Dan Peterson on the alleged indeterminacy of Mormon doctrine

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Except you don't inherit all in this life.
Even Christ didn't inherit all in this life.

And yes, once all has been inherited, revelation can be given to those still stumbling around in mortality to correct a wrong doctrinal position.

But if I inherit all the father has, I get to decide what doctrine is or isn’t, right?

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

But if I inherit all the father has, I get to decide what doctrine is or isn’t, right?

No.
It is a misconception and a doctrinal falsehood that God decides what is true and what isn't.  God is God because he follows the laws and understands the truths.  But they exist independently of him too.

[Marginal Gains]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No.
It is a misconception and a doctrinal falsehood that God decides what is true and what isn't.  God is God because he follows the laws and understands the truths.  But they exist independently of him too.

So you’re saying God didn’t decide the laws of nature?

Then who did?

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you’re saying God didn’t decide the laws of nature?

Then who did?

Nobody as far as we know.  They are eternal and exist on every creation.

Once we get up into higher orders of kingdoms that govern the Gods we may find out different.  But even God is bound by law.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

So you’re saying God didn’t decide the laws of nature?

Then who did?

No one. They are co-eternal with God.

If God decided them, what were things like before He did?

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

One really has to be careful here since technically only a few parts of the theory have been rejected. My experience is that people conflate it all. To get everything clear I'd suggest looking at Matt Brown's Fair paper from a few years back. To be clear the idea that Adam is father and god are completely fine doctrines even today. The main issue is whether Adam is God the Father and physical father of Jesus and of our spirits. The idea that Adam was an already resurrected being before falling to a terrestrial state in the garden and a telestial state after the fruit.Those are considered false. 

 

Oh, I agree that much of this doctrine is still believed and taught today.  It was just the part regarding Adam being God the Father (and as you add, the physical Father of Jesus) that has been changed..  

And, that's the point here.  Doctrine has indeed changed or been altered or been corrected over time.  It's just strange that Scott and others will admit that the parts still taught are definitely doctrine, but then claim that the parts which have been corrected never were doctrine.  Oh well....

What is clear is that Brigham Young and others during that time most definitely considered it to be doctrine.

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Completely.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

To the dogmatist, everything demonstrates his point.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I agree that much of this doctrine is still believed and taught today.  It was just the part regarding Adam being God the Father (and as you add, the physical Father of Jesus) that has been changed..  

And, that's the point here.  Doctrine has indeed changed or been altered or been corrected over time.  It's just strange that Scott and others will admit that the parts still taught are definitely doctrine, but then claim that the parts which have been corrected never were doctrine.  Oh well....

What is clear is that Brigham Young and others during that time most definitely considered it to be doctrine.

But it was never believed unanimously. And it was disavowed rather quickly after Brigham Young left the scene.

That doesn't strike me as doctrinal.

 

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it was never believed unanimously. And it was disavowed rather quickly after Brigham Young left the scene.

That doesn't strike me as doctrinal.

 

What about the parts of it that remain and that are still taught today by our leaders?  Do you consider those teachings to be doctrine?  (What Clark referred to above as "completely fine doctrines even today": " the idea that Adam is father and god ".)  Is that doctrine?

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Laughing does not always indicate merriment and good will. Sometimes it is used as a way to convey contempt. As, for example, when one engages in mockery.

And you are angry. You and Marginal Gains are trying to beat up on me because I won't genuflect to your points. Looks like hope_for_things is starting to chime in too.

 

You insist ALarson is angry and he insists he understands you.

I think you both are wrong.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You insist ALarson is angry and he insists he understands you.

I think you both are wrong.

Well Calm, you're half right   (Just teasing).

No, I honestly do try to understand where Scott is coming from and I do know many members who believe as he does.  And, it's ok to disagree with me.

 (And... I'm not angry...ha!)

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But it was never believed unanimously. And it was disavowed rather quickly after Brigham Young left the scene.

That doesn't strike me as doctrinal.

Rather quickly in this case being about 25 years or so...and the only GA who expressed any disagreement was Orson Pratt.
And being taught in the temple as part of the endowment sounds pretty doctrinal to me.

[ALarson]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Rather quickly in this case being about 25 years or so...and the only GA who expressed any disagreement was Orson Pratt.
And being taught in the temple as part of the endowment sounds pretty doctrinal to me.

Yes and Orson Pratt even submitted and read a public statement affirming that it was doctrine:

Quote

Pratt continued to debate the issue in public forums for months, despite being rebuked privately and publicly by Young on more than one occasion, until 1860, when faced with possible disfellowshipment from the church for teaching false doctrine, Pratt agreed to the language of a public confession affirming the doctrine as "the doctrine of the church." This confession was negotiated during a series of meetings among the church hierarchy. 

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes and Orson Pratt even submitted and read a public statement affirming that it was doctrine:

 

Here's a portion of the Wikipedia entry you haven't bothered to quote:

Quote

 

There is some controversy as to whether or not Young considered Adam–God to be official church doctrine. At the end of his 1852 sermon, he stated, "Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation."^[58] Nevertheless, in 1854, after a great deal of controversy concerning the doctrine, Young minimized the importance of the doctrine, stating that the "subject ... does not immediately concern yours or my welfare .... I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know".^[59]

After Young's death, church leaders began to cast the various interpretations of this teaching as mere speculation and denied that any particular interpretation was binding on the church. In 1897, Joseph F. Smith, then an apostle and counselor in the First Presidency, wrote a private letter concerning Young's teachings on Adam, stating:

The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the "accepted word of God," is the Church's standard.^[60]

Beginning around 1892, church leaders privately decided to no longer publicly teach the doctrine. In a private meeting held on April 4, 1897, church president Wilford Woodruff said. "Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with [the] Josephites [Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] or any one else."^[61]

In 1892, the doctrine was publicly opposed in St. George, Utah, by Edward Bunker. The First Presidency—Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith—traveled to St. George to address the issue. Records of the meeting state that Bunker was corrected: "Pres Woodruff and Cannon showed ... that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made."^[62] "The doctrine preached and contended for by Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville was investigated, condemned and Father Bunker set right. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon present."^[63]

After the start of the 20th century, church leaders openly took the position that the doctrine should no longer to be taught publicly.^[64]

As early as 1902, apostle Charles W. Penrose claimed, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam."^[65]

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Here's a transcript of Matthew Brown's FairMormon Conference presentation. It is very enlightening.

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Thank you.

I recall that paper by Matt Brown. It was a good one.

We lost a brilliant thinker and a fine scholar when he passed away a few years ago. I miss him.

Yeah. It was still tough on his wife. I don't think he had insurance. I think she's still taking the care of the family just by doing haircuts.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

What about the parts of it that remain and that are still taught today by our leaders?  Do you consider those teachings to be doctrine?  (What Clark referred to above as "completely fine doctrines even today": " the idea that Adam is father and god ".)  Is that doctrine?

So far as I can tell some elements have been taught by most GAs consistently over the past century. Other elements have been more questionable. There's reasons to be skeptical - see the difference for instance in Nauvoo conceptions of spirits with the Utah period conception of spirit birth. There's questions by some (say Blake Ostler) about the regress of gods despite that being a pretty universal view through the early Utah period and by many in the 20th century.

I tend to accept all those parts, but I fully admit that grounding them in clear established revelation is tricky - which is why you don't see them pushed as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah. It was still tough on his wife. I don't think he had insurance. I think she's still taking the care of the family just by doing haircuts.

He spoke to me cordially at the FAIR conferences where I met him. He was very complimentary to me for having defended the Church on  message boards. I didn't think I was all that great. There were others on the board who were much better than I, including Daniel Peterson, who was actively posting back then. But his praise was very pleasing to me notwithstanding. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody as far as we know.  They are eternal and exist on every creation.

Once we get up into higher orders of kingdoms that govern the Gods we may find out different.  But even God is bound by law.

If God is bound by the laws of nature, how did He part the Red Sea for Moses?

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So far as I can tell some elements have been taught by most GAs consistently over the past century. Other elements have been more questionable. There's reasons to be skeptical - see the difference for instance in Nauvoo conceptions of spirits with the Utah period conception of spirit birth. There's questions by some (say Blake Ostler) about the regress of gods despite that being a pretty universal view through the early Utah period and by many in the 20th century.

I tend to accept all those parts, but I fully admit that grounding them in clear established revelation is tricky - which is why you don't see them pushed as much.

I agree (which to me is just more evidence of the evolving and changing teachings or doctrines over the years).  I find this fascinating to study and enjoy reading your thoughts and input on it.

I actually think that you and I agree on much here.  People can get caught up in the word “official” when it comes to discussing doctrine.  Well, if a teaching that was so forcefully believed and taught for over 25 years by a past Prophet (who felt so strongly about its truthfulness that he threatened an apostle with church discipline if he did not publicly acknowledge that it was “church doctrine”), was not considered official at the time, I don’t know how much more official a teaching could have been.  Also, that he added it to the teachings in the temple shows how much he believed in this doctrine.

I’ve previously read the paper you linked to several times and enjoy it as far as it goes.  It’s of course written in an apologetic manner, but is extremely well written, IMO.  It leaves out much information and many quotes and writings regarding this topic, but I understand why that was done as I realize what the purpose of that paper was (and I did enjoy reading it again).  I also understand why later Prophets and leaders made the statements they did (even though most still referred to it as "doctrine") in an effort to distance themselves from the teachings.

A much more thorough handling of this topic is Gary Bergera’s book Conflict In The Quorum (I imagine you have read it, but I highly recommend it to others here).  This book is extremely well written and meticulously researched and referenced.  Here’s a quote in it from Brigham Young regarding their (his and Pratt's) differences on doctrine:

Quote

“There is not a man in the church that can preach better than Orson Pratt,” Brigham Young told the twelve apostles on another occasion. “It is music to hear him. But the trouble is, he will … preach false doctrine.”

What’s ironic is that Brigham’s Adam/God Doctrine was labeled “false doctrine” by later Prophets and much of what Orson Pratt taught became the doctrine taught.

Which once again, is just another example of how fluid and changing some of the past teachings and doctrines have been, IMO.  I’m very grateful for some of those changes too!

I think I’ve pretty much expressed my beliefs here, Clark, and won’t continue repeating myself.   I enjoy reading your posts and always read your thoughts and opinions on this forum when I see a post from you.  I'm moving on now unless I see something different posted or have something new to express .

Edited September 1, 2017 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

If God is bound by the laws of nature, how did He part the Red Sea for Moses?

Why would that be against the laws of nature?  Water moves all the time.

But God is bound by eternal laws, not natural laws of a fallen world.  Christ walked on water, raised the dead, etc.  Clearly these were not violation of law, just transcending of mortal restrictions.
That doesn't mean God can break any law he chooses.  If he were to do that he would cease to be God.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, despite Dan’s claim, it’s not an example of clear doctrine.

Surely you can distinguish between exaltation clearly being doctrine and the idea that how exaltation happens can never be "clear" in a paltry human brain.

You are letting words get in the way.  It is important to think clearly

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is as far as it goes.

Maybe you could say it's not a comprehensive doctrine in the sense of answering every little speculation and question that might arise, but there is no question it is clear and unequivocal: Those who are faithful will be exalted and will be like God.

 

I think it was he who was thinking marginally

See above

 

[mfbukowski]

On 8/31/2017 at 11:41 AM, ALarson said:

Once again, showing that church doctrine evolves and changes (which I'm grateful for....especially regarding polygamy ):

 

 

Yes I agree with you- note I went back and changed the post.   As usual I skimmed it and got the wrong impression and pulled the trigger without a clear target.  

[mfbukowski]

On 8/29/2017 at 8:16 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I noticed that some Mormon intellectuals can get very creative. I thought "No Death before the Fall" doctrine was unambiguous,  but I read many interesting interpretations here.  So, I will try the same thing with some of the doctrines in your list 

"Do we have free will?" 

Only moral free will, or the freedom to choose between right and wrong, or the spirit and sin. 

"Is there an alternate path to heaven other than through Jesus?" 

and a pre-adamite saviour for the pre-adamites. 

"Did Jesus rise from the dead?" 

 It was the Lazarus syndrome

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/lazarus-phenomenon-explained-why-sometimes-deceased-are-not-dead-yet-180958613/

"Did life on Earth originate by chance, or by divine intention?"

Only Human, Plant, and Animal life as described in Genesis.  

"Did Jesus visit the Americas after his resurrection?"

Book of Mormon is true, but not historical 

It is very easy to find other interpretations, but I am grateful that we have General Conference talks and Gospel Topics on LDS.org. Doctrines taught and clarified multiple times by our latter-day prophets are inspired by God.   

Yeah, I think intellectuals should not be creative at all.  I mean what good is thinking anyway?  it just leads to questions, and questions are always bad.  We should do what we are told and make sure we are doing exactly what everyone else is doing at all times.  

 

Edited September 1, 2017 by mfbukowski