Great Adam-God Discussion

[Jeanne]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

Not for me.
I've studied what both said.  In my opinion Brigham was right, Spencer was wrong.  Others think Spencer was right and Brigham was wrong.
The Church is still God's church.
What else matters?

This troubles some people greatly.  It doesn't present a "problem" for me at all.
Same with plural marriage.
 

Quote

You have a prophet and apostles who claim to speak with and for God on this earth and to this church.  What does it say when interpretations are so different and comprehension and confusion at best creates something that even prayer cannot help.  Follow the prophet!  Which one? 

g

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

What does it say when interpretations are so different and comprehension and confusion at best creates something that even prayer cannot help.  Follow the prophet!  Which one?

Whichever one is speaking the truth based on the spirit and the revealed words of God.
And there is no such doctrinal thing as "something that even prayer cannot help."
 

Edited September 26, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Whichever one is speaking the truth based on the spirit and the revealed words of God.
And there is no such doctrinal thing as "something that even prayer cannot help."
 

But we are to pray..I understand that.  And thegeneation before me who has taught me..will say this prophet is right..and I pray..and of course it is true..until another prophet disavows..let's give our Heavenly Father some credit here..He would not work this way.

[ERayR]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

I guess I missed those.  Are you saying that there are explanations out there that make can make BY's teachings on Adam-God fit within current LDS theology?  Because that is a major point of discussion on the podcast and the conclusion that Volluz arrives at is that BY's teachings really can't fit within current LDS theology.  I tend to agree with him.

I guess that all depends on what you believe is current LDS theology.  Now try and get a consensus as to what is current LDS theology.

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

But we are to pray..I understand that.  And thegeneation before me who has taught me..will say this prophet is right..and I pray..and of course it is true..until another prophet disavows..let's give our Heavenly Father some credit here..He would not work this way.

Well, you know my answer on this by now.
Joseph Smith who restored the gospel to the earth taught clearly that Heavenly Father doesn't contradict himself.
He said that any revelation that contradicts a prior revelation can be dismissed as false.

So it becomes a matter of determining the source of each prophet's teaching.  If Brigham said Adam-God was given to him partially by revelation and Spencer W. Kimball dismisses that teaching with no explanation, personally that isn't a hard choice for me.

I would love to see any situation where both "contradicting" prophets EVER claimed differing revelation on a subject of doctrine?
I think the priesthood ban may be the only case, and even then either there was no original revelation for the ban and Pres. Kimball was told to fix a cultural problem.
Or there was a revelation that started the ban and one that ended it according to OD2 that "the long-promised day has come". 

Either way, God didn't contradict himself with two opposing revelations on a matter of doctrine.
I have never seen one prophet contradict another prophet where both claimed revelation on a subject.
Perhaps if we'd stop assuming revelations were received we wouldn't have to assume God changed his mind when the next prophet makes a change.

[ERayR]

56 minutes ago, Teancum said:

No not really. There are problems.  You just pretend there aren't. If that works for you more power to you. Thing is I can give you that space.  You don't allow me or others the same courtesy.

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

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not for me.
I've studied what both said.  In my opinion Brigham was right, Spencer was wrong.  Others think Spencer was right and Brigham was wrong.
The Church is still God's church.
What else matters?

This troubles some people greatly.  It doesn't present a "problem" for me at all.
Same with plural marriage.
 

Your ability to overlook a problem does not mean the problem does not exist.

I've managed to stay active and even serve in a leadership position because I can overlook and circumnavigate problems I've come across over the past decade.  But I would never deny that those problems exist.

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your ability to overlook a problem does not mean the problem does not exist.

I've managed to stay active and even serve in a leadership position because I can overlook and circumnavigate problems I've come across over the past decade.  But I would never deny that those problems exist.

This.  It is called integrity.

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I guess that all depends on what you believe is current LDS theology.  Now try and get a consensus as to what is current LDS theology.

I'm confident that there is a consensus among the FP and Q12 that Adam is not our Heavenly Father.  And that that consensus has existed for the past century.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your ability to overlook a problem does not mean the problem does not exist.

No, your inability to see that a situation is not a problem does not manufacture one.

Quote

I've managed to stay active and even serve in a leadership position because I can overlook and circumnavigate problems I've come across over the past decade.  But I would never deny that those problems exist.

Problems exist.  But most are of our own misunderstanding or creation.
As Joseph said " I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."
There will always be people problems.  I don't believe there are any problems with the gospel as revealed from heaven in our dispensation.

[ERayR]

28 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Quote

You have a prophet and apostles who claim to speak with and for God on this earth and to this church.  What does it say when interpretations are so different and comprehension and confusion at best creates something that even prayer cannot help.  Follow the prophet!  Which one? 

Who is directly responsible for your salvation?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As Joseph said " I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."

So do you put Joseph in a different category than Brigham Young (and others)?  Or do you believe there is "no error in the revelations" which any of the prophets have taught?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

No, your inability to see that a situation is not a problem does not manufacture one.

Right... our Church's complete lack of problems is what has driven the publishing of the gospel topics essays.

 

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

As Joseph said " I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught."
There will always be people problems.  I don't believe there are any problems with the gospel as revealed from heaven in our dispensation.

I don't believe there are any problems with the gospel of Christ.  It's the other stuff that keeps getting us in trouble.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Who is directly responsible for your salvation?

Neither.  I have decided to take upon the responsibility of that upon myself.  I have a Heavenly Father I can talk to and that works better than any mouthpiece or interpretation of gospel/doctrine.  Nothing makes sense any other way.  Just..Love Ye One Another..and the blessed golden rule.  They never change.

[ERayR]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your ability to overlook a problem does not mean the problem does not exist.

I've managed to stay active and even serve in a leadership position because I can overlook and circumnavigate problems I've come across over the past decade.  But I would never deny that those problems exist.

I know that some things present a problem for some people, however just because it is a problem for some does not make it a universal problem.  I look at some of the things that some see as problems and scratch my head and wonder why.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

So do you put Joseph in a different category than Brigham Young (and others)?  Or do you believe there is "no error in the revelations" which any of the prophets have taught?

I do put Joseph in a different category than any prophet that followed.
However, as long as there is no contradiction of prior revelation AND the subsequent prophet is actually teaching by revelation, then that is correct.  There are no errors.
Errors come when we seek to go against revealed light and truth.

Just now, rockpond said:

Right... our Church's complete lack of problems is what has driven the publishing of the gospel topics essays.

Oh, something has driven the publishing of those essays.  And in every case it is a people problem, not a gospel problem.
Just like most of the non-revelatory contradictions I will admit the Church has allowed.  Sometimes the Church is just to eager to please its members.
If the currently vilified SSM policy ever changes it will be to please the membership, not by revelation.

[Glenn101]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, BY taught that Elohim was the father of Adam and that Adam is the father of our spirits.  I don't think it's that tough to understand what he meant.

I agree that a searchable volume of the JoD would be great.  Also, as was pointed out in the podcast, you have to be careful about the source of quotes as John Widstoe changed some of the quotes that he put into the Discourses of Brigham Young (which was later quoted in the TOTP manual).

Brigham's teachings on the Father of our Spirits mostly designate, God the Ruler of the Universe, the Father of Jesus as the Father of Our Spirits. Seems to be some contradictions there. Can provide references is required.

I don't think that all of Brigham Young's discourses are in the JOD. I could be wrong.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Neither.  I have decided to take upon the responsibility of that upon myself.  I have a Heavenly Father I can talk to and that works better than any mouthpiece or interpretation of gospel/doctrine.  Nothing makes sense any other way.  Just..Love Ye One Another..and the blessed golden rule.  They never change.

You don't need a mouthpiece to read scripture.
Christ said we are to keep his commandments.
http://www.wowzone.com/commandm.htm

His commandments go far beyond "love".

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I do put Joseph in a different category than any prophet that followed.
However, as long as there is no contradiction of prior revelation AND the subsequent prophet is actually teaching by revelation, then that is correct.  There are no errors.
Errors come when we seek to go against revealed light and truth.

So then where does that leave us with the Adam/God doctrine or the teachings of Brigham Young regarding it?  We know that later prophets have contradicted it.  Which prophet's revelation on this is correct?

 

[ERayR]

10 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This.  It is called integrity.

Does that mean that because I don't see the same things as problems that you do that I lack integrity?  I would never have thought to impugn your integrity because you see a problem where I don't but now that you have shown me that is the way to measure integrity I guess I may be forced to reevaluate.  I really am sorry you doubt my integrity.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Brigham's teachings on the Father of our Spirits mostly designate, God the Ruler of the Universe, the Father of Jesus as the Father of Our Spirits. Seems to be some contradictions there. Can provide references is required.

I don't think that all of Brigham Young's discourses are in the JOD. I could be wrong.

Glenn

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

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't need a mouthpiece to read scripture.
Christ said we are to keep his commandments.
http://www.wowzone.com/commandm.htm

His commandments go far beyond "love".

Okay...I agree.  Let's say that all we need are the scriptures..let's keep with them..there is no need for a prophet if we have the scriptures.  Now..I understand a prophet can create a new scripture for the times/seasons of the life..but when they contradict the basic scriptures and even not even recorded as scripture..it is like wind..it just blows..no rhyme nor reason other than the world has changed. If a Holy Priesthood is restored..there should be a truth that stays. 

[ERayR]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So then where does that leave us with the Adam/God doctrine or the teachings of Brigham Young regarding it?  We know that later prophets have contradicted it.  Which prophet's revelation on this is correct?

 

Have the later prophets claimed revelation?

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Does that mean that because I don't see the same things as problems that you do that I lack integrity?  I would never have thought to impugn your integrity because you see a problem where I don't but now that you have shown me that is the way to measure integrity I guess I may be forced to reevaluate.  I really am sorry you doubt my integrity.

I didn't say that you didn't have integrity.  If you speak your truth, it is to your benefit.  But as I see it, being able to be a leader and sustain other leaders with admittance of problems, is a different kind of integrity.  I don't mean this to take anything away from what you believe or who you are as a person.  ERayR, you are one of the TBM's I truly admire and respect on this board..