mfbukowski Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: Most Christians have no idea what a modalist, or patripassianist might be, and couldn't care less. My summary of those ordinary Christian beliefs was correct, even if not in line with the conciliarists and their formal creeds. The upshot is that the word Atrinity@ does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the NT exhibits no more than Atriadic coordination@ rather than a divine unity of three-in-one,[1] which some take to be tritheism. Jan Assmann and the late Klaus Baer (among others) have, moreover, maintained that the Christian Trinity and the notion of hypostasis were taken from ancient Egyptian religion.[2] J. Gwyn Griffiths, Triads and Trinity, Cardiff: University of Wales Press 1996. Griffiths, "Triune Conceptions of Deity in Ancient Egypt," Zeitschrift fuer Aegyptische Sprache 99 (1973):28-32. H. te Velde, "Some Remarks on the Structure of Egyptian Divine Triads," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 57 (1971):80-96. [1] J. Bassler, AGod (NT),@ in D. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:1055. [2] Klaus Baer (then of the Oriental Institute, Univ. of Chicago) said that Amon-Re-Ptah subsume all gods and that all gods are three, and three are one. According to him, the Christian Trinity was developed at Alexandria (Harry Wolfson agreed on the place, but maintained that the Christians got the idea more immediately from Philo Judaeus [Philo: Foundation of Religious Philosophy in Judaism , Christianity, and Islam]). Moreover, Ptah the Creator God/ Chaos (Memphis), is both male & female. All the gods arose from him, are joined to him, and are him. AThe divine@ is a monophysite substance and could be seen as one god, as in Coptic Christianity. My personal notes of Baer lecture at BYU (Provo, Utah), Aug 20, 1974. However, J. Assmann argues for the expression of the Egyptian trinity or Atriunity@ at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, Search for God, 177-180,238-239. Great quotes Robert, thanks!
thesometimesaint Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 4 hours ago, James Tunney said: Shouldn't there be room for questions and dissent? The leaders seem to be speaking as men a lot and rarely let us know when they are speaking directly for the Lord. So, it seems that the questioner should be allowed to question, at least when it's coming from men and not the Lord. Maybe constructive criticism will help them avoid p.r. nightmares like the dust up that happened last year and recently with the LGTB/kids policy/revelation/policy ... whatever it was. Questions? Sure. Dissent? Not so much.
JulieM Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Newsflash- temple content. There is nothing in those talks that couldn't be posted here. I wouldn't consider that to be "meat". I consider the CFR not answered but I'll let it go because I understand. Edited September 25, 2016 by JulieM
mfbukowski Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 46 minutes ago, JulieM said: According to others on this thread, it was added by Brigham Young and was not included in what Joseph restored. The Adam/God influence that remains in the endowment came from Brigham (and not just the Lectures at the veil part that has been removed) according to what I've read here. What was added that supposedly includes Adam God? Additions are irrelevant- I don't care who added what- the question is if Adam God is taught in the temple. It is NOT. There are no "Adam-God" elements in the endowment. I challenge anyone else on this thread to show that. Yes I understand it is sensitive- so be sensitive about it. Simply quote the doctrine taught in the temple that logically implies Adam God. I am not expecting temple quotes- just that what is taught is logically connected to Adam -God and NEEDS Adam God to be understood. The challenge is out to anyone Just quote the doctrine taught that rests upon Adam God as doctrine. It is extremely clear that Eloheim in the temple is not Adam. They speak to each other. To pull that off one would have to be a ventriloquist and the other his dummy.
mfbukowski Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, JulieM said: There is nothing in those talks that couldn't be posted here. I wouldn't consider that to be "meat". I consider the CFR not answered but I'll let it go because I understand. You do not understand Where is it taught that "meat" is taught in general conference? That is not my position. I don't know what you are talking about. If they are commanded to only teach milk as the scriptures say, why would they teach anything else? "Meat" in my opinion is to be found by study and personal revelation and in the temple. BESIDES that you are begging the question- your argument is circular According to YOU NOTHING can be "meat" if it can be posted here! You are defining "meat" as NOTHING the church teaches publically and so of course you are right- because you have defined the terms that way!! We do not teach meat because according to you ANYTHING we teach openly canont BE meat! Edited September 25, 2016 by mfbukowski
JulieM Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What was added that supposedly includes Adam God? Additions are irrelevant- I don't care who added what- the question is if Adam God is taught in the temple. It is NOT. There are no "Adam-God" elements in the endowment. I challenge anyone else on this thread to show that. Yes I understand it is sensitive- so be sensitive about it. Simply quote the doctrine taught in the temple that logically implies Adam God. I am not expecting temple quotes- just that what is taught is logically connected to Adam -God and NEEDS Adam God to be understood. The challenge is out to anyone Just quote the doctrine taught that rests upon Adam God as doctrine. It is extremely clear that Eloheim in the temple is not Adam. They speak to each other. To pull that off one would have to be a ventriloquist and the other his dummy. So, you also state that the Adam/God teaching or influence is still there for those who pay attention or look deep enough. Did that originate with Joseph or Brigham? I really don't know and want to hear what your view is. edit: I misunderstood what you posted. I guess it's others who say the Adam/God influence is still there (JLHPROF for one). Maybe one of them can respond with what they mean? Edited September 25, 2016 by JulieM
JulieM Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: You do not understand Where is it taught that "meat" is taught in general conference? That is not my position. I don't know what you are talking about. If they are commanded to only teach milk as the scriptures say, why would they teach anything else? "Meat" in my opinion is to be found by study and personal revelation and in the temple. BESIDES that you are begging the question- your argument is circular According to YOU NOTHING can be "meat" if it can be posted here! You are defining "meat" as NOTHING the church teaches publically and so of course you are right- because you have defined the terms that way!! We do not teach meat because according to you ANYTHING we teach openly canont BE meat! You completely misunderstood. Read what Tacenda is saying and that may help.
Flexible Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I understand it very well, and noted over 50 years ago that the Tanners were publishing those "shocking" statements (among others) by Brother Brigham in order to confuse and unchurch as many unwary Mormons as possible. Yet they never bothered to note the strong opposition by Orson Pratt, nor that Orson's views are the ones which prevailed in the long run. That applies also to Brother Brigham's racist views which took away ordination of Blacks. Orson knew that was wrong and said so. Had Brigham not taken away his seniority in the Twelve, Orson very likely would have reversed Brigham's policies when he became LDS President. These were policies plain and simple, never becoming a formal part of LDS Scripture. One can use terms like "doctrine" very loosely, but what does it really mean? Is it important when the Twelve and First Presidency are not united on a "doctrine" or "policy"? All prophets are fallible, now and anciently. The notion that, because one said something, that therefore makes it Gospel is nonsense. It is far more complex than that. Both Adam/God and the reasons for Blacks not receiving the Priesthood were taught as established doctrine over the pulpit in General Conference, in official church publications and in the temple for decades. Yes Orson Pratt publicly opposed A/G but was silenced and put in his place. I am not aware of any GAs who publicly disagreed with the doctrine on Blacks and the Priesthood. I'm sure there were some. And rank and file members who were brave enough to do so were marginalized in our "Follow the Prophet He Knows the Way" culture for questioning the Lord's anointed. Really can you honestly wonder why members feel deceived when they learn the types of historical facts you've mentioned above. Our culture does not teach us to receive the teachings of our prophets and apostles with healthy skepticism. We're taught to receive them as if they come from the Lord. But now we're learning that making doctrine is like making sausage-better not to know the details behind it! This should not be a faith-destroying discovery for anyone. But it is because 99% of church members cannot handle the nuances of prophetic fallibility. A lot of the blame for that falls on the church and the way it teaches the membership from infancy to follow their prophets with reverence and exactness I agree with Patrick Mason that the church needs a new theology of prophets--one that brings them down to earth a little and is honest about prophetic fallibility The church has created a big problem for itself. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 21 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Why does the church only ever teach milk and never meat? Because the members go bat crazy whenever anything out of the norm is taught. And it makes us even less popular with non-members. Nothing has changed in nearly 200 years. 1
Flexible Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 Here's a verse from Ephesians (4:4) that we like to use in the church to celebrate the clarity and certainty that come from having living prophets: "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;" The church's hiding of BYs A/G, Blood Atonement, and race teachings don't seem to live by the spirit of this verse.
JulieM Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What was added that supposedly includes Adam God? The Lecture at the Veil for one thing. Others have stated more was added by Brigham Young containing Adam/God influences or teachings that are stiill there.
mfbukowski Posted September 25, 2016 Posted September 25, 2016 On 9/24/2016 at 3:49 PM, Tacenda said: Yes, and I had no idea as an 8 year old or a nearly 48 year old the extent of our doctrine. Why not as a 48 year old?? I have learned no new "doctrine" since I was a member about two years. That makes it 35 years or so. Yes I was really into the topic so I studied. But if you are a member of a church don't you think it is important to study what they teach and read everything you can pro and con? Study our your new church carefully! And I hope it works better for you than Mormonism did. 1
Bobbieaware Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: What was added that supposedly includes Adam God? Additions are irrelevant- I don't care who added what- the question is if Adam God is taught in the temple. It is NOT. There are no "Adam-God" elements in the endowment. I challenge anyone else on this thread to show that. Yes I understand it is sensitive- so be sensitive about it. Simply quote the doctrine taught in the temple that logically implies Adam God. I am not expecting temple quotes- just that what is taught is logically connected to Adam -God and NEEDS Adam God to be understood. The challenge is out to anyone Just quote the doctrine taught that rests upon Adam God as doctrine. It is extremely clear that Eloheim in the temple is not Adam. They speak to each other. To pull that off one would have to be a ventriloquist and the other his dummy. Hi Mark, Here is a significant point: The purpose of the temple ordinances of the endowment and eternal marriage are designed to enable the faithful who faithfully keep their covenants to become gods and goddesses... 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132) In the temple drama, each man and woman destined to become gods and goddesses at some future time take upon themselves the roles of Adam and Eve. In fact, each male and female initiate is to think of themselves as being either Adam or Eve. When those faithful who are endowed and sealed become Gods and goddesses, this greatest of all blessings (eternal lives) will be given only to those who have taken upon themselves the mystical identities of Adam and Eve. Hence, as Paul taught, there are gods many and Lord's many because those who have taken upon themselves the mystical identities of Adam and Eve are many. The temple ordinances teach us only endowed and exalted Adams and Eves have the right to rule and reign in eternity. Therefore, at least some iteration of an Adam-God doctrine is taught through the ordinances of the temple. And if our God and Father was endowed and sealed as a mortal on his planet, then as one who took upon himself the mystical identity of Adam he rules and reigns in our universe. 2
Tacenda Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Are you personally ready for it? It's there- for you to find, all taught by the church explicitly through study and symbolically in the temple. If all you find is milk, it is not the church's fault. Is the meat that we are to become Gods? Or is there more I'm going to have to wait for, I think I'm pretty old as it is.
thesometimesaint Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 22 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Is the meat that we are to become Gods? Or is there more I'm going to have to wait for, I think I'm pretty old as it is. SEE John 17. And the Temple Endowment ceremony.
Jeanne Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, JulieM said: So just what are the doctrines? We hear they never change and that only policies, practices and past teachings of Prophets change. Yet, the teaching we are discussing in this thread, has been called the "Adam/God Doctine". It was taught by BY and was so truthful and important that he altered the temple endowment to add it from what Joseph had restored and also added the Lecture at the Veil. But it's now disavowed and not taught, so no, I guess it wasn't doctrine after all. That undermines all current or recent teachings by our Prophets. How about the current policy received according to President Nelson as a revelation from God. Is it doctrine? Or, when or if it's disavowed or altered as other past teachings have been, will it be labeled as just man's opinion or teaching? Again, that undermines current revelations or teachings. You have to see the pattern and confusion here and at least have some understanding why some feel as they do about this topic. Whatever I would tell my kids to eat or not eat..is a little different. But on every level of their childhood..I fed them truth. They received chores, assignments, and with expectations of rewards..their greatest was they could trust the giver. Edited September 26, 2016 by Jeanne 1
thesometimesaint Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 For a more complete explanation of the so called Adam/God Theory. SEE http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory
mfbukowski Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 50 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Is the meat that we are to become Gods? Or is there more I'm going to have to wait for, I think I'm pretty old as it is. That's in D&C. Everybody knows that. How is that "meat"?
mfbukowski Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said: Hi Mark, Here is a significant point: The purpose of the temple ordinances of the endowment and eternal marriage are designed to enable the faithful who faithfully keep their covenants to become gods and goddesses... 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132) In the temple drama, each man and woman destined to become gods and goddesses at some future time take upon themselves the roles of Adam and Eve. In fact, each male and female initiate is to think of themselves as being either Adam or Eve. When those faithful who are endowed and sealed become Gods and goddesses, this greatest of all blessings (eternal lives) will be given only to those who have taken upon themselves the mystical identities of Adam and Eve. Hence, as Paul taught, there are gods many and Lord's many because those who have taken upon themselves the mystical identities of Adam and Eve are many. The temple ordinances teach us only endowed and exalted Adams and Eves have the right to rule and reign in eternity. Therefore, at least some iteration of an Adam-God doctrine is taught through the ordinances of the temple. And if our God and Father was endowed and sealed as a mortal on his planet, then as one who took upon himself the mystical identity of Adam he rules and reigns in our universe. Very nice post, thank you and we totally agree until the last two sentences. Maybe I did not make my criteria clear enough. What you show is that one could deduce part of the Adam-God doctrine FROM the temple ordinances though it is not specifically taught IN the ordinances. What I was looking for is specific teaching OF the doctrine IN the ordinances The idea that ALL humanity are "Adams and Eves" and therefore since God himself is a glorified exalted Human He also is an Adam and Eve is I suppose a good point. But on the other hand it could be said that the Bible teaches the Adam God theory then when it speaks of the savior as a "second Adam". "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit."- 1 Cor 15:45. But would we say that the Bible teaches the "Adam God theory"? I would not make that claim. But it WAS a great post!! Thanks! I think Bro Brigham's teaching was that Eloheim and Adam were the same PERSON- not symbolically but literally the same individual person with the same body and spirit, but I suppose I could be wrong on that. I take the AG theory that way myself- symbolically as you do, that we are ALL "Adams and Eves" and THAT is specifically taught. But that Adam and Eloheim are the same literal individual person? Not at all is that in there. Edited September 26, 2016 by mfbukowski
CMZ Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 23 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said: Why does the church only ever teach milk and never meat? A lot of it is up to individuals to learn the meat on their own.
Tacenda Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: That's in D&C. Everybody knows that. How is that "meat"? What is the meat then? Not meaning to sound like a dunce, but is that all then? I must have never read section 132, I'm ashamed to say, until I became a skeptic.
JulieM Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Is the meat that we are to become Gods? Or is there more I'm going to have to wait for, I think I'm pretty old as it is. I think it's more like getting into the 2nd anointing and other teachings that many members have never heard of or know very little about.
Tacenda Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Why not as a 48 year old?? I have learned no new "doctrine" since I was a member about two years. That makes it 35 years or so. Yes I was really into the topic so I studied. But if you are a member of a church don't you think it is important to study what they teach and read everything you can pro and con? Study our your new church carefully! And I hope it works better for you than Mormonism did. Since when did I say I was going to a new church? And you're right I didn't study well enough all my years as a member. How many study outside of what is given them in the study guides? But there again, I didn't do my part, I will admit. I guess I was more in for the social, and took for granted that my parents, grandparents, friends, and neighbors got it right.
CMZ Posted September 26, 2016 Posted September 26, 2016 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: Is the meat that we are to become Gods? Or is there more I'm going to have to wait for, I think I'm pretty old as it is. That doctrine is in D&C 132 as plain as day.
Recommended Posts