Adam-God doctrine explained

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am speaking of the leaders holding back their beliefs and teaching something else instead.

Not everything that is believed is necessarily meat, wouldn't you agree? Especially if it can't be taught well. The Spirit is doing the teaching, anyway, and that requires the coordinated effort of the leader, the follower, and the Spirit.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not everything that is believed is necessarily meat, wouldn't you agree?

Yes, I agree with what you posted.  What I was referring to was teaching something else in place of what you truly believe.  I probably didn't state it clearly (as I read it again  )

[notHagoth7]

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think your example is a little bit overly dramatic. 

Understood. Illustrations sometimes are. With good reason.

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I believe many members are starved for more....(And yes,  I know members need to do their own searching, pondering and studying, but we're speaking of something entirely different here).  

Your statement brings this allegory to mind.  

42 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I am speaking of them holding back their beliefs and teaching something else instead.  That's what I believe is dangerous to imply or believe.

For starters, I'd suggest those who genuinely feel that way to prayerfully work through this book. 

42 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Then don't drink from the fire hose...

? Perhaps I've been unclear. They are generally *not* operating as a fire hose. On purpose.

Such are generally directing us instead to a greater source. On purpose. 

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by notHagoth7

[halconero]

1 hour 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.

.

Sure, I think that would be a reasonable answer. Considering that the temple recommends for General Authorities are different and don't go through the regular channels of Bishop + Stake President then that seems fair enough.

Well you can be rest assured that any such promotion of an idea is limited to this little known internet board. I'm about as orthodox as can be in my public membership in the ward and stake. The amount of people in real life who are aware of my beliefs regarding Adam-God and obscuring of higher truths are all counted on one hand.

I 100% acknowledge that it's not an easy notion or idea. I get your concern and empathize with it.

In my personal opinion though the explanation that God retains his mysteries and truths based on the faithfulness of his people (be they ancient Israel, the modern Church, or the Primitive One), even while revealing them to his servants the prophets, is much less problematic than the duelling prophets paradigm. Difficult and hard to accept, as it puts the onus on the Saints, but I feel as though it fits what we know from scripture better. That God:

- "reveals his secrets" (and has secrets in the first place)

- teaches his people "line upon line", while having his prophets much more aware of the whole plan

- that he only "gives that portion" which men are ready for and yet at the same lays upon them a "strict" mandate not to reveal what has been shown them, trumping any obligations of full disclosure to others.

It's a position that can be difficult to accept as true. Once again, I acknowledge that. But it is consistent with scripture, and I personally feel it would difficult to refute the previously cited examples in this thread.

[theplains]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Could you give me an example of that, please, Jim.

I'll create a separate topic some time.

Jim

[theplains]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't care if they are lying or not, I have my own personal testimony 

That's good that you can discern between the truth and falsehood.  But we need to be concerned if
so-called prophets lead people astray.

Thanks,
Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Flexible said:

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.

I have been asking you to quote what Mason actually says.  You need to do that every time you assert that so-and-so is making this or that claim.  That is what scholars do, and ordinary people should do that as well.  I have already heard him speak to that very issue, and I agree with him.  Your version of what he said does not jibe with what I heard. Solution:  Quote his actual words instead of substituting your false version of what he said.  A great deal of what he is saying is already available in print.  If you can't actually quote him, then that tells me that you are not actually serious about the subject.  Either that or you already realize that you have put a false spin on his words.  Just playing flexible games.  I already summarized on this board what Mason said at the FairMormon conference this year, and you can compare that with his actual words on the FairMormon website.

[Darren10]

20 hours ago, JulieM said:

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?

That is correct.

What's wrong with that? 

 

Edited to add: Actually, I personally don't even care if they teach it publically, just not from the pulpit. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Darren10

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

I'll create a separate topic some time.

Jim

So you have no instances with which to back up your false claim that "It seems like LDS use the same line of reasoning as Jehovah's Witnesses to deflect some present or past teachings of their elders/apostles."  Uh-huh.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

That is correct.

What's wrong with that? 

Nothing unless you consider the fact that a Prophet, President Kimball, disavowed those teachings and called them false doctrine. 

[halconero]

49 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Nothing unless you consider the fact that a Prophet, President Kimball, disavowed those teachings and called them false doctrine. 

Cus it is false doctrine. Doesn't mean it isn't Gospel truth though. Come on JulieM, haven't you been following this?

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, halconero said:

Cus it is false doctrine. Doesn't mean it isn't Gospel truth though. Come on JulieM, haven't you been following this?

Oh, quit encouraging the confused and contradiction prone...

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, halconero said:

Cus it is false doctrine. Doesn't mean it isn't Gospel truth though. Come on JulieM, haven't you been following this?

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what is it that you're getting at. So Gospel truth, not Gospel Doctrine. What is that all about? 

[halconero]

55 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, quit encouraging the confused and contradiction prone...

Sorry, I'll stop. I was trying to inject some levity into the thread.

Tacenda, you might want to go a few pages back...on this thread or the other one. :s I don't know, I'm confused myself as I'm not sure what the difference between this one and the other one is.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

That's good that you can discern between the truth and falsehood.  But we need to be concerned if
so-called prophets lead people astray.

Thanks,
Jim

Here's the problem with that

How does anyone know what "astray" is independent of their personal beliefs?  What if the bible for example is full of falsehoods and errors?  How could you know that if you are sola scriptura by assumption and never even question why that should be the case?

We all have our assumptions which may or may not be "correct" so the best we can do is go with what the spirit tells us is right.  And you and I obviously differ on that.  I think I am right and you think you are right.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, quit encouraging the confused and contradiction prone...

Oh come on!  That would mean the end of this entire forum!

But that IS a great description !

[CV75]

16 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I agree with what you posted.  What I was referring to was teaching something else in place of what you truly believe.  I probably didn't state it clearly (as I read it again  )

I’m not sure what the inherent problem is with a leader teaching something in place of what he truly believes. If a leader truly believes in Adam-God but also teaches from the manual without disputation, what’s the harm? It might be the best thing to do for all concerned.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

Nothing unless you consider the fact that a Prophet, President Kimball, disavowed those teachings and called them false doctrine. 

Mormons do not believe in the infallibility of the prophets.

Someone wise once said that the Catholic Church teaches the infallibility of the Pope (in certain circumstances) but no Catholic believes it,  and The LDS church teaches that prophets are ARE fallible, but Mormons don't believe THAT either     

Now if we could just make all the Mormons Catholic and all the Catholics Mormon.....

I admit it becomes a bit odd when a fallible prophet says "The prophet will never lead you astray", though.  Was that a fallible prophet saying that or an infallible prophet?

It's kind of like the argument made against relativism being "true"- relativism cannot be "true" because relativism itself says there is no truth.

But that's a bad argument because relativists actually believe that even relativism is only relatively true, subject to further inquiry.

You can't win for losing on this stuff.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure what the inherent problem is with a leader teaching something in place of what he truly believes. If a leader truly believes in Adam-God but also teaches from the manual without disputation, what’s the harm? It might be the best thing to do for all concerned.

 

If one believes that we all see things from different perspectives and there is no such thing as "one infallible perspective" then there is nothing wrong with that.

I personally believe in evolution and that the earth is billions of years old, but I cannot prove it. So if a manual preaches a new earth and a personal Adam who lived 6000 years ago, I see both perspectives as "valid" within their contexts- because for me the spiritual content of the stories is what is important.  

Either way you look at it, the same spiritual lessons are learned by believing in a figurative Adam or a literal 6,000 year old Adam.  The lesson is a fall from innocence, its effects, and how it is overcome- what "actually happened" is irrelevant.

I have no problem teaching a literal Adam in a class if that is what is required.  The spiritual lesson is what is important anyway!

There is no doubt that the "second Adam", Christ, is the Father of our salvation.  We become part of his family with baptism.

So if you want to say Adam=Christ=Our Father I have no problem with that.  Spiritually it all works anyway- it is only on the fundamentalist level that there is a problem.

In fact from that perspective, Mormons are true monotheists.  Even those exalted will be "one" with the Father in his throne (John 17).  The rest is a semantic problem.  If A=B and B=C then A=C.

I don't know how you can argue with that!

Edited September 28, 2016 by mfbukowski

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, halconero said:

Sure, I think that would be a reasonable answer. Considering that the temple recommends for General Authorities are different and don't go through the regular channels of Bishop + Stake President then that seems fair enough.

Ok, got it.  Sounds like you're ok with some leaders giving answers that are not completely honest.  Are you also ok with creative answers from others in attempts to avoid answering TR questions with complete honesty?  Or do you have a double standard for the leaders vs. the members?

.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure what the inherent problem is with a leader teaching something in place of what he truly believes. If a leader truly believes in Adam-God but also teaches from the manual without disputation, what’s the harm? It might be the best thing to do for all concerned.

Interesting.  Thanks for the honest answer!

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok, got it.  Sounds like you're ok with some leaders giving answers that are not completely honest.  Are you also ok with creative answers from others in attempts to avoid answering TR questions with complete honesty?  Or do you have a double standard for the leaders vs. the members?

Sometimes avoiding telling the truth is acceptable before God.  I could give you numerous examples from scripture and Church History.
It is a misconception that the whole truth should always be told all the time to everyone.

But I will acknowledge that this will always seem problematic with the scriptures against lying and insisting on perfect honesty.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Interesting.  Thanks for the honest answer!

I hope you're not suggesting that if a leader truly believes in Adam-God but also teaches from the manual without disputation, that he is being dishonest with his fellow man. Both approaches ultimately teach the same thing.

We are promised that we would get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the Book of Mormon than by any other book. This tells me it contains the fulness (per D&C 27:5), which takes actual form in our person as we mature in keeping the principles (including ordinances) that are built upon this keystone of our religion. 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 of Mormon. Adam-God as a teaching tool may be no more literal than the temple story, but I think the Book of Mormon is more literal than either. Both the symbolism and the words can be precious, but in different ways for different reasons.

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, after exercising a particle of faith, 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. This is the end of the Adam-God teaching, the temple teaching, and scripture: 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; and in our current state, gods descending into the flesh preparatory to exaltation. We are adam-god by virtue of our membership in His family, and ultimately Adam-God by virtue of the eternal sealing.

We can eventually live with God only in our true character. We get this when we learn that we are gods in the flesh after all and covenant to act the part, or act like gods in the flesh, which begins with taking upon us the name of Christ. We are as Adam, we are as Christ, we are as the Father (I have a scripture for every one and everyone!)

Edited September 28, 2016 by CV75

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I hope you're not suggesting that if a leader truly believes in Adam-God but also teaches from the manual without disputation, that he is being dishonest with his fellow man. Both approaches ultimately teach the same thing.

I guess that would depend on what they are teaching.  If they specifically denounce the doctrine (Adam/God) publicly while privately believing it, then yes, I do believe that is being dishonest.  I'm not sure how anyone can see that any differently.

26 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Both approaches ultimately teach the same thing.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  A leader cannot teach that Adam is our God and the literal father of Christ and then turn around and teach that he's not.  They are definitely not the same thing.

[halconero]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Ok, got it.  Sounds like you're ok with some leaders giving answers that are not completely honest.  Are you also ok with creative answers from others in attempts to avoid answering TR questions with complete honesty?  Or do you have a double standard for the leaders vs. the members?

.

Only if the Spirit tells them so.  If it's a choice between being honest to myself and my covenants with God, and being honest others in all cases, I'll choose the former. I'm not a Kantian Universalist when it comes to honesty. More of a Virtue Ethics kind of guy with a touch of Utilitarianism.

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire." - Joseph Smith, Jr. (interestingly, part of this quote is in Preach My Gospel. I have no reason for pointing that out other for interest's sake.