Great Adam-God Discussion

[Teancum]

On 9/22/2016 at 11:20 PM, 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.

Correct on 1 though Brigham believed it.  Wrong on two.  The Adam Sr is some of the worst apologetics I have ever seen. Even John Tvedtness admitted that and said so to the author of this idea.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Teancum

[Glenn101]

Adam-God will never die in this mortality, and it will never be understood until we get to ask Brother Brigham about it face to face. He may apologize, or he may be able then to instruct us fully about what Paul meant as quoted by bobbieaware.

Today it is Adam-God ad nauseum.  Tomorrow maybe some brave soul will try to resurrect the Spaulding theory again.

Have fun.

Glenn

[ERayR]

20 hours ago, Flexible said:

In Bill Reel's interview of Patrick Mason a while back (podcast is available on Bill's website), Patrick talks about the need for a "new theology of prophets" in the church.  A theology that does a better job of bringing men who are almost deified in our culture back down to earth.  The strong language used by BY in demanding his followers accept his Adam-God teachings, and then the strong language used by SW Kimball and BR McConkie in denouncing BYs Adam-God teachings,  simply pull the rug out from under any notion of infallible prophets.    BR McConkie's letter to Eugene England about Adam-God  then further complicates things by showing how the Brethren can be intentionally disingenuous and deceptive in what they teach over the pulpit. 

Adam-God, as well as over 100 years of erroneous doctrine regarding Blacks and the Priesthood, seem to argue for the need to revise our theology of prophets.   What will happen as more members begin to learn of these things?

Where is the doctrine of prophets infallibility found?

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

Where is the doctrine of prophets infallibility found?

Note that I said "notion" not doctrine. We don't have an infallibility doctrine, but our culture certainly leans that way. As had been said often "The Catholic Church teaches the Pope is infallible but Catholics think he's fallible. The Mormon Church teaches the Prophet is fallible but Mormons think he's infallible".

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Adam-God will never die in this mortality, and it will never be understood until we get to ask Brother Brigham about it face to face. He may apologize, or he may be able then to instruct us fully about what Paul meant as quoted by bobbieaware.

Today it is Adam-God ad nauseum.  Tomorrow maybe some brave soul will try to resurrect the Spaulding theory again.

Have fun.

Glenn

It's really convenient to ignore all the problems of Mormonism and pretend they don't exist by such dismissive comments.   Glad it works for you.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Teancum

[Rivers]

35 minutes ago, Flexible said:

Note that I said "notion" not doctrine. We don't have an infallibility doctrine, but our culture certainly leans that way. As had been said often "The Catholic Church teaches the Pope is infallible but Catholics think he's fallible. The Mormon Church teaches the Prophet is fallible but Mormons think he's infallible".

There is a scene from the movie Spotlight in which a character, speaking of the Catholic church, says:

"The church is an institution, Mike. Made of men. It's passing. My faith is in the eternal."

This can apply to the LDS church.

[Flexible]

25 minutes ago, Rivers said:

There is a scene from the movie Spotlight in which a character, speaking of the Catholic church, says:

"The church is an institution, Mike. Made of men. It's passing. My faith is in the eternal."

This can apply to the LDS church.

I think that's a healthy perspective and a mature faith. 

[Glenn101]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

It's really convenient to ignore all the problems of Mormonism and pretend they don't exist by such dismissive comments.   Glad it works for you.

It is the only rational way to navigate the morass of opinions and imperfect understanding of history. I have read most of the stuff Brigham Young is quoted as saying about Adam-God. I have read the scriptures. I have a glimmer of what he was talking about. It was never canonized as doctrine, so it is something I can easily put on the shelf to be opened at a later date when I will have all of the information available to me. That is the same approach I take with subjects like the creation of the universe, the creation of this world, the creation of the flora and fauna, Noah's flood, the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, etc. If there is a God, if there is a Son of God named Jesus, if there is a Holy Ghost, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Church is the restored Church that Jesus Christ established during his ministry, all of the so called problems are not problems and all things unknown and imperfectly known (which is just about everything) will be resolved and all things made clear.

I know that there is a Holy Ghost. I have had some wonderful and terrible interactions with Him. I will not go any further than that because it might be seen as bearing my testimony, which is not allowed here. But that is why it works for me, and a lot of other people.

I hope that you are not on board with the Spaulding theory. If so, there really is no help for you. 

Glenn

[CV75]

On 9/24/2016 at 10:00 AM, Glenn101 said:

It is the only rational way to navigate the morass of opinions and imperfect understanding of history. I have read most of the stuff Brigham Young is quoted as saying about Adam-God. I have read the scriptures. I have a glimmer of what he was talking about. It was never canonized as doctrine, so it is something I can easily put on the shelf to be opened at a later date when I will have all of the information available to me. That is the same approach I take with subjects like the creation of the universe, the creation of this world, the creation of the flora and fauna, Noah's flood, the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, etc. If there is a God, if there is a Son of God named Jesus, if there is a Holy Ghost, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Church is the restored Church that Jesus Christ established during his ministry, all of the so called problems are not problems and all things unknown and imperfectly known (which is just about everything) will be resolved and all things made clear.

I know that there is a Holy Ghost. I have had some wonderful and terrible interactions with Him. I will not go any further than that because it might be seen as bearing my testimony, which is not allowed here. But that is why it works for me, and a lot of other people.

I hope that you are not on board with the Spaulding theory. If so, there really is no help for you. 

Glenn

I think the Book of Mormon helps settle such things. I think to do so, we need to take as step back follow its counsel to "remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam..."

For example, the first thing God impressed upon Moses, aside from the nonverbal message that He has a face, was that He is Endless. The second thing was that he was God's son. Abraham and Joseph Smith had similar experiences, being called "my son" and being addressed by name, respectively

This tells me thing of greatest value we need to know in order to "understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship

" is that we are God's sons and daughters; this identity informs and drives everything else that we do in faith. As sons and daughters, we are gods incarnate, or "adam-gods." I think this must be the whole purpose of the Adam-God teaching or story, or the deeper truth than the story, which is the same as the temple teaching and story: we are as Adam and Eve; as they, we are co-creators and as part of God's grand council, premortal gods in our own right; in our current state, gods descended into the flesh preparatory to exaltation. We are adam-god by virtue of our membership in His family expressed in the flesh through Adam's family, and ultimately we are Adam-God when exalted by virtue of keeping the eternal sealing.

As we often see, a misunderstanding of our true identity sell us short. Such misidentification divides us into subgroups and causes differentiation and contention, rejecting the prophets' unifying message in Christ and undermining Zion. But when we learn that we are gods in the flesh after all, we covenant to act the part, and act like gods in the flesh, which is what is to happen in taking upon us the name of Christ

.

We are promised that we would get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the most correct of any book (the Book of Mormon) than by any other book. This tells me it contains more than a mere saving level of doctrine, but a fulness (per D&C 27:5) which takes actual form in our person as we mature in keeping the ordinances that are built upon this keystone. The identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Their relationship, and Adam's (and our) relationship with Them, is clearly laid out in the book. I think Adam-God is no more literal than the temple story, and I think the Book of Mormon is more literal than either of those. Both the symbolism of temple and the words of the book are precious, but in different ways for different reasons.

[rockpond]

I think the most interesting part of the interview was where Volluz explains how Brigham Young's statements were modified by John Widstoe in the Discourses of BY book he published for the church.  Then, the Church used the modified quotes for the Teachings of the Prophets manual.

I think the Brethren do need to publish an essay on this.  It continues to be a problem.  There ought to be an official disavowal.  The Kimball statement about "alleged teachings" makes it sound as if BY didn't teach Adam-God as doctrine.

Further, the Teachings of the Prophets manual on Brigham Young ought to be pulled from the online archives.  The way his statements on marriage and the Godhead have been altered is an embarrassment to the church.

[Buckeye]

On 9/23/2016 at 8:28 AM, 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. 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.

 

BRM went much further than hiding the adam-god doctrine or preventing its teaching. McConkie expressly declared the adam-god doctrine to be false and instructed BYU faculty that anyone who believed or taught the doctrine would be damned. There's a world of difference between saying "sush, the world isn't ready for this yet" and saying "this vile teaching is damnation" (my paraphrases). 

 

On 9/23/2016 at 1:59 PM, 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.

I thought the 2nd coming would not happen until all spirits destined for this planet had a chance at a mortal probation. If the event had happened in 1890, billions of people - including you and me - would have missed their chance.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think the most interesting part of the interview was where Volluz explains how Brigham Young's statements were modified by John Widstoe in the Discourses of BY book he published for the church.  Then, the Church used the modified quotes for the Teachings of the Prophets manual.

I think the Brethren do need to publish an essay on this.  It continues to be a problem.  There ought to be an official disavowal.  The Kimball statement about "alleged teachings" makes it sound as if BY didn't teach Adam-God as doctrine.

Further, the Teachings of the Prophets manual on Brigham Young ought to be pulled from the online archives.  The way his statements on marriage and the Godhead have been altered is an embarrassment to the church.

I largely agree. But rather the pull the BYU manual, the better course would be to create a corrected one and thereby show the membership that the church really is determined to present its history honestly.

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I thought the 2nd coming would not happen until all spirits destined for this planet had a chance at a mortal probation. If the event had happened in 1890, billions of people - including you and me - would have missed their chance.

In which case, we'd have to have a generation or so without childbirth in order to usher in the second coming. Either that or a generation of kids born without souls. 

[Jeanne]

14 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I largely agree. But rather the pull the BYU manual, the better course would be to create a corrected one and thereby show the membership that the church really is determined to present its history honestly.

Oh...wouldn't that be great.  A correction...a truthful redo..maybe even an apology. When looking at doctrine they want people to realize that prophets/apostles can make mistakes..and yet, they have to be acknowledged first. 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Jeanne

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I thought the 2nd coming would not happen until all spirits destined for this planet had a chance at a mortal probation. If the event had happened in 1890, billions of people - including you and me - would have missed their chance.

Where'd you get that idea?
There will be many born in the Millennium.  That's another 1000 years to go.

[ERayR]

On 9/23/2016 at 8:24 PM, Flexible said:

Note that I said "notion" not doctrine. We don't have an infallibility doctrine, but our culture certainly leans that way. As had been said often "The Catholic Church teaches the Pope is infallible but Catholics think he's fallible. The Mormon Church teaches the Prophet is fallible but Mormons think he's infallible".

Some may have the "notion" that prophets are infallible but, as witnessed by posts on this board, it is far from a unanimous "notion".  Many are ready to deny any prophetic accuracy to any of the prophets who disagree with their own notions.

[halconero]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

 

BRM went much further than hiding the adam-god doctrine or preventing its teaching. McConkie expressly declared the adam-god doctrine to be false and instructed BYU faculty that anyone who believed or taught the doctrine would be damned. There's a world of difference between saying "sush, the world isn't ready for this yet" and saying "this vile teaching is damnation" (my paraphrases). 

 

I thought the 2nd coming would not happen until all spirits destined for this planet had a chance at a mortal probation. If the event had happened in 1890, billions of people - including you and me - would have missed their chance.

Yup. And Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others condemned the Israelites for believing in a Queen of Heaven. Doesn't mean there isn't a Queen of Heaven. So I agree with McConkie.

As for your 2nd point, mortal probation continues during the Millennium. People don't stop being mortal or giving birth to mortal children during the Millennium according to Latter-day Saint Doctrine:

"During the Millennium, mortals will still live on earth, and they will continue to have children as we do now (see D&C 45:58). Joseph Smith said that immortal beings will frequently visit the earth. These resurrected beings will help with the government and other work." - Gospel Principles manual.

D&C 45:56-58

 56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

 57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceived—verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

 58 And the earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance; and they shall multiply and wax strong, and their children shall grow up without sin unto salvation.

So spirits destined for this planet will have a chance at mortal probation even after Christ comes. The winding up scene doesn't occur until after the Final Judgement.

[ERayR]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Oh...wouldn't that be great.  A correction...a truthful redo..maybe even an apology. When looking at doctrine they want people to realize that prophets/apostles can make mistakes..and yet, they have to be acknowledged first. 

And who is going to sit on the tribunal that decides what is error and what is not? 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Some may have the "notion" that prophets are infallible but, as witnessed by posts on this board, it is far from a unanimous "notion".  Many are ready to deny any prophetic accuracy to any of the prophets who disagree with their own notions.

It's interesting in this case we have President Kimball stating that President Young taught false doctrine.  I'm not aware of any other similar situation in our church history.

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I think the most interesting part of the interview was where Volluz explains how Brigham Young's statements were modified by John Widstoe in the Discourses of BY book he published for the church.  Then, the Church used the modified quotes for the Teachings of the Prophets manual.

I think the Brethren do need to publish an essay on this.  It continues to be a problem.  There ought to be an official disavowal.  The Kimball statement about "alleged teachings" makes it sound as if BY didn't teach Adam-God as doctrine.

Further, the Teachings of the Prophets manual on Brigham Young ought to be pulled from the online archives.  The way his statements on marriage and the Godhead have been altered is an embarrassment to the church.

Or it could simply mean "alleged" what critics allege it to mean as opposed to what BY actually meant.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

And who is going to sit on the tribunal that decides what is error and what is not? 

Good question.

According to the 14 Fundamentals, President Monson gets to veto everyone who came before him.  So I guess he decides.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Or it could simply mean "alleged" what critics allege it to mean as opposed to what BY actually meant.

Volluz addresses that point in the podcast.  Have you listened?

I'm not aware of critics alleging anything different than what BY taught.  Are you?  There is enough in the historical record that what BY meant seems quite clear.

[ERayR]

On 9/23/2016 at 8:52 PM, Teancum said:

It's really convenient to ignore all the problems of Mormonism and pretend they don't exist by such dismissive comments.   Glad it works for you.

Your 'problems' with Mormonism have to do with your own understanding and interpretations.  Others, of us, just don't have the same problems with it that you have.

[ERayR]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's interesting in this case we have President Kimball stating that President Young taught false doctrine.  I'm not aware of any other similar situation in our church history.

One or the other certainly was not infallible.  You get to choose which one you think was not and I get to choose which one I think was not.  Isn't it fun stuff.  We get to choose our own truth or error?

[ERayR]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Volluz addresses that point in the podcast.  Have you listened?

I'm not aware of critics alleging anything different than what BY taught.  Are you?  There is enough in the historical record that what BY meant seems quite clear.

That is the problem.  We have BY's words but seem to have trouble agreeing on what he "really" said.