Adam-God doctrine explained

[JulieM]

52 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

What was so dishonest in the Adam-God theory?

What?

I was commenting on you stating this:

"I could care less what the Church leaders believe. I care about what they teach from the pulpit."

Are you saying that you're ok if leaders believe the Adam/God doctrine as long as they don't publicly teach it?

[Flexible]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Trying to back up your false claim that 99% of LDS Church members don't understand that prophets are fallible, you are indeed desperate -- claiming an offhand remark proves your point (by someone on the likelihood that the essays on Gospel topics don't matter to them).  Where is the scientific poll showing that a random sampling of LDS members in fact have that opinion?  Your flexible, by-gosh-and-by-golly approach is the sort of nonsense purveyed by 99% of anti-Mormons.  

Interesting to hear that Kimball and McConkie agree with Orson Pratt and consider it heresy, but it has never been hidden.  The Journal of Discourses has long been in print and these issues readily available.

I have heard Mason speak at the FairMormon conference, and have read his opinions.  We have even discussed them on this board.  However, as I already emphasized for you:  You need to actually quote him rather than foisting your own false opinions upon us in the guise of his views.  I know that you like to be flexible, but that is just another anti-Mormon ploy which you ought to stay away from.  Again, quote Mason in full and in context.  I already agree with Mason's actual views, not with your inaccurate version.

Apparently I've given you too much credit by assuming you've been reading both of the current threads on A/G and had better recall. You would be reluctant to say the church hasn't tried to hide  BYs A/G teachings. Here's  the link:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/09/premium-adam-god-historical-subterfuge/

Please listen to this very well documented narrative before making another "by gosh by golly" non-response.  And here's the link for Patrick Mason's remarks about the urgent need for a new theology of prophets.  Beginning at the 49:30 mark he explains why he thinks there is an urgent need for this.  

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/

Forgive me for giving you credit for being familiar with this.   Here it is for you. And this podcast WAS discussed in the thread on his FAIR presentation iirc.

After you've listened to Patrick's comments at the above link please tell me where I have misrepresented him or taken his thoughts out of context  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ERayR]

9 hours ago, Flexible said:

Apparently I've given you too much credit by assuming you've been reading both of the current threads on A/G and had better recall. You would be reluctant to say the church hasn't tried to hide  BYs A/G teachings. Here's  the link:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/09/premium-adam-god-historical-subterfuge/

Please listen to this very well documented narrative before making another "by gosh by golly" non-response.  And here's the link for Patrick Mason's remarks about the urgent need for a new theology of prophets.  Beginning at the 49:30 mark he explains why he thinks there is an urgent need for this.  

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/

Forgive me for giving you credit for being familiar with this.   Here it is for you. And this podcast WAS discussed in the thread on his FAIR presentation iirc.

After you've listened to Patrick's comments at the above link please tell me where I have misrepresented him or taken his thoughts out of context  

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Patrick Mason was called as prophet, seer and revelator when? 

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

"I could care less what the Church leaders believe. I care about what they teach from the pulpit."

Are you saying that you're ok if leaders believe the Adam/God doctrine as long as they don't publicly teach it?

Why not?  That's exactly what happened for several years.

[Jeanne]

This is what I am getting here..perhaps it doesn't matter is there are prophets/apostles as long as you have a personal testimony.  ????? And hey, Patrick Mason just might be a prophet, seer and revelator...we all are!!

[halconero]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Why not?  That's exactly what happened for several years.

Exactly. We're odd creatures sometimes. Most members are okay with lies and deceit in some moral circumstances, but not others. I hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but because it provides such a clear example I will:

A family in occupied Poland hides a family of Jews in their barn for years. In that time pro-Nazi partisans and SS pass through the area several times. Each time the family obscures the fact they're hiding Jews through lying, deceit, and coverup. Yet we esteem these families to such an extent that they are acknowledged as valiant individuals and awarded the title "Righteous Among the Nations" by the State of Israel. Heck, Edward Focherini was even beatified by the Catholic Church for issuing false documents to Jews so they could flee to neutral Switzerland, subsequently being put to death in a concentration camp by the Nazis.

The Hebrew midwives were blessed by God for deceiving Pharaoh in sparing the lives of Hebrew children. Rahab is mentioned in the New Testament both in the Gospels and in Hebrews as an example of faith and an ancestor of Christ for her hiding of the Israelite spies in Jericho. Abraham was commanded by God to hide his identity as Sarah's husband. He was commanded to lie.

These are all examples which ring true to us, because they speak to our humanity and goodwill. It is not so much that a lower law was "broken" to uphold a higher one, but that a lower of law was made null and void by the situation.

I would argue that equal or perhaps even more important than protecting human life is to protect the mysteries/truths of God when so commanded, even to the extent that public expression of belief or the teaching of those doctrines be subject to discipline by those in authority. Many are the examples in scripture:

1) Jesus as and the Messianic Secret. Throughout his ministry Jesus consistently hid his Messianic identity, and only tentatively revealed it to his apostles in the most private of circumstances. This took on such importance that there were even two instances recorded where he deceived others. In order to facilitate the exit of unbelievers he told them that the daughter of Jarius was not dead, but sleeping, and following her revival he forbade the family from telling anyone. When his unbelieving family (evidently they came around later on) members insisted he reveal himself publicly at the Feast of Tabernacles he told them he wasn't going...and then went in secret immediately after they left without him.

2) Moses had intimate knowledge of the Godhead and the Plan of Salvation. He received his endowment. Yet when he came down he smashed the higher law, gave unto the Israelites a lower priesthood, and gave them only one God to worship. Later prophets would condemn and pronounced judgement against those who worship a divine Elohim (council of gods) or a Queen in Heaven.

3) Samuel, under commandment from God, lied about his purpose in coming to David to anoint him King over Israel. He knew the future of the Kingdom, yet kept it hidden.

The problem comes when we believe we have a God-given right to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The truth remains God-given, but our right to it remains dependent on keeping our covenants and being willing to accept more. When the key on those truths is locked, the prophets and apostles have an obligation to teach only that portion which is given unto man. In reality, it is evidence of the mercy of God. An Israelite who was faithful to Jehovah, who performed the necessary sacrifices of the Mosaic Laws, and sustained Moses, Joshua, Samuel, Isaiah, or Elijah was entitled to salvation in the Kingdom of God, and if they're willing and humble, will have access to higher truths. This because of their faith and diligence towards the commandments of their day. Likewise, a Latter-day Saint now who has faith in Christ and who participates in the ordinances currently available to them is at no risk of losing their eternal reward if they remain faithful, whether or not they accept Adam-God currently. As Wilford Woodruff said, sufficient now for the Saints is the knowledge that God is God, Christ is Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That's why I can fully believe that Adam-God is both necessary and unnecessary for our salvation and exaltation. Immediately, it isn't. Long-term, I believe privately (though not publicly, though perhaps I'm hypocritical for posting such on an internet forum) that it is. It's why can hold both President Young and Elder McConkie in high esteem.

The question then becomes whether or not the prophets and apostles DID begin to feel that Adam-God should not be readily available to the public. Aside from the President Woodruff quote, I believe the following to be a good indicator:

"On receipt of your letter of the 4th inst., I conferred with Prest. Joseph F. Smith, and we concluded to present the matter to the Council of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Both your letters to me, and the Article to the Fresno Republican, were read. Each of the Presidency and several of the Apostles expressed themselves well pleased with your article, that it evinced skill and valor for the Truth, and they did not see how it could be much improved. The Council did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject, but felt that it is best to avoid bringing it up, and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us. Your having got so many of the Josephites (Reorganized Church Members) was received with marks of particular pleasure. This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can. Thinking it may be convenient to you to have President Youngs sayings on that subject, I enclose a copy from his sermon in the first Volume of the Journal of Discourses. We have been getting quite a streak of winter weather. . ." - Letter of F.D. Richards to President E.H. Nye of Fresno, California.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Why not?  That's exactly what happened for several years.

And how about now?  The last Prophet to speak out about the Adam/God doctrine, disavowed it and called it false doctrine.  Or have we heard from any Prophets since then on this topic?

I'm amazed that some members are just fine believing that the Prophets and Apostles may not be fully honest when speaking and teaching what their beliefs are.

If that's the case, then once again I ask:  Why do we need a Prophet?  

.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ALarson

[halconero]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And how about now?  The last Prophet to speak out about the Adam/God doctrine, disavowed it and called it false doctrine.  Or have we heard from any Prophets since then on this topic?

I'm amazed that some members are just fine believing that the Prophets and Apostles may not be fully honest when speaking and teaching what their beliefs are.

If that's the case, then once again I ask:  What do we need a Prophet?  

I think it comes with how we view our relationship to presiding authority. I'm not saying this in a condescending manner at all, but if we were to divide up the duties of the apostles into their "prophet," "seer" and "revelator" portions of their office, I would put a premium on the prophet part. It's important to me that they see the future and reveal the truth, but most pertinent to my salvation is the role as a "forthteller" to use the colloquial term. They tell me, right now, as told to them by God, what I need to do to find eternal life. That is more pertinent to me than any truths regarding the long-term and big-picture mysteries of God, because it has a more direct and daily impact on my living the Gospel of Christ.

It's a difficulty we see among members of Christ's Church in the New Testament. I'm sympathetic to the cognitive dissonance it might have caused Jewish members to suddenly be taught that, guess what, Jesus is a deity as well. Oh, and all those commandments you once held as being revealed by God himself from Mt. Sinai? You don't have to do those anymore. It evidently caused huge confusion, and I'm sure there were members back then asking the same question you are right now: why even need a prophet? Why need a Moses if we have a Paul? If Moses was lying about their being more than just Jehovah, if God has a Son, does that invalidate his ministry? What the heck, man?!

Yet, to answer your question, we need a prophet because they teach us the principles and ordinances necessary to our salvation in the here and now. Might there be other truths, other ordinances, and other laws I'll need to follow to achieve Life Eternal? Sure. Might the prophets and apostles be under obligation to hide those from me? Sure. That doesn't put my salvation in peril, nor does it invalidate their ministry in my eyes. They're simply teaching me what I need to know now to keep on the Gospel path.

You might disagree with me on that, and that's okay. I can understand and empathize with your view. For myself personally though, my search for truth and my adherence to the Gospel path, while intertwined and interrelated in the most intimate way, they still remain individual endeavors, with prophets being more focused on the 2nd.

Edited September 27, 2016 by halconero

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm amazed that some members are just fine believing that the Prophets and Apostles may not be fully honest when speaking and teaching what their beliefs are.

Gone are the days of Joseph Smith who said " I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private."
And even he was forced to retract "strong doctrines" repeatedly when the membership protested.  Even he complained about the Saint protesting whenever he taught anything that made them uncomfortable. 

If the Prophets and Apostles are keeping mum on some doctrine it is because the membership simply will not accept things.
This pattern is all through Church History.
I blame nobody but the membership if the GA's are not able to honestly teach higher doctrines.

Quote

If that's the case, then once again I ask:  Why do we need a Prophet?

A prophet is there to be a legal administrator holding the keys to perform all necessary priesthood ordinances.
A prophet is also there to receive instruction and revelation for God's people, the only one authorized to receive revelation for the members.
Sometimes, like in the case of Moses, the prophet has to withhold higher doctrines in favor of lesser ones because of the people.
Perhaps we really are a modern day Israel rejecting higher laws and being given lesser substitutes.

And despite what many may think, a prophet is NOT there to provide the final word on every point of doctrine unless he has received a revelation from God concerning it.  I don't know when the prophet became the only person capable of reading the scriptures correctly.

Edited September 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Flexible]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And how about now?  The last Prophet to speak out about the Adam/God doctrine, disavowed it and called it false doctrine.  Or have we heard from any Prophets since then on this topic?

I'm amazed that some members are just fine believing that the Prophets and Apostles may not be fully honest when speaking and teaching what their beliefs are.

If that's the case, then once again I ask:  Why do we need a Prophet?  

.

I posted this above but it seems fitting to post again. We always used Ephesians 4:14 as missionaries to emphasize that with modern apostles and prophets we we have doctrinal clarity in the restored church:

""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""

Look at the mental gymnastics some posters in this thread are engaged in re Adam/God. It's sad,and all because there's confusion, not clarity. And the source of the confusion is the prophets and apostles in this case. 
 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Flexible said:

Look at the mental gymnastics some posters in this thread are engaged in re Adam/God.

I hope that's not directed at me.  I take a very straightforward approach to Adam-God and believe it as taught.  No mental gymnastics needed.

[ALarson]

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Gone are the days of Joseph Smith who said " I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private."
And even he was forced to retract "strong doctrines" repeatedly when the membership protested.  Even he complained about the Saint protesting whenever he taught anything that made them uncomfortable. 

If the Prophets and Apostles are keeping mum on some doctrine it is because the membership simply will not accept things.
This pattern is all through Church History.
I blame nobody but the membership if the GA's are not able to honestly teach higher doctrines.

So the members can't handle the truth?  And that makes it ok for the Prophets and Apostles to not speak the truth regarding what they believe and then turn around and tell members to boldly pronounce their beliefs to the world?  Sorry, I won't give them a pass on this, if that's the case. 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

So the members can't handle the truth?  And that makes it ok for the Prophets and Apostles to not speak the truth regarding what they believe and then turn around and tell members to boldly pronounce their beliefs to the world?  Sorry, I won't give them a pass on this, if that's the case.

Depends on how you spin it.
Moses didn't reveal the Melchizedek ordinances and doctrines to the Children of Israel because they can't handle the truth.
So yeah, that makes it ok.
Line upon line.  No pearls before swine.
There is NOTHING stopping the average member for finding things out for themselves.  If they can actually be bothered.
 

[halconero]

Yes, members can't handle the truth. Evidently many left and decided it was okay to start polygamous cults of their own volition. Others just left.

If you don't want to give them a pass, that's up to you. I would argue though that the same logic if equally applied in all cases must be applied to Jesus and the Messianic Secret (especially in the case of the Feast of Tabernacles and the Raising of the Daughter of Jarius), Moses and the Israelites, and many other cases.

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, Flexible said:

Apparently I've given you too much credit by assuming you've been reading both of the current threads on A/G and had better recall. You would be reluctant to say the church hasn't tried to hide  BYs A/G teachings. Here's  the link:

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/09/premium-adam-god-historical-subterfuge/

Please listen to this very well documented narrative before making another "by gosh by golly" non-response.  And here's the link for Patrick Mason's remarks about the urgent need for a new theology of prophets.  Beginning at the 49:30 mark he explains why he thinks there is an urgent need for this.  

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/

Forgive me for giving you credit for being familiar with this.   Here it is for you. And this podcast WAS discussed in the thread on his FAIR presentation iirc.

After you've listened to Patrick's comments at the above link please tell me where I have misrepresented him or taken his thoughts out of context  

Why not try actually quoting him instead of substituting your own views for his under his name?  I know that it is much to ask for those who do not take the actual views seriously, but it is something scholars always do.  Why?  Because they so often see non-scholars making false claims while attributing them to someone respectable.   I have heard Mason speak to this issue and agree with him.  Your twisted version of that is the only problem I have with you here.  You might be very surprised to find that we would meet in the middle if you would only quote what Mason actually said rather than continuously making false claims about it.  That would leave no room for debate, which may simply not be enough for you. Perhaps your real problem is that Mason doesn't go far enough to satisfy you.

Edited September 27, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Flexible]

49 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I hope that's not directed at me.  I take a very straightforward approach to Adam-God and believe it as taught.  No mental gymnastics needed.

Not at all JLHPROF.  I appreciate your integrity and clarity.  I too believe it was taught. Your posts are usually short.  Brevity usually suggests understanding!

[ALarson]

48 minutes ago, halconero said:

Yes, members can't handle the truth. Evidently many left and decided it was okay to start polygamous cults of their own volition. Others just left.

If you don't want to give them a pass, that's up to you.

And how do you think they should answer the question in the temple recommend interview regarding being honest in all dealings with your fellowmen?

If they are doing what you imply and giving an honest answer, they'd have to say, "Well yes, unless the members of the church can't handle the truth". 

It's dangerous to be promoting the idea that our Prophet and Apostles have secretly held beliefs that are different from what they teach the members, IMO.

.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Flexible]

43 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Why not try actually quoting him instead of substituting your own views for his under his name?  I know that it is much to ask for those who do not take the actual views seriously, but it is something scholars always do.  Why?  Because they so often see non-scholars making false claims while attributing them to someone respectable.   I have heard Mason speak to this issue and agree with him.  Your twisted version of that is the only problem I have with you here.  You might be very surprised to find that we would meet in the middle if you would only quote what Mason actually said rather than continuously making false claims about it.  That would leave no room for debate, which may simply not be enough for you. Perhaps your real problem is that Mason doesn't go far enough to satisfy you.

You haven't shown how I twisted what Mason said.  I did not.  I posted the link for you, providing the documentation I thought you were asking for.   So please show how I twisted his comments.  If I misunderstood him, then please help me see how.  Short of transcribing his words into text here, I don't know what more I can do.  His comments in the link provided are very clear I think.

[JLHPROF]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And how do you think they should answer the question in the temple recommend interview regarding being honest in all dealings with your fellowmen?

If they are doing what you imply and giving an honest answer, they'd have to say, "Well yes, unless the members of the church can't handle the truth".

It's dangerous to be promoting the idea that our Prophet and Apostles have secretly held beliefs that are different from what they teach the members, IMO.

You are assuming they have permission to reveal everything.

"The reason we do not have the secrets of the Lord revealed unto us, is because we do not keep them but reveal them; we do not keep our own secrets, but reveal our difficulties to the world, even to our enemies, then how would we keep the secrets of the Lord? I can keep a secret till Doomsday."  - Joseph Smith

If Brigham Young made any mistake it was in revealing Adam-God publicly.  He himself said:
"And I will say, as I have before said, if guilt before my God and my brethren rests upon me in the least, it is in this one thing — that I have revealed too much."
 

Edited September 27, 2016 by JLHPROF

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You are assuming they have permission to reveal everything.

No, I'm assuming they are being honest when speaking to the members about their beliefs.  I highly doubt any of our current leaders still believe in the Adam/God doctrine.  I know you disagree and that's ok.  But, I do not believe that President Kimball would have called it "false doctrine" if he secretly believed in it and I tend to believe our leaders today still feel the same,

.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 I highly doubt any of our current leaders still believe in the Adam/God doctrine.  I know you disagree and that's ok.

No, on that I agree with you.

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

do not believe that President Kimball would have called it "false doctrine" if he secretly believed in it and I tend to believe our leaders today still feel the same

I am personally of the belief that some of his contemporaries did.  You have to look at the ages of some of these men.

Joseph Fielding Smith was ordained an apostle in 1910.  He probably received his endowment before age 20 in 1896, when the Adam-God doctrine was still part of the temple endowment.  There is no reason he could not have held on to that teaching until his death in 1970.
He did teach that Adam-God was not correct publicly in later years, but at the same time he was taught it in the temple as a young man, maybe even taught it himself.

David O. McKay, J. Reuben Clark, and others, all men who received their endowments when Adam-God was still taught in the temple.  All men who led the Church until the 60's and 70's.
Who knows how long the personal belief in Adam-God remained among our leadership AFTER being removed from the temple around 1906?  And who knows which other leaders discussed this in depth?  We know Mark E. Petersen and Bruce R. McConkie did and came out on the negative.

Just like with polygamy, the official end of a doctrine rarely coincided with the end of a belief in the doctrine.  Polygamy officially ended in 1890.  The last polygamists in good standing in the Church passed away in the 1950s.  And who knows what their children and grandchildren believed about the practice growing up.
 

[Flexible]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, I'm assuming they are being honest when speaking to the members about their beliefs.  I highly doubt any of our current leaders still believe in the Adam/God doctrine.  I know you disagree and that's ok.  But, I do not believe that President Kimball would have called it "false doctrine" if he secretly believed in it and I tend to believe our leaders today still feel the same,

.

I think if our leaders secretly believed in it, they would find better ways of obfuscating than by denouncing it as heresy that the devil keeps alive (McConkie), and false doctrine (Kimball).  But perhaps one reason for their vocal denials could be the doctrine's link to Fundamentalism. 

[notHagoth7]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

...It's dangerous to be promoting the idea that our Prophet and Apostles have secretly held beliefs that are different from what they teach the members, IMO.

Exactly what's so dangerous about not expecting everyone to drink from a fire hose? Things are often distilled and accommodated to the specific needs of the hearer.

What *would* be dangerous would be to insist that everyone drink from a fire hose.

Wouldn't you agree?

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Exactly what's so dangerous about not expecting everyone to drink from a fire hose? Things are often distilled and accommodated to the specific needs of the hearer.

What *would* be dangerous would be to insist that everyone drink from a fire hose.

Wouldn't you agree?

I think your example is a little bit overly dramatic.  

I believe many members are starved for more and are disappointed when they just continually get the same bland teachings week after week and year after year (even though the teachings are good, just basic).  And yes,  I know members need to do their own searching, pondering and studying, but we're speaking of something entirely different here.  I am speaking of the leaders holding back their beliefs and teaching something else instead.  That's what I believe is dangerous to imply or believe.

Edited September 27, 2016 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

4 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

Exactly what's so dangerous about not expecting everyone to drink from a fire hose? Things are often distilled and accommodated to the specific needs of the hearer.

What *would* be dangerous would be to insist that everyone drink from a fire hose.

Wouldn't you agree?

Then don't drink from the fire hose.  Do as you teach others to do!  I can't believe this whole conversation..seriously.