A Debate ("Dialogue") Scheduled for Today in Magna, UT

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 

What makes President Young's statements confusing about the Adam/God issue is that in some discourses....

Helps if you think of multiple fathers. So you have greatgrandfather Eloheim, grandfather Yahweh and father Michael.

Again, if these are titles and not individuals this isn't an issue. And you can find elements of that in ancient Judaism. Honestly the only real controversial part is the idea Michael/Adam is the Father of Jesus via Mary. Most of the rest can be reconciled in various ways although not everyone will agree with them. And of course some, like Blake Ostler, reject the endless regress of gods entirely. He reads the Sermon in the Grover and the King Follet Discourse of Joseph Smith very differently than Brigham would have.

While some passages, as you note, can be read to support the two Adam theory (there are actually a few papers out there defending it) over all I think Brigham's fairly consistent in the Utah period.

Edited August 8, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Oliblish]

19 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Adam God was once taught as Church doctrine by the President of the Church of all people. Then the Church repudiated the doctrine. Theories about the Priesthood Ban was once taught as Church doctrine, sometimes by apostles. Then the Church repudiated the doctrine. So Bott teaching racist justifications is analogous to someone in the 80's teaching Adam/God. 

Really not a hard analogy to follow.

Can you tell me when these theories about the priesthood ban were repudiated?  The first I heard of it was in February of 2012 when the Church issued a press release in response to the Washington Post article where Dr. Bott made his statements.  Then the priesthood  essay was released  in December of 2013.  Was there an official statement made prior to those that was issued to the general public?

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, Oliblish said:

Can you tell me when these theories about the priesthood ban were repudiated?  The first I heard of it was in February of 2012 when the Church issued a press release in response to the Washington Post article where Dr. Bott made his statements.  Then the priesthood  essay was released  in December of 2013.  Was there an official statement made prior to those that was issued to the general public?

Typically most people track it to Bruce R. McConkie's talk. "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." 

[Oliblish]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Typically most people track it to Bruce R. McConkie's talk. "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." 

I remember reading that talk back in the 1980s when I was at BYU but at the time I certainly did not interpret it to mean that the previously taught reasons for the ban had been repudiated (curse of Cain, etc.)  That thought had never entered my mind until the church statement in 2012.  I remember telling my wife about it at the time and she was very surprised and had never heard of it either.  Evidently even a long serving religion professor at BYU hadn't heard of it either.

If the church intended to disavow those theories in 1978 they did an extremely poor job communicating it.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Oliblish said:

I remember reading that talk back in the 1980s when I was at BYU but at the time I certainly did not interpret it to mean that the previously taught reasons for the ban had been repudiated (curse of Cain, etc.)  That thought had never entered my mind until the church statement in 2012.  I remember telling my wife about it at the time and she was very surprised and had never heard of it either.  Evidently even a long serving religion professor at BYU hadn't heard of it either.

I can but say that when I was at BYU most people I knew interpreted it to mean that theories about pre-existence weren't accurate. (Which is admittedly a bit acontextual if you read the whole talk - but almost no one did. Just the relevant excerpt) I think the Encyclopedia of Mormonism contributed as well - again it was gone over by the brethren very carefully. 

[Avatar4321]

Perhaps we should assist brother Allred by praying for him to have the Spirit with him with power