Why hasn't the church made an Adam-God Gospel Topics Essay?

[OGHoosier]

59 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

In my opinion if what BY taught in regards to Adam-God is completely absurd, that undermines the credibility of our prophets, seers, and revelators and calls into question the reliability of the endowment ceremony.

Why?

Why does it call it into question? 

Prophetic fallibility is part of our doctrine! It's supposed to be accounted for by the actions of the full quorums. This is an example of the process working. 

To be honest,  we tend to draw a line between "we have received further light and knowledge" and "the old guy was wrong", but I don't see how we can really consistently do that. We only do it because we aren't comfortable with saying "the old guy was wrong." But if a prophet teaches a soteriology of heaven and hell, and then we get the three degrees of glory - the first prophet was wrong. He was better than what came before, he was teaching a simplified version of the way things work which was appropriate for the people of his time - but in absolute terms, he was wrong. That's what continuing revelation is! We will get out of so much trouble if we accept that and le go of "all prophets are all right all the time." 

I want to know what assumptions you are bringing to the table. From where I sit, Adam-God doesn't really pose much trouble. To you, it clearly does. I want to know why. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by OGHoosier

[2BizE]

Probably because it would not be very productive to unbury the buried hatchet.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

On 2/11/2023 at 11:59 PM, OGHoosier said:

Why?

Why does it call it into question? 

1) In regards to the endowment, Brigham Young had charge of this from 1844 to 1877. He clearly understood the endowment to be teaching Adam-God. If he was dead wrong on Adam-God, then how do we know that the teachings in the endowment are completely correct and that Brigham Young didn’t insert his false ideas into the endowment? 

2) In regards to general teachings of the prophets, if a prophet, seer, and revelator can be this wrong about the identity of God and the plan of salvation and exaltation, what other teachings can they be wrong about? 

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2023 at 4:58 PM, Calm said:

I believe the FLDS have taken multiple mortal probations further than what Brigham taught, possibly added other things to it. I am not that familiar with their doctrine to judge.  I might check that out later as now I am curious. 

I am not sure how this explains the point I was responding to. It seems the SWK absolutely knew BY taught AG and that it was not simply allegedly taught.....

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1) In regards to the endowment, Brigham Young had charge of this from 1844 to 1877. He clearly understood the endowment to be teaching Adam-God. If he was dead wrong on Adam-God, then how do we know that the teachings in the endowment are completely correct and that Brigham Young didn’t insert his false ideas into the endowment? 

Good question. We can be confident because Brigham Young wasn't re-writing things from scratch: he was organizing and systematizing ceremonies which his peers had already observed, and which they had power to edit after him. Which they did. By removing Adam-God.

Brigham Young was given the task of organizing and systematizing the ceremonies, but it's not like he was the only one who ever had a hand in or participated in them. The entire Anointed Quorum was there. John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff had seen the temple ordinances from before Brigham's presidency. You continue to mistake Brigham's leadership for exclusive control. This is not, and has never been true. Joseph Smith allowed himself to be overruled by the Saints when it came to the composition of his own First Presidency, for heaven's sake. The Prophet is not an ecclesiastical monarch. The Church is led by quorums for a reason. 

Also, I'll note that if Brigham understood the endowment to be teaching Adam-God, he wouldn't have had to insert a lecture at the veil establishing the connections. 

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

2) In regards to general teachings of the prophets, if a prophet, seer, and revelator can be this wrong about the identity of God and the plan of salvation and exaltation, what other teachings can they be wrong about? 

Presumably anything. This is not the problem that you think it is, because the presiding Prophet, Seer, and Revelator is buttressed by 15 others who act as a quorum. As they did in the case of Adam-God. 

I think Elder Christofferson's talk from the April 2012 General Conference is really instructive here. It's entitled The Doctrine of Christ. Please read it in full.

Quote

These same patterns are followed today in the restored Church of Jesus Christ. The President of the Church may announce or interpret doctrines based on revelation to him (see, for example, D&C 138). Doctrinal exposition may also come through the combined council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (see, for example, Official Declaration 2). Council deliberations will often include a weighing of canonized scriptures, the teachings of Church leaders, and past practice. But in the end, just as in the New Testament Church, the objective is not simply consensus among council members but revelation from God. It is a process involving both reason and faith for obtaining the mind and will of the Lord.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” President Clark, quoted earlier, observed:

“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …

“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”

Why would that last line be necessary if we believed prophets could not be mistaken, even in their preaching? In the story about Brigham Young and Johnston's Army, the Lord clearly wanted a specific message sent. Why didn't He just preempt Brigham's first speech? It seems to me, from scripture and Church history, that the Lord is not a censor. He will allow error and then correct it, that the error might be made manifest and we might learn from it - see D&C 1. He does not micro-manage His Saints. It just seems obvious to me that God cares more about sculpting us during the learning process than downloading the correct information into our heads as if we were mere blank slates. 

I think you are working on the unconscious assumption that God is an optimizer when it comes to revelation, that He will find the most efficient way to guarantee clinical accuracy, and that the overriding role of the Church is to expound a set of propositions about God. And I don't think the scriptures point to that at all. Christ's parables are inconsistent with that understanding. Ongoing revelation is inconsistent with that understanding. Rather, He seems to operate on a "let him who hath ears to hear, let him hear" model, where knowledge is inseparable from the personal openness and virtue of the receiver. God is not a post-industrial micromanager or classroom lecturer, His ways are higher than our ways, and He knows better how to balance the sometimes competing demands of impact and accuracy. 

I implore you, let go of the model that the Prophet is infallible. It's false, it's unscriptural, and it will deceive you. And "infallibility" is exactly what you are espousing. Saying the prophet is free to sin is nothing: all men are free to sin - if that were not the case, he would not be a man. That's not what "fallibility" means. Please, consider that you might be operating under assumptions about God and prophecy that are mistaken in their own way, that you might be holding the Prophet to a higher standard than God does. That you might be demanding more of God than He has given - in, say, D&C 107. Elder Maxwell once warned us to be wary of "accommodating revealed theology to conventional wisdom." The "conventional wisdom" he's talking about is not just ideas that are too liberal, but also ideas that are too conservative as well. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by OGHoosier

[smac97]

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

The truth claims of the Church do not - or in my view ought not - stand or fall on the verity of the Adam-God doctrine. 

I agree and I made no such suggestion.

 

Thank you for your clarification.  Your comments here gave me that impression: "If he was wrong, that calls the reliability of the endowment teachings into question. If he was this wrong about the identity of God, this would also call his credibility as prophet, seer, and revelator into question, along with the credibility of his successors. And if he was right and Spencer W. Kimball was wrong, that's just as bad."

I am happy to stand corrected.

My point is really on the reliability of the teachings of the church as delivered by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 being undermined, not the truthfulness of the church or the restoration.

Hmm.  Perhaps I don't "stand corrected."  I initially construed your remarks as indicating that the truth claims of the Church are imperiled or subverted by Brigham Young having espoused the Adam-God theory ("The truth claims of the Church do not - or in my view ought not - stand or fall on the verity of the Adam-God doctrine.").  You denied this ("I made no such suggestion."), but now you seem to be reverting to the previous alarmism.

I guess I don't see how you can declare (or strongly imply) that "the reliability of the teachings of the church as delivered by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12" are "undermined," but you are making no comment at all about "truthfulness of the church or the restoration."  The former is a fairly significant component of the latter, in my view.

So which is it?  Is it your view that the sky is falling, or not?  Do you think the Brethren currently leading the Church have the authority restored to and through Joseph Smith, or not?

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

But I also think that this issue, along with other issues, can cause a reasonable person to question the truthfulness of the church as well, whether that be the entire restoration, Brigham Young's legitimacy as the successor of Joseph Smith, or whether or not Joseph Smith may have fallen as a prophet by the end of his life.

There are reasonable grounds to question all sorts of things.  Sure.  But the ultimate conclusions reached by various reasonably-minded people can by very different from each other.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

For example, in the Nauvoo Expositor there is statement by William Law and the other authors that one of the reasons that they considered Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet was because he was teaching "a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his ability to fall with all his creations," which sounds an awful lot like Adam-God to me. 

I assume you are here referencing "and his ability to fall."  I'm not particularly inclined to give that much credence to William Law and the Nauvoo Expositor in terms of accurately and fairly summarizing what Joseph Smith taught.  Law was, after all, trying to be as inflammatory and provocative as possible.  A quick review of his reaction to the death of Joseph Smith:

Quote

In the morning by daylight we heard the news of the death of the Smiths. We could hardly believe it possible, and the manner of it was the most astonishing part of all, but it was true; the judgment of an offended God had fallen upon them. During the latter part of their lives they knew no mercy, and in their last moments they found none. Thus the wicked may prosper for a time, but the hour of retribution is sure to overtake them.
...
One of Joe Smith’s weakest points was his jealousy of other men. He could not bear to hear other men spoken well of. If there was any praise it must be of him; all adoration & worship must be for him. He would destroy his best friend rather than see him become popular in the eyes of the Church or the people at large. His vanity knew no bounds. He was unscrupulous; no man’s life was safe if he was disposed to hate him. He sat the laws of God and men at defiance. He was naturally base, brutish and corrupt and cruel. He was one of the false prophets spoken of by Christ who would come in sheep’s clothing but inwardly be a ravelling wolf. His works proved it. One great aim seemed to be to demoralize the world, to give it over to Satan, his master; but God stopped him in his mad career & gave him to his destroyers. He claimed to be a god, whereas he was only a servant of the Devil, and as such met his fate. His wife was about as corrupt as he was.

Not exactly the most objective source, this Mr. Law.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Quote

Could you elaborate?  Absent an expectation of infallibility, this assertion has never worked for me.  We have means whereby we can, for lack of a better term, "measure doctrine."

I generally agree with JFS that we should measure doctrine using the four standard works. But I am also of the opinion that he made this statement with specifically Adam-God in mind as a means of justifying why he rejected this teaching. (He likely had other things in mind, too.) 

Any evidence for this?  Or just a bit of speculation?

The only one JFS singled out was . . . JFS:

Quote

STANDARD WORKS JUDGE TEACHINGS OF ALL MEN. It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine.

You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.

Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted. 

One of the better compendiums of information and 20th-century commentary about Adam-God is Dennis Horne's 2016 six-part series on Interpreter's blog:

1. Elder Harold B. Lee, Rodney Turner, and the Adam-God Theory
2. Elder Mark E. Petersen and the Adam-God Theory
3. Elder Bruce R. McConkie and the Adam-God Theory (part 1)
4. Elder Bruce R. McConkie and the Adam-God theory (part 2)
5. The Position of the Church on the Adam-God Theory
6. Elder Bruce R. McConkie and the Adam-God theory (part 3)

Also pay attention to the "Comments" section, as Elden Watson has quite a few things to say.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And using the scriptures as a measuring stick for Adam-God doesn't actually solve the problem.

"The problem" being . . . what?

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

While there are a number of scriptures which appear to contradict Adam-God when taken at face value within the current view of the Godhead in the church, there are also scriptures which support Adam-God, too. And there are also scriptures which contradict the current understanding of the God-head in the church, while others support it. 

I would amend this to the following: "While there are a number of scriptures {the interpretation of which by some appears} to contradict Adam-God when taken at face value within the current view of the Godhead in the church, there are also scriptures {the interpretation of which by some appears to} support Adam-God, too. And there are also scriptures {the interpretation of which by some appears to} contradict the current understanding of the God-head in the church, while {the interpretation by some of} others {appears to} support it."

The same can be said about a number of presently-unclear issues in the Restored Gospel.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Quote

Your reasoning seems to isolate each prophet from all other others.  I don't think that works.

Your reasoning also seems to implicitly require infallibility.  I don't think that works, either.

What do you mean?

You seem to be taking an all-or-nothing, maybe-the-sky-is-falling approach to this issue.  That if Brigham Young was incorrect or unreliable as to one point of doctrine and revelation, he may be entirely unreliable as to all doctrines and revelations.  That reasoning seems to implicate infallibility.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think that the teachings of true prophets, seers, and revelators about the character and identity of God ought to be very consistent with each other.

"Ought to be," yes.  And in all essential ways, I think they are.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think that their teachings should be taken in isolation.

Same here.  This is why I don't understand the seeming alarmism in your posts.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This doesn't mean that prophets are required to be infallible,

I sense a "but" coming.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

but in my opinion

And there it is!  

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

there's a big difference between not being infallible and having such an extreme disagreement about the character and identity of God.

The implication of this being . . . what?  

I assume you are familiar with Amasa Lyman?  While serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, he "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it.  He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated).

Are you suggesting that Brigham Young's advocacy of the Adam-God theory rendered him an apostate?  Or that by espousing it he lost his prophetic calling/mantle?

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

At the very least, this would suggest that our prophets are significantly more fallible than the church lets on.

I'm not sure the Church is much into declaring levels of fallibility.  Nor do I think it is within our province to dwell on the shortcomings of others.  Motes and beams and all that.

Again, as we look back to the early leaders of the Church, I think we ought to grant them a fair measure of grace, and then quite a bit after that as well.  I have previously suggested this here:

Quote

I think we need to stop speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, both past and present.  We can and should address disagreements in the Church, but in the right time, and place, and manner.  

I think we need to remind ourselves of Mormon 9:31.  Often.  "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

For the love of pete, we need to cut the early members of the Church some slack.  A lot of slack, actually.  It's not like the Lord gave them books entitled "How to Establish the Kingdom of God in Ten Easy Steps," or "Apostleship for Dummies," or "Everything You Want to Know About Revelation (But Are Afraid to Ask)."

The early leaders of the Church were functioning in their leadership capacities with little or no "institutional knowledge" regarding the ins and outs of church governance.  So when Brigham Young became an apostle, and then the Presiding High Priest, he had very little in the way of training from more experienced general authorities to teach him how to run the Church.  And he had very little in the way of formal education (which, in the 19th century, would have been fairly limited anyway).  The same goes for his predecessor, Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and his successors.

And the Church was in tremendous turmoil and under much hardship for many years (persecutions in Nauvoo, the initial trek west, the ongoing flow of immigrants in the ensuing years, the settlement of the west, the creation of towns, the feeding and provisioning of thousands of newly-minted and -arrived church members, international missionary work, building the Salt Lake Temple, Johnston's Army, Mountain Meadows, polygamy, and on and on and on).

I am deeply impressed at the accomplishments of the early leaders of the Church.  Their experiences, their successes, and their failures, have been helpful to the subsequent generations of leaders and members of the Church.  One of the benefits which are now accruing to today's leaders is the ability to look back and see what was done by past leaders, including perhaps some occasional tendency to publicly conflate personal opinion with scriptural/revelatory precepts.  I think today's leaders are much better about differentiating between the two, and focusing on the latter to the exclusion of the former when making public, formal remarks in their capacities as General Authorities.  These men and women had to deal with many more life-and-death issues, moral conundrums, matters of civil governance, and so on, than we do.  It's easy for us to sit in front of our computers and presume to dole out judgments against people we've never met, who faced situations we've never seen, and dealt with challenges we've never endured.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."  (3 Nephi 14:2)

As I noted previously, the truth claims of the Church do not - or in my view ought not - stand or fall on the verity of the Adam-God doctrine.  You said you agree with this, and I am glad of that.  That being the case . . . what is it you are trying to do / say / conclude here?  That Brigham Young may have erred in this teaching?  Seems like we already knew that. 

Or are you saying that this issue is of such import that it merits an essay published by the Church?

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If BY can be as wrong as later presidents of the church claimed, what's to keep RMN or any other church president past or present from being dead wrong about things they teach as doctrine about God. 

Asked and answered:

Quote

And this observation by Elder Neil L. Andersen:

Quote

Some face trials of faith when they are confronted by others who want to discredit the Church and destroy faith. Some question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with Church doctrine.

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church," he said. "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in a obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find."

...
And  this sentiment attributed to Joseph Smith: "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray."

Quote

If they can be this wrong about who God is, then how can we trust them to teach us the truth about God and his plan for us? 

The same way we always have.  Consider these remarks by Michael Ash:

Quote

Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

...
If Bro. Ash is right, we can rely on the cumulative guidance found via Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason.

You agree with this:

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I agree with this approach, but it again doesn't really help with Adam-God.

Yes, I think it does.  I tend to pay more attention to what I suppose could be called orthopraxy, which in my view is a mixture of right motives and right conduct.  I think someone who is earnestly seeking to do what is right may nevertheless err here and there in his understanding of this or that point of doctrine. 

The Adam-God theory is fairly speculative.  It was never presented to the body of the Church for a ratifying vote.  It's not binding on us.  Whether it is "true," or has elements which are true, or is altogether "false," doesn't seem to be an essential thing.  As Joseph Smith put it: "It [doesn't] prove that a man is not a good man, because he errs in doctrine."  This applies to Joseph Smith, to Brigham Young, to people who accept the Adam-God stuff, to people who reject Adam-God stuff, and so on.

On 2/10/2023 at 10:57 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Believers in Adam-God claim to have found guidance "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason" and so do those who reject Adam-God. So we're back to square one. 

I think we need to focus more on being believers in Jesus Christ.  Consider this remark by Stephen E. Robinson, H. Dean Garrett:

Quote

DC 89:3 given for a principle with promise

"Unfortunately, in some instances the Word of Wisdom has... become part of the culture of the Church and the 'hobby horse' of some individual members. Sometimes the Word of Wisdom as Church doctrine and the Word of Wisdom as local or individual culture come into conflict with each other. Individual interpretations of Doctrine and Covenants 89 abound (see 2 Peter 1:20), and some persons have elevated their private understanding of section 89 above other principles of the gospel. 'Some unstable people become cranks with reference to this law of health,' wrote Elder Bruce McConkie. 'It should be understood that the Word of Wisdom is not the gospel, and the gospel is not the Word of Wisdom... There is no prohibition in Section 89, for instance, as to the eating of white bread, using white flour, white sugar, cocoa, chocolate, eggs, milk, meat, or anything else, except items classified under the headings, tea, coffee, tobacco, and liquor.'" (Stephen E. Robinson, H. Dean Garrett, A Commentary on the Doctrine and Covenants, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2001] 3:140)

I think the Word of Wisdom is a very important concept for our day.  Compliance with it is even a condition for entering the temple.  It is canonized scripture.  And yet there is danger in focusing on it in "beyond the mark" ways, in adopting it as a "hobby horse."  If we run that risk regarding revealed and canonized concepts like the Word of Wisdom, how much more circumspect should we be about uncanonized things like the Adam-God theory?

From Joseph F. Smith:

Quote

Avoid religious hobbies.

Brethren and sisters, don’t have {religious} hobbies. Hobbies are dangerous in the Church of Christ. They are dangerous because they give undue prominence to certain principles or ideas to the detriment and dwarfing of others just as important, just as binding, just as saving as the favored doctrines or commandments.

{Religious} hobbies give to those who encourage them a false aspect of the gospel of the Redeemer; they distort and place out of harmony its principles and teachings. The point of view is unnatural. Every principle and practice revealed from God is essential to man’s salvation, and to place any one of them unduly in front, hiding and dimming all others is unwise and dangerous; it jeopardizes our salvation, for it darkens our minds and beclouds our understandings. Such a view, no matter to what point directed, narrows the vision, weakens the spiritual perception, and darkens the mind, the result of which is that the person thus afflicted with this perversity and contraction of mental vision places himself in a position to be tempted of the evil one, or, through dimness of sight or distortion of vision, to misjudge his brethren and give way to the spirit of apostasy. He is not square before the Lord.

We have noticed this difficulty: that Saints with hobbies are prone to judge and condemn their brethren and sisters who are not so zealous in the one particular direction of their pet theory as they are. The man with the Word of Wisdom only in his brain, is apt to find unmeasured fault with every other member of the Church who entertains liberal ideas as to the importance of other doctrines of the gospel.

There is another phase of this difficulty—the man with a hobby is apt to assume an “I am holier than thou” position, to feel puffed up and conceited, and to look with distrust, if with no severer feeling, on his brethren and sisters who do not so perfectly live that one particular law. This feeling hurts his fellow-servants and offends the Lord. “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”—(Prov. 16:18.)

There are some great truths in the plan of redemption that are fundamental. They cannot be ignored; none others can be placed before them. The fatherhood of God, the efficacy of the atonement of our Lord and Savior, the restoration of the gospel in these latter days, must be accepted with our whole hearts. We cannot compensate for a lack of faith in these essential doctrines by the most absolute abstinence from things unhealthful, by the rigid payment of tithing on our “anise and cummin” [see Matthew 23:23], or by the observance of any other outward ordinance. Baptism itself without faith in God avails nothing.

And then-Elder Oaks:

Quote

Gospel teachers should also be scrupulous to avoid hobby topics, personal speculations, and controversial subjects. The Lord’s revelations and the directions of His servants are clear on this point.

And Elder Packer:

Quote

It is not unusual to find people who take an interest in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but give only casual attention to the ideal that the fullness of the gospel is here.

They become attracted by a single key, a doctrine, often one to which they take immediate exception and object to. They investigate it by itself alone. They want to know all there is about it without reference, in fact, with specific objection and rejection, to anything else.

They want to hear that key played over and over again. It will give them little knowledge unless they see that there is a fullness—other complementary ideals and doctrines that present a warmth and a harmony, and a fullness, that draw at the right moment upon each key, which if played alone might seem discordant.

Now that danger is not limited to investigators alone. Some members of the Church who should know better pick out a hobby key or two and tap them incessantly, to the irritation of those around them. They can dull their own spiritual sensitivities. They lose track that there is a fullness of the gospel and become as individuals, like many churches have become. They may reject the fullness in preference to a favorite note. 

I don't mind discussing speculative or arcane topics here and there, but I do so with the specific proviso that such topics be given undue weight and significance in my overall perspective and testimony.  The Adam-God doctrine fits into that category for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[OGHoosier]

I'd also throw in this outstanding video from Dan Ellsworth. I'd especially recommend the sections where he discusses how the church in the early Utah period was chaotic and eventually grew into the model expressed in D&C 107. Furthermore, he discusses how our formulations of our questions impact the answers that we will be able to comprehend.

 

[Teancum]

On 2/10/2023 at 8:10 PM, OGHoosier said:

Good question. What does "trust" mean? Because if absolute infallibility is required by trust, then you can't trust your own eyes by which you read all these things.

If I used my eyes to proclaim I was God's only true prophet on earth then maybe you would have a point.  Infallibility is not expected.  But expecting someone who says they are god's prophet to get it right about God is really quite reasonable.  A prophet teaching that Adam is actually our god seems pretty egregious if he was wrong. I know you need lower the standard and bar by which to judge a prophet by in order to maintain your trust in them.  But that is not the bar they actually set for themselves.

[Teancum]

On 2/11/2023 at 6:50 PM, OGHoosier said:

Sure. In Jeremiah 25:8-12 and 29:10-14, Jeremiah prophesies that the Lord will let Babylon rule Judea for 70 years and then He will punish them and restore Judah. This...does not happen, and the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel both creatively reinterpret Jeremiah's words in order to adapt them to events as they actually played out. See here: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/08/ezra-11-jeremiahs-70-year-prophecies.html

Joseph Smith's own revelations on the Plan of Salvation expand on and correct the simpler but inaccurate teachings of Book of Mormon prophets. 

Peter gets the revelation to revoke the kosher laws and open the Church to the Gentiles. However, as Paul details in Galatians 2:11-14, Peter later pulled back on that, separated himself from the Gentiles he had previously worshiped with, and compelled the Gentiles to follow the Jewish law. It looks like some Jewish Christians which were sent by James the Just (whom Paul regards as an apostle) caused Peter's about-face. Paul has to correct Peter on this when he comes to Antioch, and records his argument in Galatians 2:14-21. As part of it he accuses Peter of misunderstanding the nature of Christ's atonement and acting foolishly. This is pretty much directly analogous to latter-day Apostles repudiating and correcting Brigham Young's teaching with respect to Adam-God.

Great examples of how religions just invents itself as it goes along.

[OGHoosier]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If I used my eyes to proclaim I was God's only true prophet on earth then maybe you would have a point.  Infallibility is not expected.  But expecting someone who says they are god's prophet to get it right about God is really quite reasonable.  A prophet teaching that Adam is actually our god seems pretty egregious if he was wrong. I know you need lower the standard and bar by which to judge a prophet by in order to maintain your trust in them.  But that is not the bar they actually set for themselves.

A) The term "Prophet" as applied to the singular President of the Church is a colloquialism. In actual terms, there are 15 prophets which comprise the governing bodies of the Church. We have known this since D&C 107. I regret that the colloquialism has been taken as fact by so many, but it never was.

B) "If I used my eyes to proclaim I was God's only true prophet on earth then maybe you would have a point."  You think your eyes are reliable, don't you? Don't you get the majority of your sense data from them? You say infallibility is not expected...and then proceed to expect it. I cannot grasp the logic here.

Quote

Great examples of how religions just invents itself as it goes along.

K. Enjoy building your foundation on whatever else you worship. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Teancum]

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

A) The term "Prophet" as applied to the singular President of the Church is a colloquialism. In actual terms, there are 15 prophets which comprise the governing bodies of the Church. We have known this since D&C 107. I regret that the colloquialism has been taken as fact by so many, but it never was.

Sure  I apply that to all of them.

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

B) "If I used my eyes to proclaim I was God's only true prophet on earth then maybe you would have a point."  You think your eyes are reliable, don't you? Don't you get the majority of your sense data from them? You say infallibility is not expected...and then proceed to expect it. I cannot grasp the logic here.

It is pretty easy. I am not out there telling people to follow my teachings because it is coming from God directly to me.

11 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

K. Enjoy building your foundation on whatever else you worship. 

A flippant non response to the point that you and other true believers are constantly changing the goal posts to maintain your beliefs and defend something that quite frankly is really tough to defend. I know. I used to do it. It is exhausting.

[OGHoosier]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure  I apply that to all of them.

The presence of 15 removes any need for infallibility of the 1, even consequentially, but whatever. You are entitled to make whatever demands you like. 

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

A flippant non response to the point that you and other true believers are constantly changing the goal posts to maintain your beliefs and defend something that quite frankly is really tough to defend. I know. I used to do it. It is exhausting.

Sorry to disappoint you, referee of truth.  You don't give me much to respond to.

Our foundational expectations for knowledge are so far apart that I really have nothing to say to you. You demand a variety of proof that I don't think even God can offer. I have no expectation of reaching you, and your worldview looks like absolute vanity to me. Enjoy encompassing yourself with the sparks you have kindled. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Teancum]

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The presence of 15 removes any need for infallibility of the 1, even consequentially, but whatever.

You keep brining up an argument I am not making.

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 

You are entitled to make whatever demands you like. 

Well thanks.

 

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Sorry to disappoint you, referee of truth. 

I don't make such a claim. No need to be snarky.

 

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 

You don't give me much to respond to.

WHat more would you like?  I comment that you and other apologists so water down the significance of what the LDS prophets, seers and revelators say and teach, even in such a way that I don't think they would agree with you, the the idea of benefiting from from the words of prophets, seers and revelators in meaningless.  You have taken away their uniqueness.  I know it was ages ago but as a missionary, at least hen, our message was we have prophets and apostles.  God speaks to them.  He leads them. Like anciently. In the words of one then apostle we have TNT, or todays news today!  If that were true would you not want to follow such prophets and apostles?  And honestly I think most members currently think that. DO we expect perfection or infallibility?  Nope.  But naming our God as Adam and  the father of Jesus Christ seems an egregious error.  And there are others as well  Again, from another post I made what does the OT teach about such things?

D

Quote

 

euteronomy 18:20

20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

 

BY calling Adam god seems to require death under OT law.

 

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

Our foundational expectations for knowledge are so far apart that I really have nothing to say to you.

Ok.

 

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 

You demand a variety of proof that I don't think even God can offer.

If God is all powerful, you know, omnipotent, it should not be to hard.  

37 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

 

I have no expectation of reaching you, and your worldview looks like absolute vanity to me. Enjoy encompassing yourself with the sparks you have kindled. 

Vanity?  Sparks?  Whatever.  More snark and personal slights. I guess I struck  a nerve.

[OGHoosier]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

WHat more would you like?  I comment that you and other apologists so water down the significance of what the LDS prophets, seers and revelators say and teach, even in such a way that I don't think they would agree with you, the the idea of benefiting from from the words of prophets, seers and revelators in meaningless.  You have taken away their uniqueness.  I know it was ages ago but as a missionary, at least hen, our message was we have prophets and apostles.  God speaks to them.  He leads them. Like anciently. In the words of one then apostle we have TNT, or todays news today!  If that were true would you not want to follow such prophets and apostles?  And honestly I think most members currently think that. DO we expect perfection or infallibility?  Nope.  But naming our God as Adam and  the father of Jesus Christ seems an egregious error.  And there are others as well  Again, from another post I made what does the OT teach about such things?

Thank you. This is something with meat to it, something I can engage with. I apologize for my earlier temper. 

The central point on which we disagree is what it means for God to speak to and lead apostles. That is a foundational point of disagreement though. And you say that we "don't expect infallibility". Okay. Agreed. I certainly don't. But what does "not expecting infallibility" actually mean? It's easy to say it, but what does it mean to actually do it? 

To borrow from that Ellsworth thread I keep boosting:

Quote

Years ago I told a Latter-day Saint scholar friend of mine that we need to do a better job of explaining to people that prophets are fallible. She reprimanded me. She said that it takes zero courage to say that prophets are fallible.

To dwell on fallibility is like bragging about how you bought a guitar and now years later you can play the opening notes to Stairway to Heaven. It’s unoriginal and cringe. When we talk about prophetic fallibility, the courageous thing to do is take the next step and examine our own fallibility. Do I have 1) their mantle, 2) their discernment, and 3) something like the council system to provide a check on my cognitive and emotional biases? Am I even aware of how prophets make decisions now, versus other time periods in history? Or do I lazily view all prophetic decision-making throughout history in the same way? Do I employ the fallacy of composition and view scattered opinions of the past in the same way as I do decisions that emerge from the thorough and rigorous council process that is used in the present day? And am I willing to take an honest look at my own fallibility? Do I have blind spots? Realities I’m unwilling to acknowledge? If prophets are biased and influenced by their culture, is that also true of me? And am I honestly confronting my own worldview and cultural biases?

What does it mean for God to speak to apostles and lead them? Does it mean He just edits their thoughts before they think wrong things? Does He bind their tongue if they're about to make a mistake? What does this look like in practice - and how would that affect God's other goals, like agency and growth? You seem to conceive of prophets and the Church as primarily epistemic - they are a source of propositions about things. I don't - I view the Church and prophecy holistically, oriented towards shaping us as much as educating us. Certainty can shape, but it does so coercively, and paradise cannot be built on coercion. Kierkegaard and James are right, and Clifford was wrong. I believe this view is scripturally supported by a) the very existence of the Law of Moses and b) D&C 19, in which the Lord allows temporary misunderstandings for the sake of His goals. Likewise, I interpret being guided by God as being led in the right direction, line upon line, whereas it appears to me that you view it as having correct ideas given to one by God once and for all. For me, it looks like we are being led by God just like the New Testament apostles were. And I quote scriptures like Galatians 2 to this effect. I believe that God's guidance comes through prophets gathered in council, like we see in the book of Acts and D&C 107.  And I also understand that "prophet" in the Divided Kingdoms period meant something more like an itinerant preacher who pointed the people towards worship of YHWH, and not the institutional leader that we have today, and thus the ban of Deuteronomy 20 no longer applies (especially since it was superseded by the advent of Christ). 

You don't see these scriptures the way I do. In them you see evidence of equivocation, of people making religion in their own image, all along. You apply all scriptures to all periods, you do not allow prophecy to function differently based on time and place, you expect a perfection from it which you don't expect from your own eyes. The gospel is a total system, in its fulness it will impact the explanation of all phenomena that can be explained, therefore any partial revelation of it will necessarily be incorrect. That you do not allow, so the final requirement of the principles you have expressed is a total revelation, all at once - which God cannot do, lest He destroy the whole point of this earth. Such considerations do not appear in what you have told me. 

You justify this by saying that this is what the prophets claim for themselves. I disagree. I see in the history of the Church a long line of prophets claiming guidance from God to declare truth, and I see a line just as long declaring that they can make mistakes in that, which God will correct. I see a command to act according to council from the very beginning. To me, this forms a consistent picture. It is not an easy, intuitive view (prophets are always right), but the easy and intuitive one would not work with God's greater purposes. 

You say that naming God as Adam and the father of Jesus Christ is a fairly egregious error. What's "egregious"? Does it lead us into sin? Does it undermine the saving work of Jesus Christ? Does the existence of Brigham's Adam-God thinking evince a systemic error among the apostolic council? These don't seem to me to be the case - to me it seems frankly trivial, and readily corrected by the apostolic council. 

Our disagreement on these issues is irreducible. We interpret the primary evidence so differently as to remove all hope in settling the question by an appeal to argument. That is why, honestly, I find talking with you to be relatively futile. Our disagreements are frankly pre-rational, born from our deepest expectations and commitments. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

That is why, honestly, I find talking with you to be relatively futile. Our disagreements are frankly pre-rational, born from our deepest expectations and commitments. 

I have some thoughts I will share later but whether it is futile to discuss or not I do not know. I find most discussions like this futile when it is with someone with deep held beliefs whether they are religious, political or whatever.  We all view things through our own lense.  I think my formations of what it means to have LDS apostles and prophets has been formed by, as I noted, what they teach.  I try to be open to other ideas but maybe I am not as much as I like to think.  I heard  someone say the other day.  Be skeptical about everything but listen. 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Thank you. This is something with meat to it, something I can engage with. I apologize for my earlier temper. 

No problem.  We can all get a little irritable when wrangling over such things.

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

The central point on which we disagree is what it means for God to speak to and lead apostles. That is a foundational point of disagreement though. And you say that we "don't expect infallibility". Okay. Agreed. I certainly don't. But what does "not expecting infallibility" actually mean? It's easy to say it, but what does it mean to actually do it? 

So I guess I would say I would expect apostles and prophets to be right, infallible, on key issues of doctrine. I would think that most members would expect this and that the leaders believe this themselves. Things like the priesthood ban and the reasons for it, plural marriage, the Godhead, and so on. Other issues I am fine with fallibility.  Polices like the November 2015 policy on gay parents and their children and even the reversal.  BUt the fact that President Nelson claimed both as revelation seems specious to me and I think creates the point I make that the brethren teach us to follow them and pretty much obey what they say.

 

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

To borrow from that Ellsworth thread I keep boosting:

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

examine our own fallibility. Do I have 1) their mantle, 2) their discernment, and 3) something like the council system to provide a check on my cognitive and emotional biases? Am I even aware of how prophets make decisions now, versus other time periods in history?

 

I understand this but I am not claiming to receive direction from God directly and expecting people to follow me.  Do you not think there is a different standard?

 

 

What does it mean for God to speak to apostles and lead them? Does it mean He just edits their thoughts before they think wrong things? Does He bind their tongue if they're about to make a mistake? What does this look like in practice - and how would that affect God's other goals, like agency and growth? You seem to conceive of prophets and the Church as primarily epistemic - they are a source of propositions about things.

But what does the church teach about such things.  How you view it or I view it is fine personally I guess.  But what is do the church leaders say about it?

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

I don't - I view the Church and prophecy holistically, oriented towards shaping us as much as educating us. Certainty can shape, but it does so coercively, and paradise cannot be built on coercion.

 

So why then is the Church an its apostles and prophets any more unique or beneficial than any other religious group, system or any other philosophical approach.  I can get as much out of reading good books, listening to wise teachers, etc based on that approach and I do spent quite a bit of time reading and listening to other smart and wise people from a variety of backgrounds and a number of topics.  I actually get more out of this than I ever did focusing much of my time reading scripture, LDS leaders writings and so on.  What is unique at all about the way you interact with the church and its leaders that cannot be foind from other sources and even better sources that are more profound and even more moral.

 

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

 

You don't see these scriptures the way I do. In them you see evidence of equivocation, of people making religion in their own image, all along. You apply all scriptures to all periods, you do not allow prophecy to function differently based on time and place, you expect a perfection from it which you don't expect from your own eyes.

Yea I am not sure that is accurate.  Maybe. I will think about it.  I certainly view scripture differently than I used to and mostly I don't view scripture as anything ore special or divinely inspired or directed than any other books may be.

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

 

 The gospel is a total system, in its fulness it will impact the explanation of all phenomena that can be explained, therefore any partial revelation of it will necessarily be incorrect. That you do not allow, so the final requirement of the principles you have expressed is a total revelation, all at once - which God cannot do, lest He destroy the whole point of this earth. Such considerations do not appear in what you have told me. 

Again I am not sure that is accurate at all though I would expect later "scriptural" not to contradict earlier scripture.  The nature and characteristics of God and the Godhead should be fairly consistent.  A Jew would reject the NT readings and interpretations of OT scripture that are cited to "prove" Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.  They view the passages in the NT as writing Jesus in where it was never intended to be such.  Who is correct?

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

You justify this by saying that this is what the prophets claim for themselves. I disagree. I see in the history of the Church a long line of prophets claiming guidance from God to declare truth, and I see a line just as long declaring that they can make mistakes in that, which God will correct. I see a command to act according to council from the very beginning. To me, this forms a consistent picture. It is not an easy, intuitive view (prophets are always right), but the easy and intuitive one would not work with God's greater purposes. 

Well we could sample what the LDS leaders teach about following apostles and prophets, obedience, etc and see whose view is more in line with what they say themselves if you would like.

 

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

You say that naming God as Adam and the father of Jesus Christ is a fairly egregious error. What's "egregious"? Does it lead us into sin? Does it undermine the saving work of Jesus Christ? Does the existence of Brigham's Adam-God thinking evince a systemic error among the apostolic council? These don't seem to me to be the case - to me it seems frankly trivial, and readily corrected by the apostolic council. 

I would thinks it is called teaching about a false god, an idol etc.  Most other Christians I know would certainly think so.

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

Our disagreement on these issues is irreducible. We interpret the primary evidence so differently as to remove all hope in settling the question by an appeal to argument. That is why, honestly, I find talking with you to be relatively futile. Our disagreements are frankly pre-rational, born from our deepest expectations and commitments. 

Yea likely.  But this is a discussion board.  Thanks

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So I guess I would say I would expect apostles and prophets to be right, infallible, on key issues of doctrine. I would think that most members would expect this and that the leaders believe this themselves. Things like the priesthood ban and the reasons for it, plural marriage, the Godhead, and so on. Other issues I am fine with fallibility.  Polices like the November 2015 policy on gay parents and their children and even the reversal.  BUt the fact that President Nelson claimed both as revelation seems specious to me and I think creates the point I make that the brethren teach us to follow them and pretty much obey what they say.

This is a reasonable and intuitive assessment. Surely we would want the apostles and prophets to be right on the most important things. However, this raises another question: what are the most important things, and do they always remain the most important things? I'm reminded of an anecdote from Ireland, which has been undergoing a precipitous de-Catholicization lately. There were controversies around the status of the liturgy, the role of Catholic tradition in public life, etc. Care to hazard a guess at one of the biggest flashpoints?

The Catholic tradition of abstaining from meat on Fridays. 

Now, it would seem to me that this is one of the less important things to dispute. But it had sunk so deep into the lived routine of Irish Catholics that its sudden revocation by the episcopal authorities jarred them very badly. What this illustrates is that a) what is key is in the eye of the beholder, and b) what is key to one generation may not be so key to another, and vice versa. I really gotta find that article again, it was really a very interesting (if short) read on religious sociology. 

Since revelation will be around intergenerationally, one way or another, it doesn't seem possible for God to thread the needle in a way that appears perfectly self-consistent without doing away with fallibility, even conceptually. 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

But what does the church teach about such things.  How you view it or I view it is fine personally I guess.  But what is do the church leaders say about it?

Fair question. There has certainly been a big thread of high "prophet-ology" , I guess one might call it, running through Church history. The best example is Wilford Woodruff's claim that the prophet would never lead the Church astray, or God would whack them. The scriptures are consistent in saying that the prophet speaks for God. The list of prophets and apostles that have advocated this is too long to list - basically all of them. 

However, paired with this has been an equally resilient tradition of conciliar governance, going all the way back to D&C 107, and prophetic fallibility, going all the way back to D&C 1. Prophets have been hasty to say that "they are only prophets when speaking as prophets" or as Joseph Smith put it, "are moved upon by the Holy Ghost." J. Reuben Clark, James E. Faust, and D. Todd Christofferson are all on record stating that the Prophet can get things wrong, and that doctrine/canon is established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 

I'm not convinced these two traditions are in conflict at all, really, especially since all their advocates have practiced both. The President of the Church is the leader of the Church and has the initiative when it comes to revelation, but he can't establish doctrine all by himself. That's the synthesis in practice. I don't think it's always been practiced as such in the Church, but it has been for at least the last 70 years, and I don't think there's anything theologically wrong with the Church refining its practices of getting revelation.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So why then is the Church an its apostles and prophets any more unique or beneficial than any other religious group, system or any other philosophical approach.  I can get as much out of reading good books, listening to wise teachers, etc based on that approach and I do spent quite a bit of time reading and listening to other smart and wise people from a variety of backgrounds and a number of topics.  I actually get more out of this than I ever did focusing much of my time reading scripture, LDS leaders writings and so on.  What is unique at all about the way you interact with the church and its leaders that cannot be foind from other sources and even better sources that are more profound and even more moral.

I think they're more unique and beneficial because I connect with God primarily through the ordinances and fellowship of the Church, and that tells me that God's seal is upon it for all practical intents and purposes. I'll also admit to being very unimpressed with the quality of secular moral philosophy - seems frankly dysgenic. Finally, I just cannot believe in materialism. Can't do it. I would have to just ignore or handwave away too much with no good reason to do so. Given my rejection of materialism, I'd have to confront the mysterium tremendum via some other philosophy, and I find a very great deal here among the Latter-day Saints. I think we have compelling answers to the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, Euthyphro's Dilemma, and of course the great existential question of the anthropomorphism of God. There's also the most significant fact of all...I've had spiritual experiences here directly in connection with Latter-day Saint worship practices. Repeatedly, but not predictably. I frankly don't think they're from my brain - I am the expert on what my brain feels like, after all. And with my rejection of materialism, they make more sense as something external and spiritual, with which I enter a relationship of trust - which is the better translation imo of the Greek pistis, translated "faith." That faith has been rewarded. I'm a very young man. I have already been saved from a great many social maladies and neuroses by my adherence to my faith, which makes me think its generally to be trusted whereas the wisdom of my peers has fallen very short. 

Alma 32, basically lol. I echo @Kevin Christensen and @mfbukowski...the Book of Mormon goes hard when it comes to philosophy. More reason for me to take it seriously ;). 

By all means, read other good books - Joseph Smith was all about that. So am I. I even feel fairly similarly about scripture - but scripture wasn't just written for me. It has to be a least common denominator for millions of people across a plenitude of languages, cultures, and times, and it has to come from a fallible human too. I honor scripture for doing what it does...it doesn't need to do everything. I'll also note that when I do get insights from scripture, they hit differently than insights from, say philosophy reading.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Yea I am not sure that is accurate.  Maybe. I will think about it.  I certainly view scripture differently than I used to and mostly I don't view scripture as anything ore special or divinely inspired or directed than any other books may be.

Again I am not sure that is accurate at all though I would expect later "scriptural" not to contradict earlier scripture.  The nature and characteristics of God and the Godhead should be fairly consistent.  A Jew would reject the NT readings and interpretations of OT scripture that are cited to "prove" Jesus was the Messiah and Son of God.  They view the passages in the NT as writing Jesus in where it was never intended to be such.  Who is correct?

Fair enough. You are certainly the expert on your own opinions; my statements, however, represent my understanding of your opinions and the implications of that understanding. 

On the nature and characteristics of God and the Godhead being fairly consistent: I think they are. I see Adam-God theory as a weird flash in the pan that Brigham's apostolic peers quenched, after all - the system handled it. However, throughout all of scriptural history, the conception of the Godhead has certainly changed, from YHWH and El among the pantheon to singular YHWH to the monarchial monotheism of the modern-day Church (I'll note that I don't consider the Triune God as an intermediary step there because I think it's extraneous).  However, the core characteristics of this presentation remain quite similar - I reflect on the very old story of Noah and the Ark and how its rhetorical effect is to juxtapose the Canaanite Flood stories of capricious deities with the Israelite God who just wants humans to stop hurting each other. I'm okay with the image flexing to fit the position of the people. I have an illustration.

Most people don't really grasp how the US government funds itself. The intuitive understanding of how taxes and budgets work is that your taxes go to an account at the Treasury, which are then disbursed to the organs of the government per the budget. Your taxes pay for government, literally. This is accurate for state and local governments, but not the federal government. Your federal tax dollars are deleted from existence and the Fed "prints" however much money the federal budget demands.  Why do we pay federal taxes then? Because, by deleting your tax dollars, the Fed can reduce the supply of dollars and thus offset the inflation that would be caused by their annual print-fest. There's some complicated formulas in there, but that's basically how it works. 

Is the first explanation false then? I would say no. Your tax dollars still pay for government, just not the way you thought; instead of buying paper clips and parachutes like you thought, they buy off inflation. You get the right idea of what your taxes accomplish in practical terms, and you don't need to understand as many terms. The early "simple" explanation intuitively captures the practical function of the later, "complex" explanation. This pedagogical tool is essential for early childhood education. I'd say its also essential for early civilizational education. Which is what we are undergoing.

I don't find it too hard to believe that God would help OT prophets make references to Christ to help Christian-era converts recognize what they're seeing, so in that case I subscribe to "the author is dead" literary interpretation because the Muse isn't dead, lol. Scripture and prophets, to me, represent a history of God's interaction with His people. We know, thanks to the divine gift that is D&C 19, that God is willing to allow misunderstandings if they advance His other goals. So, I could be the target of that same operation, but frankly, I'm already that way with everything else in society. Politics and science are both processes of iterative development in which I am right only provisionally, and religion touches on truths they can't. What's the loss? I'll trust God to catch me up on what I missed when I get to the other side - but I also don't have reason to think that I have missed much. I have reason to think that it's possible I'm wrong on religious things, but as things stand I don't think I have much reason to think that I am wrong on religious things. Does that make sense? 

 

Edited February 14, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is it your view that the sky is falling, or not? 

No, it is not my view that the sky is falling. I'm simply pointing out what I believe is a very natural and reasonable concern that many people have when you have one prophet, seer, and revelators saying one thing about God for decades, including from the pulpit in conference, in church publications, priesthood leadership meeting, and in the temple (and other apostles and leaders of the church backed him up), only to have later prophets, seers, and revelators claim that what he and others taught about God in these settings is false doctrine. If you really don't see that this is undermines the reliability of the teachings of the men we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators I don't know what else to tell you. 

This one issue does not in and of itself undermine the truthfulness of the restoration. I don't know anyone who claims that the church is sham exclusively due to the issue of Adam-God. Even for most anti-Mormons, Adam-God isn't a top issue for them. It's just one of many. 

I'm a firm believer in the truthfulness of the restoration and the prophet calling of Joseph Smith and I don't believe that pointing this issue regarding Adam-God undermines that. The truth is what I'm after, not helping everyone have warm fuzzies about how the can put their full trust in the teachings of the current prophets (that is until future prophets disavow those teachings). 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

There are reasonable grounds to question all sorts of things.  Sure.  But the ultimate conclusions reached by various reasonably-minded people can by very different from each other.

Yes, of course. All the more reason for the church to make an essay on Adam-God setting forth the position of the church and addressing the contradicting views of God between BY and co and SWK and co. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Any evidence for this?  Or just a bit of speculation?

A bit of speculation based on his stance on Adam-God. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also pay attention to the "Comments" section, as Elden Watson has quite a few things to say.

I have read Elden Watson's take on Adam-God and strongly disagree with his interpretation. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

"The problem" being . . . what?

The problem, or question, of whether or not Adam-God, as taught by Brigham Young is true or false. 

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

That Brigham Young may have erred in this teaching?

Or that later leaders erred in calling his teachings false doctrine. Or that God no longer wanted Adam-God taught openly because it was such a huge stumbling block for so many people. Or some combination of these things or something else.

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you suggesting that Brigham Young's advocacy of the Adam-God theory rendered him an apostate?  Or that by espousing it he lost his prophetic calling/mantle?

No, I'm not suggesting this, but if what he taught in regards to Adam-God is completely false and one of the deadly heresies Bruce R. McConkie warned people against, then this isn't without serious implications. It's not just something we can shrug off and say "oh well, no big deal, nothing to see here."

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we need to focus more on being believers in Jesus Christ.

I wholeheartedly agree, but this doesn't make all of the doctrinal and historical questions go away. 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Or are you saying that this issue is of such import that it merits an essay published by the Church?

Yes, I think it is important enough to merit an essay published by the Church. 

I've made my peace with Adam-God and have my own opinion on it, but for many people this is a stumbling block. For some it is a major one. I don't think that the church's radio silence on this issue is helpful for those who are troubled by Adam-God and it's implications. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

We can be confident because Brigham Young wasn't re-writing things from scratch: he was organizing and systematizing ceremonies which his peers had already observed, and which they had power to edit after him. Which they did. By removing Adam-God.

Which Adam-God elements did they remove? There is evidence that Brigham's lecture at the veil was still being given, at least occasionally until around 1900. And that's hardly the only Adam-God elements in the endowment. There are still Adam-God elements today, but most have been removed since 2019. I haven't been to the temple to see last weeks changes, but Adam/Michael is still one of the Gods who helped form the earth isn't he? 

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

the presiding Prophet, Seer, and Revelator is buttressed by 15 others who act as a quorum. As they did in the case of Adam-God. 

How exactly did the other FP and Q12 act as a buttress for Adam-God? Some apostles believed and taught Adam-God and others didn't (notably Orson Pratt.)

10 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I implore you, let go of the model that the Prophet is infallible. It's false, it's unscriptural, and it will deceive you. And "infallibility" is exactly what you are espousing.

I appreciate the heartfelt words, but I'm not a believer in prophetic infallibility. I'm well aware that the brethren are fallible. 

[OGHoosier]

27 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Which Adam-God elements did they remove? There is evidence that Brigham's lecture at the veil was still being given, at least occasionally until around 1900. And that's hardly the only Adam-God elements in the endowment. There are still Adam-God elements today, but most have been removed since 2019. I haven't been to the temple to see last weeks changes, but Adam/Michael is still one of the Gods who helped form the earth isn't he? 

So you are ascribing Adam forming the Earth alongside Elohim and Jehovah to Brigham Young? Even though according to Brigham Young, apparently Adam IS Elohim? That seems to violate the Law of Identity, and in any case there's no reason to say that it's an Adam-God original since the doctrine of premortal participation in Creation is pretty well established. 

The apostles got rid of it because it isn't around anymore and never became doctrine. 

Please post sources. 

32 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

How exactly did the other FP and Q12 act as a buttress for Adam-God? Some apostles believed and taught Adam-God and others didn't (notably Orson Pratt.)

You have answered your own question.

32 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I appreciate the heartfelt words, but I'm not a believer in prophetic infallibility. I'm well aware that the brethren are fallible. 

You claim belief in infallibility, but you don't go into detail on what it actually means, and you don't seem aware of the dialogue that has occurred on this issue over a long period of time. So, I don't know what you're aware of. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

So you are ascribing Adam forming the Earth alongside Elohim and Jehovah to Brigham Young?

No, I believe this came from Joseph Smith who got it from God.

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Even though according to Brigham Young, apparently Adam IS Elohim?

No, Brigham Young identified Elohim from the endowment as Adam's grandfather and Jehovah his father.

He identified Adam as Michael, which is well established in the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith.

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

You have answered your own question.

No, I don’t think I have. The lecture at the veil wasn’t removed until 1900, which means that John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, the apostles who succeeded him as presidents of the church, left it. 

And it’s not as if unanimity is required to establish truth. Joseph Smitt taught things that apostles in his day disagreed with and there were things that Jesus taught that his apostles weren’t able to understand at the time he taught them.

The scriptures say that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established. That standard was definitely met with Adam-God and then some. 

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

You claim belief in infallibility,

No I don’t. But for some strange reason you assume that this is what I believe, which is really bizarre since I’ve repeatedly said that I don’t. I even provided ways in which I believe true prophets of God can be fallible. 

I think the issue is that I’m not accepting the "Oh shucks prophets aren’t infallible, nothing to see here" excuse for why this issue is supposedly irrelevant. It’s not irrelevant.

The truth about the identity of God and how eternal progression and exaltation work matters. We should be able to trust God’s anointed prophets, seers, and revelators (imperfect and fallible as they are) to teach us the truth about this and not blatantly contradict each other in their understanding and teachings on the identity of God, the nature of the fall of man, and eternal progression in the here after. 

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

you don't seem aware of the dialogue that has occurred on this issue over a long period of time.

I'm very aware of the dialogue that has taken place about Adam-God. But to be honest, I’m not one to care much about the opinions of others on this. I’d rather study it out for myself and reach my own conclusions, which is what I have done. 

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

So, I don't know what you're aware of. 

Correct. So you shouldn’t assume to know what I believe or know about Adam-God and its doctrinal implications.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[OGHoosier]

7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I'm very aware of the dialogue that has taken place about Adam-God. In fact I'm confident that I know a lot more about Adam-God than you do. 

That reminds me, you still owe us that thread of evidence on how Adam-God comes from Joseph Smith. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

That reminds me, you still owe us that thread of evidence on how Adam-God comes from Joseph Smith. 

I know, I’m working on it in between my regular job, family life, church calling, and responding to people on this forum. There’s only so much time in the day. 

I have all of the sources compiled, but I’m still working on the commentary. I hope to have it up in the next few days. 

[OGHoosier]

20 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I know, I’m working on it in between my regular job, family life, church calling, and responding to people on this forum. There’s only so much time in the day. 

I have all of the sources compiled, but I’m still working on the commentary. I hope to have it up in the next few days. 

Sounds fun.

[standard4truth]

Obviously this is complete speculation, but I think if they made a Gospel Topics essay about it, it would cast great doubt about the teaching of Heavenly Mother. Plus it would seem to contradict the idea that doctrines don't change, because very clearly, they did. Not saying that that is what will happen, and surely there can be a discussion on what constitutes doctrine, but it seems that the Church is in a tough spot with all the other essays it has already published. Fortunately, there are plenty of people out there that have eyes to see and ears to hear.