. And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in [Adam-God], and deny him not; and [His Only Begotten] Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before [Adam-God], and worship him [as Christ did] with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out. And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of [Adam-God] until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto [Christ].”

I also suppose it possible to interpret Adam-God through the lens of current LDS doctrine and still be exalted, as the references I can find for eternal exaltation in the D&C tie only to marriage (132), abasing oneself (101), and enduring affliction well (121).

See you after the weekend; good luck on your test!

[halconero]

And with that I'm exiling myself! Ciaaaaaaaoooo. I'll post what I have saved on my computer when I get home. That was an excellent break down btw. I think that fits me perfectly. Wish I could give you more than one rep point.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I follow what modern prophets say like we all should.

Whose to say 50 years from now another prophet might say about current prophets say that contradicts what prior prophets have said.  Just read the essay on the race and priesthood ban.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, cdowis said:

Spencer W. Kimball clearly disagrees with Brigham Young when he declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/11/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

Yes thank you for proving my point about inconsistency among LDS prophets on some very important issues.