Adam-God doctrine explained

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, halconero said:

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.

Yes, I'm very familiar with that quote and where it came from.  I also know that Joseph tried to deny writing it but finally admitted he did (if we can believe Robinson).  If you choose to use a quote from a letter explaining why Joseph deceived to live polygamy, to defend being dishonest in a TR interview, ok .

I don't agree that if our leaders believe one thing and teach another, that is being honest.  I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ALarson

[theplains]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

Be patient young man :-)

Jim

[Atheist Mormon]

On 9/24/2016 at 3:54 PM, Tacenda said:

I wonder how long the church is going to go mum on this. Kind of dishonest to those that join and find out later, much later after having paid a lot of tithing to find this is how LDS really believe. Milk before meat, is really dishonest, IMO.

 

What part is this silence is dishonest exactly? When I am able to see all the information on a whim, why should I heap the responsibility of explanation to the Church.....If I can find out differing versions of the history (even way before the computer/Internet age) not a single member of the Church can find any excuse or accuse LDS Church of hiding it's history.......(my opinion)

I started studying Church History 1981, couple months after I moved to Utah, nobody censored any information that I wanted to acquire. I have close ExMormon friends who ruefully lament; "I wish I knew", I don't have hart to say, "sorry buddy, the information was always there".....

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

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.

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.

I'm not sure how I would know his private beliefs. I do now that life is more complicated than to judge people, though, and its' enough to monitor my own honesty. Someone could be confused, conflicted or perfectly comfortable denouncing and privately believing in their respective contexts. But if he confessed to being dishonest, then I'd believe him.

What about Bill who denounces anyone calling Jane fat, when Bill privately and truly believes Jane is fat?

I (and others) did point our how a leader could teach that Adam is our God and the literal father of Christ and then turn around and teach that he's not. When out of context, either teaching can be false.

[Flexible]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 0:00 PM, 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.

I've noticed from some of your other postings that you like to make blanket authoritative declarations about other posters' comments being "false" , or not meeting a "scholarly" standard. 
Good grief.  How arrogant, pedantic, and condescending.   I said earlier that Patrick Mason stated he sees an urgent need to define a new theology of prophets.  The reason for this is to be able to better deal with the incidents there have been and will be when our prophets have been wrong, to give them a break for being human.    I gave you the link to listen to his entire comments on
Bill Reel's website.  You consider yourself to have a sole monopoly on understanding Mason's views on this.  It's obvious you haven't listened to his comments to Bill Reel so you have some catching up to do.  If you did, you could not accuse me of "making false claims" about what he said.  Go listen to the podcast.   As I told you before, if I have misinterpreted what he said, show me how.  If you've got your mind made up, and are not willing to take the time to listen, then we'll just have to leave it there. 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I (and others) did point our how a leader could teach that Adam is our God and the literal father of Christ and then turn around and teach that he's not. When out of context, either teaching can be false.

We aren't talking about it being taken out of context.  I expect honesty from our leaders and would hope that they would not teach the members something they don't believe themselves, when these members look to them for the truth and trust in their word. 

There's not much more to say about this here as we seem to disagree.  It's been an amazing discussion though to see so many give our leaders an out if they believe one thing and then teach something else.

.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What part is this silence is dishonest exactly? When I am able to see all the information on a whim, why should I heap the responsibility of explanation to the Church.....If I can find out differing versions of the history (even way before the computer/Internet age) not a single member of the Church can find any excuse or accuse LDS Church of hiding it's history.......(my opinion)

I started studying Church History 1981, couple months after I moved to Utah, nobody censored any information that I wanted to acquire. I have close ExMormon friends who ruefully lament; "I wish I knew", I don't have hart to say, "sorry buddy, the information was always there".....

I think the argument is that the Church suggested that members stay away from any material not put out by Church publication.
Some did, some didn't.  Those that stayed away now feel lied to, even though the information was always available in unapproved sources.
I knew most of Joseph Smith's wives names and the Adam-God doctrine and many other things from personal study.  Therefore when the Church acknowledged Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy and its extent I wasn't bothered one bit.  Old news.

The Church doesn't censor its members or track which books they read or websites they visit.  But it does encourage members to stick to Church publications.
Fortunately for everyone Church publications are improving in leaps and bounds.
Like this one - http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/articles/administrative-records-council-of-fifty-minutes
or this one - https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/the-first-fifty-years-of-relief-society

Now members have a Church approved, historically accurate resource to learn all about the top secret Council of Fifty or what the original intent and organization of the Relief Society looked like.
I think both you and the claimers of dishonesty both have some valid points on the situation.  But in the end we are responsible for our own knowledge.
 

[Tacenda]

28 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

What part is this silence is dishonest exactly? When I am able to see all the information on a whim, why should I heap the responsibility of explanation to the Church.....If I can find out differing versions of the history (even way before the computer/Internet age) not a single member of the Church can find any excuse or accuse LDS Church of hiding it's history.......(my opinion)

I started studying Church History 1981, couple months after I moved to Utah, nobody censored any information that I wanted to acquire. I have close ExMormon friends who ruefully lament; "I wish I knew", I don't have hart to say, "sorry buddy, the information was always there".....

That I must donate my time, talents and all that I have to the church if need be. It becomes somewhat dishonest if they don't even tell you upfront before you swear an oath in the temple. No one tells you what you are going to promise to do before hand. I didn't get any literature on what goes on in the temple. Why even a contract gives you that. If I'd known that Adam was my God beforehand, I would not be in this church. If I had known that I might have to live polygamy with my husband in the hereafter, I doubt very much I would be in this church. Tell me when I was eight, how I was supposed find out these things? Tell how I was to know these things before I was endowed and married in the temple. 

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We aren't talking about it being taken out of context.  I expect honesty from our leaders and would hope that they would not teach the members something they don't believe themselves, when these members look to them for the truth and trust in their word. 

There's not much more to say about this here as we seem to disagree.  It's been an amazing discussion though to see so many give our leaders an out if they believe one thing and then teach something else.

.

Design a make-believe / hypothetical dishonest man and well, you have a dishonest man for your purposes.

Which LDS leader believes one thing and teaches another in a dishonest way?

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Tacenda said:

That I must donate my time, talents and all that I have to the church if need be. It becomes somewhat dishonest if they don't even tell you upfront before you swear an oath in the temple. No one tells you what you are going to promise to do before hand. I didn't get any literature on what goes on in the temple. Why even a contract gives you that.

There are really no covenants made in the temple that people shouldn't have already been living before they go there.
There is no dishonesty if the things we promise to do were things we had already been taught to do.  Consecrating our time and talents should not have been a surprise to anyone who has read the scriptures.  Nor should keeping chaste or keeping the commandments.

Quote

If I'd known that Adam was my God beforehand, I would not be in this church. If I had known that I might have to live polygamy with my husband in the hereafter, I doubt very much I would be in this church. Tell me when I was eight, how I was supposed find out these things? Tell how I was to know these things before I was endowed and married in the temple.

At 8 you didn't need to know these things.  Entering the waters of Baptism requires nothing but faith in Christ and repentance.
Polygamy and the nature of God were not and are not something you need to partake of the first principles.  All that is needed for salvation is justification through Christ and Baptism.  If that is all someone wants, that is all they need partake of.  God forces nobody down the path to exaltation.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Design a make-believe / hypothetical dishonest man and well, you have a dishonest man for your purposes.

Which LDS leader believes one thing and teaches another in a dishonest way?

Ok.  I'm done with this discussion as now you're just moving the goalposts.  Read over the last few pages and you'll see that some believe there are church leaders who still believe in the Adam/God doctrine but don't teach it or even publicly have disavowed it.  Others have implied that the leaders can't teach the truth because members simply can't handle the truth.  We have not been giving any specific names, just examples of what we disagree or agree on regarding what leader may do publicly vs. privately.

How could either side possibly name an "LDS leader" who is not teaching publicly what they believe privately?  They're not teaching it and keeping their beliefs private  

.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

Just now, ALarson said:

Read over the last few pages and you'll see that some believe there are church leaders who still believe in the Adam/God doctrine but don't teach it or even publicly have disavowed it.  Others have implied that the leaders can't teach the truth because members simply can't handle the truth. 

You say this like it is a bad thing instead of exactly how God has always operated.
Where did you ever get the idea that 100% of the gospel should always be openly taught to anyone who asks?
If that were the case God would have given Joseph the entire restored Gospel during the New York years instead of line upon line.

That is why Lectures on Faith features a scholarly analysis stating:
 The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness:and in his image

But later on Joseph learned by revelation that:
D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as

Was God "dishonest" for not telling Joseph up front about his nature and instead letting him come to learn the higher truth over time?

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You say this like it is a bad thing instead of exactly how God has always operated.
Where did you ever get the idea that 100% of the gospel should always be openly taught to anyone who asks?

I think we're talking about 2 different things here.  I agree that no one is under any obligation to teach or share all of their thought or beliefs.  Of course that's not the case.

What I am speaking of is someone believing one thing on a certain topic but then teaching something that is different as a representation of what their beliefs are or what they believe is the truth.   (This is most especially wrong for leaders to do, IMO when the members look to them for the truth.) 

It's the later that I disagree with someone doing and I believe it's dishonest and a misrepresentation.  If you disagree, that's fine.

.

Edited September 28, 2016 by ALarson

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok.  I'm done with this discussion as now you're just moving the goalposts.  Read over the last few pages and you'll see that some believe there are church leaders who still believe in the Adam/God doctrine but don't teach it or even publicly have disavowed it.  Others have implied that the leaders can't teach the truth because members simply can't handle the truth.  We have not been giving any specific names, just examples of what we disagree or agree on regarding what leader may do publicly vs. privately.

How could either side possibly name an "LDS leader" who is not teaching publicly what they believe privately?  They're not teaching it and keeping their beliefs private  

.

I see. In the two instances you mention above, I still don't see an inherent dishonesty in what some believe these leaders (real or imagined) are doing.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What I am speaking of is someone believing one thing on a certain topic but then teaching something that is different as a representation of what their beliefs are or what they believe is the truth.   (This is most especially wrong for leaders to do, IMO when the members look to them for the truth.)

And I am pointing out that God operates in the same way.
God revealed an entire system of laws and demanded they be followed to the letter when he knew that those actions weren't really necessary.

Imagine that for a moment...all that is necessary to enter God's kingdom, all that has ever been necessary, is to accept Christ as our Savior, repent of our sins, and be baptized by authority.  From Adam till today that's all that has ever been needed.
But the Children of Israel couldn't even handle that so they get 600+ laws about temporal details of no eternal import instead of the first principles.  And they have to wait until the Mt. of Olives scene to even gain entrance to God's Kingdom.

God AND Moses fully believed in the plan of salvation and knew of Christ, and yet taught something completely different to God's chosen people for centuries.
Was Moses dishonest for NEVER telling the children of Israel "Hey, you know, if you just believe in Christ, repent, and get baptized you're good?"
I think if God can know one thing to be the real truth and instruct another that his servants are fine to do the same thing.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And I am pointing out that God operates in the same way.
God revealed an entire system of laws and demanded they be followed to the letter when he knew that those actions weren't really necessary.

Imagine that for a moment...all that is necessary to enter God's kingdom, all that has ever been necessary, is to accept Christ as our Savior, repent of our sins, and be baptized by authority.  From Adam till today that's all that has ever been needed.
But the Children of Israel couldn't even handle that so they get 600+ laws about temporal details of no eternal import instead of the first principles.  And they have to wait until the Mt. of Olives scene to even gain entrance to God's Kingdom.

God AND Moses fully believed in the plan of salvation and knew of Christ, and yet taught something completely different to God's chosen people for centuries.
Was Moses dishonest for NEVER telling the children of Israel "Hey, you know, if you just believe in Christ, repent, and get baptized you're good?"
I think if God can know one thing to be the real truth and instruct another that his servants are fine to do the same thing.

I think you're making a lot of assumptions regarding what came from God and what came from man.   I don't believe that God would do what you state above ("reveal an entire system of laws and demanded they be followed to the letter when he knew that those actions weren't really necessary").  I know we'll disagree on that  

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Be patient young man :-)

Jim

Patience is a virtue . . .

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think you're making a lot of assumptions regarding what came from God and what came from man.   I don't believe that God would do what you state above ("reveal an entire system of laws and demanded they be followed to the letter when he knew that those actions weren't really necessary").  I know we'll disagree on that

I know we will disagree on that too.
But that's what appears to have happened.
 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Flexible said:

I've noticed from some of your other postings that you like to make blanket authoritative declarations about other posters' comments being "false" , or not meeting a "scholarly" standard. 
Good grief.  How arrogant, pedantic, and condescending.   I said earlier that Patrick Mason stated he sees an urgent need to define a new theology of prophets.  The reason for this is to be able to better deal with the incidents there have been and will be when our prophets have been wrong, to give them a break for being human.    I gave you the link to listen to his entire comments on
Bill Reel's website.  You consider yourself to have a sole monopoly on understanding Mason's views on this.  It's obvious you haven't listened to his comments to Bill Reel so you have some catching up to do.  If you did, you could not accuse me of "making false claims" about what he said.  Go listen to the podcast.   As I told you before, if I have misinterpreted what he said, show me how.  If you've got your mind made up, and are not willing to take the time to listen, then we'll just have to leave it there. 

I understand how and why you like to be flexible:  It gives you greater opportunity to say virtually anything and to make any sort of false claim without being held to account for it.  So anyone who asks you to do the regular work of providing actual quotations must necessarily be "arrogant, pedantic, and condescending."  How convenient and flexible, and irresponsible.  Simply demand that everyone else do the heavy lifting.  Demand that they read this or listen to that in order to verify your false claims.  Never provide the actual quotes, since your opinion is enough to do the job.  As I said already:  I have heard Mason's views on this subject expressed by him personally, and your version of that does not comport with what I heard.  It is on you to provide the actual quotations.  That is why journalists so often quote their sources.  It is the honest thing to do.  But you prefer to be flexible.

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I know we will disagree on that too.
But that's what appears to have happened.
 

According to man 

[halconero]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I'm very familiar with that quote and where it came from.  I also know that Joseph tried to deny writing it but finally admitted he did (if we can believe Robinson).  If you choose to use a quote from a letter explaining why Joseph deceived to live polygamy, to defend being dishonest in a TR interview, ok .

I don't agree that if our leaders believe one thing and teach another, that is being honest.  I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

.

I think for me it comes down to honesty to God and honesty to man. One trumps the other. It would be like failing someone for hiding a Jew and lying to a Nazi during WWII. You might consider that a false equivalency, but then that raises the question of whether or not the apostles and prophets owe greater allegiance to God IF these teachings are true, IF God has commanded them to seal them up. I could bring up the previous scriptures mentioned, but as you said, we probably just need to amicably disagree.

[Atheist Mormon]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

ou and the claimers of dishonesty both have some valid points on the situation.  But in the end we are responsible for our own knowledge.
 

Look, If anything I am very atheist and in no mood to defend LDS church...There's nothing dishonest about trying to defend your turf (if you are church).....

[JulieM]

38 minutes ago, halconero said:

I think for me it comes down to honesty to God and honesty to man.  One trumps the other

Shouldn't it be the same?  It's strange that you think you can stand before God and admit you weren't honest with your fellow man but then claim you were honest with Him.

Edited September 29, 2016 by JulieM

[halconero]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

Shouldn't it be the same?  It's strange that you think you can stand before God and admit you weren't honest with your fellow man but then claim you were honest with Him.

Julie, answer me this. I feel like I'm bringing it up ad Infinitum, but I'll personalize it a bit. My family are Jewish converts to the church of German ancestry. I had relatives, the Kölles, who were murdered by Nazis. My family was spared simply because my grandpa Friedrich moved to Chile in the interwar years. His sister, two brothers, and all their family? Dead. Murdered.

Flash forward to the Seventies. My uncles James and Stuart in Chile are members of their student Marxist group. Pinochet comes to power and members of their student group start disappearing. The ones that don't join the 40,000 desaparecidos (disappeared) eventually come back with fingers missing, toenails torn out, some of the women having been violated in prison by German Shepherds trained for that purpose. A Catholic priest hid my uncles in his parish during that time till our family could leave and get refugee status in Canada. Did he lie to the Chilean army soldiers looking for my uncles? Repeatedly. Was he honest in his convictions to God? 100% and he will be blessed for it.

I unequivocally do not believe in universalizing honesty in all situations. I'm not a Kantian. Virtue Ethics is probably the paradigm I use to gague honesty.

The question I ask then is if I were a Jew asking you to hide me, or a young naive university student asking the same, If you were a Hebrew midwife asked to slaughter newborns, or Samuel told to lie to the people of Jesse's village about my reason for being there to anoint his son over Saul, or Moses told to hide your knowledge of God and His Son, or some of the many other examples, if you were any one of these, or in any one of those situations, do you feel you could act in complete honesty with regards to your convictions and/or covenants to God, even while lying to your fellow man?

Edited September 29, 2016 by halconero

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, halconero said:

...........................................................

I unequivocally do not believe in universalizing honesty in all situations. I'm not a Kantian. Virtue Ethics is probably the paradigm I use to gague honesty.

The question I ask then is if I were a Jew asking you to hide me, or a young naive university student asking the same. If you were a Hebrew midwife asked to slaughter newborns, or Samuel told to lie to the people of Jesse's village about my reason for being there to anoint his son over Saul, or Moses told to hide your knowledge of God and His Son, or some many other examples, if you were any one of these, or in any one of those situations, do you feel you could act in complete honesty with regards to your convictions and/or covenants to God, even while lying to your fellow man?

This is exactly the dilemma addressed by Victor Hugo in Les Miserables, but it is also a problem for those too rigid to understand what our choices really are.