Great Adam-God Discussion

[halconero]

I think the difficulty with this thread is that there are various topics being discussed under the "Adam-God" umbrella which makes it apparent that people are talking past each other. Not out of malice, or purposefully, but because we're all missing the point of what the other is saying. Just scanning through the thread here are some of the various discussions occurring:

1) What IS the Adam-God theory/doctrine/truth (pick your word), and what are its implications?

2) Why to the prophets and apostles differ on this topic?

3) What does it mean for the average member when they find out about the changes related to the discussion and preaching related to Adam-God?

None of these topics are bad, and they all have a place withing dialogue surrounding Adam-God, but the one downside is that it causes the conversation to become disjointed. For those wanting to focus on the effect changes to Adam-God dialogue have on members (rockpond, ALarson, DBMormon for example) it seems dismissive on the part of "pro Adam-God" and "ambivalent Adam-God" members of the board (myself, JHLPROF, CV75) when we don't focus on that and instead focus on on the doctrine/truths/theories/implications themselves. Perhaps equally frustrating is when those interested in discussing the nuances and teachings of Adam-God continually have to divert from their discussion to address the issues of cognitive-dissonance created in members when they find out the doctrine. Here's the thing though, that frustration on both parts isn't intentional, and doesn't mean neither of these issues are important. What it does mean is that it results in a conversation that isn't particularly fruitful because both sides are actually talking about separate topics (changes/evolution of doctrine vs. Adam-God explanations) that only seem to be one topic since they share the same root.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it might be useful if we create two different topics: One to discuss the background, framework, and implications of Adam-God, and another to discuss its social implications and implications related to prophetic authority. That or we can continue under the same thread, but I think that goes back to the problem of people talking past each other.

[stemelbow]

Brigham didn't take it far enough at all.  If the garden the fall were all mythical stories and if Adam was not are real person, then what would Brigham's idea really mean?  That God is put in the story as a parable. 

Too bad that wasn't all realized back in the day, we could be sitting on a gold mine.  Too bad scriptures had to be taken too literal back then in that sense. 

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

the mental gymnastics we use to avoid the mess.

Yes. 

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I understand where you're at and agree that one has to study these topics and pray about them too.  One thing that I wonder about is this:  do we hear about all the revelations the Prophets receive?  I honestly don't know (because we wouldn't hear about them  ). 

Probably not but the only way I have of knowing if what the say is revelation is if they say so or I get my own.

[ERayR]

2 hours ago, DBMormon said:

what is odd is Brigham says we need to accept the Adam-God Doctrine otherwise our salvation is at peril.  McConkie said whoever accepts the adam-God doctrine does so at the risk of peril to their salvation.... ughhh what's a mormon to do.

also When you listen to the data it becomes apparent the Church was deceptive in trying to whitewash this and have people think there was nothing to it.

It is evident, to me, that I can't trust someone who sees a conspiracy behind every pew.

[notHagoth7]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Then why even need Prophets?  If they contradict each other....

• Their messages are intended as onramps - to draw us to God. I.e. their point often isn't as much to *give* us the correct answer, but rather often to suggest worthwhile questions to draw us to God to resolve. So some contradictions are sometimes there for the very purpose of prodding us to draw to God to gain guidance to make an appropriate choice. For example, in the Garden, two opposing commands - be fruitful and multiply, and don't partake of one tree. 
• Other (apparent) contradictions can trace to something as simple as timing, for example:

1. Build/enter an ark now.
2. After the waters subside, no more need for arks.

 

[ALarson]

12 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

• Their messages are intended as onramps - to draw us to God. I.e. their point often isn't as much to *give* us the correct answer, but rather often to suggest worthwhile questions to draw us to God to resolve. So some contradictions are sometimes there for the very purpose of prodding us to draw to God to gain guidance to make an appropriate choice. For example, in the Garden, two opposing commands - be fruitful and multiply, and don't partake of one tree. 
• Other (apparent) contradictions can trace to something as simple as timing, for example:

1. Build/enter an ark now.
2. After the waters subside, no more need for arks.

 

That doesn't explain how one Prophet taught a doctrine he stated was essential to our exaltation to accept and then another Prophet later called those same teachings "false doctrine". 

.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ALarson

[rockpond]

25 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

• Their messages are intended as onramps - to draw us to God. I.e. their point often isn't as much to *give* us the correct answer, but rather often to suggest worthwhile questions to draw us to God to resolve. So some contradictions are sometimes there for the very purpose of prodding us to draw to God to gain guidance to make an appropriate choice. For example, in the Garden, two opposing commands - be fruitful and multiply, and don't partake of one tree. 
• Other (apparent) contradictions can trace to something as simple as timing, for example:

1. Build/enter an ark now.
2. After the waters subside, no more need for arks.

 

I would love it if that was the LDS doctrine on prophets but try making that statement in your average gospel doctrine class:  "A prophet's role isn't to give us the correct answer but to suggest worthwhile questions so that we can go to God and resolve for ourselves."  Then go on to explain how you used that principle to arrive at a conclusion/answer that is different than what the current prophet teaches. 

Let me know how that works for you.

[notHagoth7]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't explain how one Prophet taught a doctrine he stated was essential to our exaltation to accept and then another Prophet later called those same teachings "false doctrine". 

? To you it might not. To me, it does. 

I'd suggest carefully considering the first half of this response.

It might resonate more with you, and/or others, than my response did.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

? To you it might not. To me, it does. 

Ok.  So you'd be fine with a future Prophet calling what President Monson is teaching us today "false doctrine"?  If so, then again ok.

(And as to the rest of your post, yes, I have read and enjoyed JLHPROF's contributions here although I usually disagree.)

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't explain how one Prophet taught a doctrine he stated was essential to our exaltation to accept and then another Prophet later called those same teachings "false doctrine".

The doctrine of Christ (3 Nephi 11), from His own mouth, calls for not disputing the points of His doctrine with the spirit of contention, as hard as that might be to live by! The doctrine of Christ also calls for us to heed the words of the servants authorized to minister unto us in our lifetime (3 Nephi 12:1).

Edited September 27, 2016 by CV75

[halconero]

58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  So you'd be fine with a future Prophet calling what President Monson is teaching us today "false doctrine"?  If so, then again ok.

(And as to the rest of your post, yes, I have read and enjoyed JLHPROF's contributions here although I usually disagree.)

It partly comes down to your definition of "doctrine."

The example I gave, and I know we might disagree on this one, is that doctrine should really be defined as "authorized teachings" pertinent to our salvation. Truth is not synonymous with doctrine, as some truths are not authorized nor pertinent to our salvation. Since the prophets declare doctrine, I could equally believe that he isn't teachings all of God's truths while at the same time not accuse him of teaching false doctrine.

This might describe my sentiments the best, as described in Alma 12. Another good story is Ammon's teaching of Lamoni regarding the "Great Spirit":

"It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full."

Also, sorry CV75. I keep neglecting to open up my laptop, where my word document on Adam-God scriptures and quotes is stored. I'll try not to have a brain fart and forget to post that when I get home.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, halconero said:

It partly comes down to your definition of "doctrine."

 

Well, that's a discussion all by itself (as has been shown many times on here with entire threads devoted to it).  

I do believe that this was church doctrine at one time (or at least that's how BY taught it and believed it to be).  When something is actually added to the temple endowment experience, that's a pretty good clue for how important he felt it was (along with stating that believing in it was essential to your exaltation).

No matter how one feels about this topic, it is a fascinating one to explore and I enjoy reading all views and opinions on it even if we disagree  . 

[Johnnie Cake]

never mind

Edited September 27, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[notHagoth7]

 

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I would love it if that was the LDS doctrine on prophets but try making that statement in your average gospel doctrine class:  "A prophet's role isn't to give us the correct answer but to suggest worthwhile questions so that we can go to God and resolve for ourselves." 

*The* LDS doctrine on prophets? 

Or *a* LDS doctrine on prophets? (I'm simply illustrating the latter, which is a subset of the former.) 

The latter doctrine is repeatedly in scripture. For example:

• Nephi clearly exemplified such a thing in the wake of his father's recent instruction: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/15.7-11?lang=eng#6
• Isaiah taught much the same: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/8.19-20?lang=eng#18
• I provided a concrete modern example in the book I recommended by President Eyring.
• And any here could draw additional examples from such things as recent Conferences.

A core purpose of a prophet is to call us to repent - (which means, among other things, to turn to God).

Again, if this issue really troubles you, and it apparently does, please...take it up in prayer.

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

...Then go on to explain how you used that principle to arrive at a conclusion/answer that is different than what the current prophet teaches. 

Let me know how that works for you.

I'll decline to comment much on this, other than to say that Brigham expressed deep concern that members would put too much blind trust in what leaders say. Someone in one of these threads has cited him on that passage recently. As to how that works for me, it generally works just fine - not always easy, but fine. I suggest carefully/prayerfully considering such things, among others mentioned in this thread.

Edited September 27, 2016 by notHagoth7

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

 

*The* LDS doctrine on prophets? 

Or *a* LDS doctrine on prophets? (I'm simply illustrating the latter, which is a subset of the former.) 

The latter doctrine is repeatedly in scripture. For example:

• Nephi clearly exemplified such a thing in the wake of his father's recent instruction: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/15.7-11?lang=eng#6
• Isaiah taught much the same: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/isa/8.19-20?lang=eng#18
• I provided a concrete modern example in the book I recommended by President Eyring.
• And any here could draw additional examples from such things as recent Conferences.

A core purpose of a prophet is to call us to repent - (which means, among other things, to turn to God).

Again, if this issue really troubles you, and it apparently does, please...take it up in prayer.

I'll decline to comment much on this, other than to say that Brigham expressed deep concern that members would put too much blind trust in what leaders say. Someone in one of these threads has cited him on that passage recently. As to how that works for me, it generally works just fine - not always easy, but fine. I suggest carefully/prayerfully considering such things, among others mentioned in this thread.

Yes, there is a lot of support for the definition of prophets that you are espousing here.  And I agree with you.  But the more prevalent doctrine on prophets, coming from church leadership, is the "14 Fundamentals" doctrine.  And that's a problem.  I'm guessing you'd agree.

I'm not troubled by BY's teaching of Adam-God.  I'm troubled by how the church has handled it.

The issue which you declined to comment on, is the issue that most concerns me and that, IMO, most needs to be addressed.

 

 

[notHagoth7]

29 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

...can we really rely on any claimed revelation by these prophets or...those lower down the power structure like other GA's, a SP, a Bishop, a Husband or even the claimed revelations of a mere woman....

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

...really brings the reliability of revelation into question.  If God won't correct those missteps timely...why should we think He would correct any misstep by the church in a timely manner or that He even cares.

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

It's Turtles all the way down...

Or, a firm, bedrock foundation. 

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  So you'd be fine with a future Prophet calling what President Monson is teaching us today "false doctrine"?  If so, then again ok.

I'm OK with any LDS leader, or member, or any other person saying whatever they feel prompted to share.

It then becomes my responsibility/privilege to prayerfully discern the what/why/wherefore.

If the Spirit is silent on such things, and/or if it doesn't improve my life, and/or if the test of Alma 32 likewise doesn't bear fruit, and/or if I do what is taught and don't thereby learn the truth of the matter, I simply assume that such statements were intended to benefit someone else (or to benefit me at some future time), and I move on to better things.

Do you have a more productive suggestion for dealing with mortal utterances?

In short, temporary cognitive dissonance doesn't bother me. I'm quite used to it in short durations. Things that at first glance seem to conflict, when patiently examined, often end up doing quite the opposite.

Edited September 27, 2016 by notHagoth7

[halconero]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's a discussion all by itself (as has been shown many times on here with entire threads devoted to it).  

I do believe that this was church doctrine at one time (or at least that's how BY taught it and believed it to be).  When something is actually added to the temple endowment experience, that's a pretty good clue for how important he felt it was (along with stating that believing in it was essential to your exaltation).

No matter how one feels about this topic, it is a fascinating one to explore and I enjoy reading all views and opinions on it even if we disagree  . 

Oh, absolutely I believe it was church doctrine. It's just a matter of whether or not it's current doctrinal-status determines it's truthfulness.

And yes, this discussion is great and refreshing compared to come of the other topics we've dealt with in the past while.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, that's a discussion all by itself (as has been shown many times on here with entire threads devoted to it).  

I do believe that this was church doctrine at one time (or at least that's how BY taught it and believed it to be).  When something is actually added to the temple endowment experience, that's a pretty good clue for how important he felt it was (along with stating that believing in it was essential to your exaltation).

No matter how one feels about this topic, it is a fascinating one to explore and I enjoy reading all views and opinions on it even if we disagree  . 

As they say, "That was then, this is now..." What doctrine are you obligated to use in your lifetime?

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, there is a lot of support for the definition of prophets that you are espousing here.  And I agree with you.  But the more prevalent doctrine on prophets, coming from church leadership, is the "14 Fundamentals" doctrine.  And that's a problem.  I'm guessing you'd agree.

I'm not troubled by BY's teaching of Adam-God.  I'm troubled by how the church has handled it.

The issue which you declined to comment on, is the issue that most concerns me and that, IMO, most needs to be addressed.

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

[notHagoth7]

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes, there is a lot of support for the definition of prophets that you are espousing here.  And I agree with you.  

OK. Common ground is a decent starting point. 

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But the more prevalent doctrine on prophets, coming from church leadership, is the "14 Fundamentals" doctrine.  And that's a problem.  I'm guessing you'd agree.

I've never read the entire 14 Fundamentals. Got a sufficient taste of it twice, and exited stage left quickly. So perhaps I'm not the best one to ask about that.

Meanwhile, I think biblolatry and leaderolatry are things that people in almost any organization occasionally fall prey to. So I do agree with you on that core issue.

Here, at least, we have clear guidance to be wary of falling into such a cognitive/spiritual slumber - a clarion warning against painting by number.

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I'm not troubled by BY's teaching of Adam-God.  I'm troubled by how the church has handled it.

Such things bother me about as much as it bothers Lutherans that Luther initially lied about bigamy.

(I'm not suggesting that lying is what happened here, however.)

But if it troubles you, after reflecting on the helpful input that others have offered you here, I invite you to take the issue up in prayer. 

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The issue which you declined to comment on, is the issue that most concerns me and that, IMO, most needs to be addressed.

I'll have to go back and take a closer look at whatever concern I failed to respond to. 

Edited September 27, 2016 by notHagoth7

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

OK. Common ground is a decent starting point. 

I've never read the entire 14 Fundamentals. Got a sufficient taste of it twice, and exited stage left quickly. So perhaps I'm not the best one to ask about that.

Meanwhile, I think biblolatry and leaderolatry are things that people in almost any organization occasionally fall prey to. So I do agree with you on that core issue.

Here, at least, we have clear guidance to be wary of falling into such a cognitive/spiritual slumber - a clarion warning against painting by number.

Such things bother me about as much as it bothers Lutherans that Luther initially lied about bigamy.

But if it troubles you, after reflecting on the helpful input that others have offered you here, I invite you to take the issue up in prayer. 

I'll have to go back and take a closer look at whatever concern I failed to respond to. 

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

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

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

[JLHPROF]

38 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

I've never read the entire 14 Fundamentals. Got a sufficient taste of it twice, and exited stage left quickly.

14 Fundamentals are right up there with the Seven Deadly Heresies.
Or should I say down there.

 

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

14 Fundamentals are right up there with the Seven Deadly Heresies.
Or should I say down there.

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