Adam-God and Idolatry

[The Nehor]

Did you just reinvent consubstantiation?

[mfbukowski]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Did you just reinvent consubstantiation?

dunno if this was for me, I would call it nonsubstantiated non- substantiation. 

no substance to it though.  

Alll that stuff depends on substance which is just a word which lacks a definition.  What is an oily substance?  something oily.   What is a divine substance? something divine etc ad infinitum

and infinitum is definitely not in Utah

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And I said that I did not start the fire and that it had, in fact, been burning since the worlds been turning.

The jury did not buy it and found me guilty of arson.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground

And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?

[mfbukowski]

On 12/14/2017 at 4:05 PM, pogi said:

It could if you are worshiping an exalted man who is not our God. 

Then just worship your God that you DO worship and don't worry about the name

He's the God that dwells in your heart- you know perfectly well who he is that way.

[co-eternal]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is the error that leads to beliefs like transubstantiation.  The "attributes" of bread are that it is made of flour, and other ingredients but that it has a "substance" which is NOT the same as its attributes.

The similar argument here would be that we worship God's "identity" here- his name as his "substance" but not worship his attributes.

In transubstantiation, the "substance" of the bread is miraculously changed from the stuff that is made with flour which has the attributes of bread, into the substance of the Body of Christ. while retaining the attributes of bread.

Therefore one can take the Body, Blood, Soul  and Divinity of Christ into oneself while it retains the attributes of bread, in the Eucharist.

Separating attributes- the appearance of things- from the "identity" of the thing is the classic error that Pragmatists eschew.

Seeing the object as relational- or as its FUNCTION - is the solution.  Bread is bread if it is made of flour, with the other ingredients of bread, and FUNCTIONS as bread.   One can eat it and it provides nourishment regardless of if it is brown or white or named Laura Scudder's or Wonderbread or the Eucharist.  

A screwdriver can be a "hammer" if it is the only thing with which we can hammer in an emergency.   The fact that it is a red or blue screwdriver is irrelevant to it's USE or FUNCTION as a hammer even if it was not designed to be  hammer.   A rock can be a "knife" if it has an edge.   If a piece of flint is used as an arrowhead it does not cease to be a piece of flint - it is both flint AND and arrowhead.

So Mark can be a Father and a son depending on perspective and how he "functions" in a situation.   At a family gathering he can be a father and a son, a husband  and a cook and a gardener at the same time, but all are still Mark.

One cannot differentiate what his "identity" is separate from his function- his identity includes his name as well has his function for those who know him 

His identity INCLUDES all those things, not just his name, not just his role- he becomes a "bundle" of functions as seen by others but inside himself he is still just "ME" serving in all those separate functions

And so that is why I say this is a linguistic confusion. The confusion is that there is "some name out there" independent from  language which corresponds to the reality of what the thing is

And so as usual we get back to the Rorty quote below 

To paraphrase to make it relevant here :

"God is out there, but descriptions of God are not. .....  God as he IS - unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot be described"  

So don't worry about it and go with the God you KNOW inside of you- the God who cannot be put into words, and who's name cannot be uttered.

 

 

Whatever, I just pray to my Father.

[co-eternal]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How pretentiously deep and condescending.

I have to go read my baby stories in the Book of Mormon now. Have a good one.

It doesn't make sense to me that to read, study, understand, ... what the truths are that were restored and taught by Joseph and Brigham is of so little value that the attitude toward anyone who does that is treated this way.

Was Brigham pretentiously deep and condescending?

Was Joseph pretentiously deep and condescending?

Was Christ pretentiously deep and condescending?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

It doesn't make sense to me that to read, study, understand, ... what the truths are that were restored and taught by Joseph and Brigham is of so little value that the attitude toward anyone who does that is treated this way.

Was Brigham pretentiously deep and condescending?

Was Joseph pretentiously deep and condescending?

Was Christ pretentiously deep and condescending?

You are no Brigham or Joseph and you are definitely not the Messiah. I will leave the obvious “Life of Brian” joke there for the reader to add themselves.

I called you condescending. I did not do this because you search deeper. I did it because you called the gospel our missionaries teach and that the Savior taught “baby stories”.

As for pretentiously deep there is a vein of thought amongst some Church members (usually prideful ones) that intellectual knowledge of obscure doctrine is a vital step to salvation. A kind of Mormon Gnosticism. Buried in there is the idea that instead of reading our canon and studying the living prophets the real gems are buried in the teachings of Joseph Smith, Adam-God explanations, bits from the White Horse Prophecy, musings on Calling and Election and the Second Comforter, or whatever. I cannot knock the curiosity that leads to this too hard without condemning myself. I have read quite a bit about them. I do not share my understanding of Adam-God and some of what I suspect exaltation involves because I suspect I would be accused of blasphemy if I did so. I consider it fun and possibly even worthwhile. It might even be vital to some saints making it through this life but it is not a part of the general gospel all must heed. And there is no elite status in being on that path.

That being said, as edifying or time wasting as those pursuits can be, they are not the core of the real gospel. A parent taking time to play with their kid, a nervous newly ordained Teacher on his first Home Teaching assignment trying to serve, a missionary trying to share the gospel with someone, a parent forgoing sleep to pray for their wayward child, a Bishop trying his hardest to help his ward members physically and spiritually, a Relief Society President balancing work and family to try to meet so many needs in her organization and beyond, a family squeezing in time to read the Book of Mormon together daily, any saint on their knees repenting for their sins, these are the things that really matter and save. This is also where the true lessons of the gospel are learned. The advanced gospel is not taught in books. It is taught by God himself to those who do their duty so they can be sanctified. I wish I was further along the path and I could tell you how great it is but I am not that far along just yet.

Edited December 18, 2017 by The Nehor

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I called you condescending. I did not do this because you search deeper. I did it because you called the gospel our missionaries teach and that the Savior taught “baby stories”.

No. I did not.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, co-eternal said:

No. I did not.

Did so!

[pogi]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The term I use is relational, not a name.  I feel I do not need a name because what is important to me is the relationship.

I agree with what you are saying.  It is the functional relationship that matters.  The old first discussion used to state, in an attempted to build on common beliefs, "we each believe in a supreme being but may call him by different names..."  From that common experience with the divine, we teach that this being is our literal father...that he has flesh and bones, and that he has a story...a history with us.  That story alters our perspective, and ultimately our functional relationship with Him.  It changes his identity in our mind and heart, and thus how we relate with Him.

When people begin to perceive this supreme being as a literal father with flesh and bones who is a glorified human, their functional relationship changes.  Story matter, because it alters our perspective of God, and an altered perspective can have an effect on functional relationship.  Think about it.  If you were told a stories about your grandfather being a drunk child abuser, but these stories and history actually belonged to another man, how could that not affect and distort your feelings towards your grandfather and his true identity.  If the story and history of Adam, the first man, do not belong to God the Father, then we are distorting the image of God in our mind and hearts.  The point is to remove distortions, stories, attitudes, etc. that do not align with his true identity, because all distortions of identity can distort functional relationships. 

That is why we teach that God the Father is not Lord Krishna.  For the same reason, we should be clear that God the Father is not Adam.

As I explained to Nehor, I agree, it is not about the name so much as it is about the story, history, and identity associated with the name that matters.  If the story and history of my father was mixed-up with the story and history of his father, I would have a totally distorted perception of my father. 

Lets take, for example, the name Jesus Christ.  It is not the name that saves, but the person behind the name and our functional relationship with him that saves.  Jesus warned of false Christs.  A false Christ is nothing more than attributing his identity to someone that it does not belong to.  Adam-God is no different. 

 Acts 4:12
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

2 Ne. 31: 21.
"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God."

IT is not the name so much as what lies behind the name.  The question I have is this - what lies behind the name Adam, the first man of this Earth?  Is he our Heavenly Father?  If not, how is that any different from a false Christ, for example?

Edited December 18, 2017 by pogi

[co-eternal]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Did so!

No I didn't.

I was only referring to what Brigham Young called "baby stories", not all of the gospel.

You guys are always so quick to accuse some one of something without looking at a bigger conversation.

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, co-eternal said:

It doesn't make sense to me that to read, study, understand, ... what the truths are that were restored and taught by Joseph and Brigham is of so little value that the attitude toward anyone who does that is treated this way.

Was Brigham pretentiously deep and condescending?

Was Joseph pretentiously deep and condescending?

Was Christ pretentiously deep and condescending?

Central contradiction here between this attitude and "Whatever, I just pray to my father". Obviously that is not the case if you consider yourself "deep" and actually care about Brigham's interpretation. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I agree with what you are saying.  It is the functional relationship that matters.  The old first discussion used to state, in an attempted to build on common beliefs, "we each believe in a supreme being but may call him by different names..."  From that common experience with the divine, we teach that this being is our literal father...that he has flesh and bones, and that he has a story...a history with us.  That story alters our perspective, and ultimately our functional relationship with Him.  It changes his identity in our mind and heart, and thus how we relate with Him.

When people begin to perceive this supreme being as a literal father with flesh and bones who is a glorified human, their functional relationship changes.  Story matter, because it alters our perspective of God, and an altered perspective can have an effect on functional relationship.  Think about it.  If you were told a stories about your grandfather being a drunk child abuser, but these stories and history actually belonged to another man, how could that not affect and distort your feelings towards your grandfather and his true identity.  If the story and history of Adam, the first man, do not belong to God the Father, then we are distorting the image of God in our mind and hearts.  The point is to remove distortions, stories, attitudes, etc. that do not align with his true identity, because all distortions of identity can distort functional relationships. 

That is why we teach that God the Father is not Lord Krishna.  For the same reason, we should be clear that God the Father is not Adam.

As I explained to Nehor, I agree, it is not about the name so much as it is about the story, history, and identity associated with the name that matters.  If the story and history of my father was mixed-up with the story and history of his father, I would have a totally distorted perception of my father. 

Lets take, for example, the name Jesus Christ.  It is not the name that saves, but the person behind the name and our functional relationship with him that saves.  Jesus warned of false Christs.  A false Christ is nothing more than attributing his identity to someone that it does not belong to.  Adam-God is no different. 

 Acts 4:12
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

2 Ne. 31: 21.
"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God."

IT is not the name so much as what lies behind the name.  The question I have is this - what lies behind the name Adam, the first man of this Earth?  Is he our Heavenly Father?  If not, how is that any different from a false Christ, for example?

In the case of my grandfather, I would go by my personal experience of him. If others had a bad experience with him, I would go by my perspective of his good side.  If I had never met him, I would go on the word of others, but not care because his history is irrelevant to my life.

Regarding God, I consider Lord Krishna as a valid way of representing God for some, but that representation does not work for me, it is inadequate, yet there is something there from which I can learn. 

I see all verbal accounts as paradigms which CANNOT represent the reality of anything. Period. Anything verbal is a "philosophy of men", not reality.

I see the theology of Mormonism as the best paradigm available to mankind, nothing more or less

[pogi]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

In the case of my grandfather, I would go by my personal experience of him. If others had a bad experience with him, I would go by my perspective of his good side.  If I had never met him, I would go on the word of others, but not care because his history is irrelevant to my life.

Regarding God, I consider Lord Krishna as a valid way of representing God for some, but that representation does not work for me, it is inadequate, yet there is something there from which I can learn. 

I see all verbal accounts as paradigms which CANNOT represent the reality of anything. Period. Anything verbal is a "philosophy of men", not reality.

I see the theology of Mormonism as the best paradigm available to mankind, nothing more or less

Regarding Krishna - Right, the point is to build on common beliefs ("we each believe in a supreme being but may call him by different names") to a more accurate and helpful paradigm or representation of God.  Krishna can only get someone so far.  If one wants to obtain eternal-life, they will eventually need to remove any distortions of God.  Distortions need to go.  That is what the restoration is all about, removing distortions regarding the nature of God.  Because eventually, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ."  It matters.  It is our mission to prepare and work towards that day by proclaiming the name Jesus Christ (because what that name represents matters, and we can’t just attribute it to any one).  It is important that they know, not just the name of the Savior, but his history, his story of what he did, because his history and story IS extremely relevant to our lives.

You may not view the history of your ancestors as relevant, but I disagree.  Their history is the story of you.  You are the way you are, and you are who you are, in large part, because of them.    You are them and they are you in a very meaningful way.  We cannot be saved without them and they without us.  We are bonded to them in story, in history, in genes, and eventually through priesthood sealing.  I find it incredibly important to preserve the integrity of our lineage.  Our lineage, perhaps more than anything, IS our identity.  If Adam-God is a false genealogy and lineage, then it is a false identity of God and self.  The modern church thinks it important enough (as do I) that one could be excommunicated for teaching this as a doctrine. 

"One major study found that all adopted children, regardless of the level of openness in their adoption, are curious about their birth parents. Your child’s birth parents are a major part of his or her adoption story, and it is important to talk with your child about them openly, honestly..."

This is just as true about our Heavenly Parents as well. There is something deep within every soul that wants to know about their parents, it is part of our personal story, it tells us about us, who we are, where we came from, etc.  All distortions about them are distortions about us.  It is relevant.  Words are important for plating those seeds of functional relationships without distortion. 

Verbal accounts fall short, I agree.  But they are important as seeds to experience.  They direct our minds and hearts to undefiled or distorted experience with the divine.

Edited December 18, 2017 by pogi

[co-eternal]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Central contradiction here between this attitude and "Whatever, I just pray to my father". Obviously that is not the case if you consider yourself "deep" and actually care about Brigham's interpretation. 

Obviously, Brigham's words are some of what I pray to the Father about.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

Obviously, Brigham's words are some of what I pray to the Father about.

"Obviously"?   I don't see how this comment is relevant to what you have said at all.  The contradiction was obvious?

I really do not understand you at all and of course that is my fault because it could not possibly be yours with your depth of understanding.

[co-eternal]

50 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Obviously"?   I don't see how this comment is relevant to what you have said at all.  The contradiction was obvious?

I really do not understand you at all and of course that is my fault because it could not possibly be yours with your depth of understanding.

Why is it that the usual response to what I say is a personal attack?

I have now idea why you started this.

Nothing I said before your attack was about you or directed at you.

Yet you have made this personal.

Why.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, co-eternal said:

No I didn't.

I was only referring to what Brigham Young called "baby stories", not all of the gospel.

You guys are always so quick to accuse some one of something without looking at a bigger conversation.

The “baby story” Brigham Young referred to was about Adam being made from the dust of the Earth. You did not apply it to that scenario. You generalized.

You know what happens to those that wrest scripture?

[co-eternal]

We grow from sphere to sphere. We learn line upon line. And if we do not learn the lessons of a sphere we stay within that sphere until we do. And we can not skip lines as we go, each line is predicated upon preceding lines.

Joseph restored and Brigham taught lost truths not just because they were lost, but because growth and progression depend on them. There are things that quite visible in Brigham's words and if we do not study, understand and accept them, the things that are not so visible are not available. It is simple cause and effect, just like geometry depends on arithmetic. There things that escape us until we lay the foundations of understanding that precede the things we don't understand. And some of those things were given to us as "baby stories" in the Bible and the grown up story has been given to us in revelations. And until we replace those baby stories with the revelations, we can not expect greater understanding.

I have been told many times by many instructors that an understanding of how the Atonement compensates for all that did not go "right" is beyond our mortal understanding. It's not true, Joseph restored and Brigham taught the prerequisite precepts in the open and the direct precepts masked. There are many things I have learned and many questions answered because I sought out, read, studied, pondered, understood and accepted their prerequisites.  I have done nothing that any of you can not do if that is what you decided.

So I don't understand the personal attacks against me.

[co-eternal]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The “baby story” Brigham Young referred to was about Adam being made from the dust of the Earth. You did not apply it to that scenario. You generalized.

You know what happens to those that wrest scripture?

What I said was in the context of the topic of this discussion thread and what was said in previous posts - not as a generalization.

And you made it personal.

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

What I said was in the context of the topic of this discussion thread and what was said in previous posts - not as a generalization.

And you made it personal.

Oh no! Did I? Allow me to go get out my sackcloth and ashes kit and lament this horrific tragedy.

You sure do like accusing people of making things personal. Ironic since the OP in this thread made it personal first.

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

There are many things I have learned and many questions answered because I sought out, read, studied, pondered, understood and accepted their prerequisites.  I have done nothing that any of you can not do if that is what you decided.

So I don't understand the personal attacks against me.

You don't see any condescension in claiming you have more understanding and progression in gospel understanding than your fellow Church members?
Personal attacks may be wrong, but I think you are smart enough to understand how you might offend people with such statements.

I personally am glad you are on the board.  It's nice to have someone who shares some of my beliefs concerning the teachings of Joseph and Brigham.  But your approach to gospel discussion isn't going to convince anyone that your understanding is enlightened.

[Bobbieaware]

10 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

We grow from sphere to sphere. We learn line upon line. And if we do not learn the lessons of a sphere we stay within that sphere until we do. And we can not skip lines as we go, each line is predicated upon preceding lines.

Joseph restored and Brigham taught lost truths not just because they were lost, but because growth and progression depend on them. There are things that quite visible in Brigham's words and if we do not study, understand and accept them, the things that are not so visible are not available. It is simple cause and effect, just like geometry depends on arithmetic. There things that escape us until we lay the foundations of understanding that precede the things we don't understand. And some of those things were given to us as "baby stories" in the Bible and the grown up story has been given to us in revelations. And until we replace those baby stories with the revelations, we can not expect greater understanding.

I have been told many times by many instructors that an understanding of how the Atonement compensates for all that did not go "right" is beyond our mortal understanding. It's not true, Joseph restored and Brigham taught the prerequisite precepts in the open and the direct precepts masked. There are many things I have learned and many questions answered because I sought out, read, studied, pondered, understood and accepted their prerequisites.  I have done nothing that any of you can not do if that is what you decided.

So I don't understand the personal attacks against me.

I would venture to say that the “attacks” are based upon the undeniable fact that the prophets, seers and revelatory who stand at the head of the Church today have disavowed Adam-God and warned that those who advocate for it are out of the way and promulgating forbidden things that should most-assuredly not be taught. Even if Adam-God somehow turns out to be true, the leaders have made it clear today is not the day to teach it because doing so against their warnings is harmful to the cause of Zion. By his own word, the Prophet Joseph Smith kept many of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom to himself because he understood that disclosing all the truth he knew would do much more harm than good.

It’s also true that boasting of one’s own putative superior knowledge is repugnant, unseemly, and destructive of the harmony that should exist among the saints.

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I would venture to say that the “attacks” are based upon the undeniable fact that the prophets, seers and revelators who stand at the head of the Church today have disavowed Adam-God and warned that those who advocate for it are out of the way and promulgating forbidden things that should most-assuredly not be taught.   Even if Adam-God somehow turns out to be true, the leaders have made it clear today is not the day to teach it because doing so against their warnings is harmful to the cause of Zion.

That's a loaded post Bobbieaware.  I have to look at each piece.
It's true that the prophets, seers, and revelators today have disavowed Adam-God.  The problem is there is zero evidence they did so with anything beyond their own opinions, just as Brigham taught it with his own opinion.  Neither has any more weight.
But your secondary statement that these things shouldn't be taught is a much more interesting and correct statement.  Mysteries are not for public teaching.  Never have been.  That may be wisdom from our current leaders, even if their doctrinal disavowal carries no revelatory weight.

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

By his own word, the Prophet Joseph Smith kept many of the deeper mysteries of the kingdom to himself because he understood that disclosing all the truth he knew would do much more harm than good.

Joseph Smith

• I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.
• There has been a great difficulty in getting anything into the heads of this generation. It has been like splitting hemlock knots with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle. Even the Saints are slow to understand.  I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions: they cannot stand the fire at all. How many will be able to abide a celestial law, and go through and receive their exaltation, I am unable to say, as many are called, but few are chosen.
• I advise all to go on to perfection, and search deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Godliness. 

30 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

It’s also true that boasting of one’s own putative superior knowledge is repugnant, unseemly, and destructive of the harmony that should exist among the saints.

Agreed.  Although Abraham 3:19 still applies.

Edited December 19, 2017 by JLHPROF

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

You don't see any condescension in claiming you have more understanding and progression in gospel understanding than your fellow Church members?
Personal attacks may be wrong, but I think you are smart enough to understand how you might offend people with such statements.
 

Well, actually, that is what I'm looking for. Some one who claims to know more than I. That is why I came to this list. Then I can learn something.  I'm all about hanging out with those that know more than I do.

That is why I read from Joseph and Brigham, they had more to offer me than the scriptures, and then they show me more in the scriptures than I can see without them.

If you know more than I do, let's hear it. But I have not heard anything more that is also in harmony with Joseph and Brigham. I hear all these personal theories about who is who and what the order is between them. but they are not what Joseph and Brigham have said.  But if you have insights into the atonement, sealing power, eternal progression, the nature and roles f the gods, eternal rounds, .... I'm all for it, I want to hear it. But it can't be like Orson Pratt, it has to be true and observably, trace ably  true, not just someone's opinion. I'll listen to your opinion, but ...