Did Joseph Smith teach Adam-God?

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18)

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (Leviticus 20)

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Romans 1)

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (1 Cor 6)

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; (1 Timothy 1)

God doesn’t approve of homosexual sex period. Which means he doesn’t approve of homosexual marriages. 

And in regards to the consistent teachings of the servants of God in this dispensation, who have clearly taught that God does not approve of homosexual marriages and never will, this is scripture, too. 

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. (D&C 68)

 

Of course sex outside of marriage is prohibited no matter what sex.  That is not disputed.  I could give you just as many scriptures where God condemns sex outside of marriage for straight couples as well.  

Still no revelation from God whether he approves or disapproves of same sex marriage.  What is the point of claiming to have a prophet that receives revelation from God when no revelation comes?

• 26% of members strongly support gay marriage.  Another 68% just don't know.  That leaves only 6% of members who hold your position.  Not so clear to everyone else.  If you want to be part of the 6% then fine.  But projecting that God has revealed His views on whether he approves or disapproves of same sex marriage is false, as you have clearly demonstrated at this point.

[MustardSeed]

58 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

I don't know about others, but I am not going to tell someone they are condemned to death based on a 2000± year-old, or more, text written by unknown authors in a different language, redacted and re-translated who knows how many times. 

I cannot for the life of me imagine condemning someone to death on a message board. How does somebody justify that to themselves?

[pogi]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't know about others, but I am not going to tell someone they are condemned to death based on a 2000± year-old, or more, text written by unknown authors in a different language, redacted and re-translated who knows how many times. 

The atrocities that have been committed based on what is "clearly" stated in the Bible are awful.  

I think that gay marriage will be akin to blacks/priesthood and slavery - justified by the Bible today, fully condoned by the church tomorrow.  I don't know if we will ever be to the point of sealings for gay couples, but I feel fairly confident that fully committed and married gay couples will be permitted to participate as active members without threat of excommunication. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by pogi

[Vanguard]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I don't know about others, but I am not going to tell someone they are condemned to death based on a 2000± year-old, or more, text written by unknown authors in a different language, redacted and re-translated who knows how many times. 

I agree. In fact, I wouldn't condemn someone to death based on text that was two weeks old. 

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I cannot for the life of me imagine condemning someone to death on a message board. How does somebody justify that to themselves?

Has someone condemned another on this message board? If so, could you link me to it?

[MustardSeed]

22 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Has someone condemned another on this message board? If so, could you link me to it?

I don’t know.  CA Steve was saying that it’s not cool to condemn someone to death based on 2000 year old texts, I don’t know if he was referring to something here or just talking in generalities.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

21 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Definitely not in the way you were suggesting in the comment I responded to:

Clearly, they do. 

No, clearly the church doesn’t. But clearly you love to argue just for the sake of arguing.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course sex outside of marriage is prohibited no matter what sex.

The verses condemning homosexual sex don’t distinguish between "married” and “non-married” homosexuals. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God. Period. 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The verses condemning homosexual sex don’t distinguish between "married” and “non-married” homosexuals. Homosexual sex is forbidden by God. Period. 

Well you just keep that belief along with the only 6% of members who share that view.  You must be right the 94% who don't hold that view are all wrong obviously.  It is so clear isn't it.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t know.  CA Steve was saying that it’s not cool to condemn someone to death based on 2000 year old texts, I don’t know if he was referring to something here or just talking in generalities.

Ok. When you said "How does somebody justify that to themselves?" it sounded like you were referring to someone in particular since CA Steve made no mention of someone on this board.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, clearly the church doesn’t. But clearly you love to argue just for the sake of arguing.

I have provided clear and explicit quotes from official church sources where they use the words "gay", "lesbian", and "homosexual" as labels.  They have historically used more derogatory labels such as "perverts".  Clearly, labels are not beyond the church.   You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim.  I am not arguing just to argue.  I am refuting damaging claims that can lead towards judgment of others who use those labels or cause them to repress their sexual identity in fear that they will be rejected for using those identities that the church disagrees with (which they don't).   We all have sexual identities.  There is NOTHING wrong with that!  There is nothing wrong with stating that I am a heterosexual.   

More quotes: (In case you weren't aware, LGBT is a label that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender)

Quote

A non-member parent or parents (including LGBT parents) can request that their baby be blessed by a worthy Melchizedek Priesthood holder, said President Oaks.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/policy-changes-announced-for-members-in-gay-marriages-children-of-lgbt-parents?lang=eng

 

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Well you just keep that belief along with the only 6% of members who share that view.  You must be right the 94% who don't hold that view are all wrong obviously.  It is so clear isn't it.

Shaming him with percentages?  Where did you get those percentages?  Is there a poll of members regarding their opinion on what they think God might change in the future?

I'm not weighing in on this issue, I'm just questioning the claim. 

Edit:  Forget what I said.  I read your comment above in the context of the question being asked.  I didn't see your prior comment where you were quoting the article that had the statistics (shame on me for not following the thread!)  But I still question the application of those statistics to what you were responding to.  There's a big difference between "views on same-sex marriage" and views on whether "homosexual sex is forbidden by God" (which is how I took your application of the statistics).

Edited March 17, 2023 by InCognitus

[JLHPROF]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Still no revelation from God whether he approves or disapproves of same sex marriage.  

That's because there's no such thing.  At least not if you're using marriage in a gospel sense.  It literally doesn't exist.

God doesn't give revelation or ban the existence of every possibly imagined scenario.

[Benjamin Seeker]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's because there's no such thing.  At least not if you're using marriage in a gospel sense.  It literally doesn't exist.

God doesn't give revelation or ban the existence of every possibly imagined scenario.

on a tremendously, controversial subject, seems like it would be a revelation worth giving.

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

on a tremendously, controversial subject, seems like it would be a revelation worth giving.

Maybe it’s the Abrahamic sacrifice for this time, with a twist to keep us in our toes…which implies it will be removed later now I think about it as was the sacrifice of Isaac and plural marriage.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2012/02/15/fair-examination-9-polygamy-as-an-abrahamic-sacrifice-dr-valerie-hudson

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2011/a-reconciliation-of-polygamy

Quote

The Lord has apparently chosen to explain his reasoning and reveal his mind on polygamy in terms of a specific analogy between two situations that occurred to one man, Abraham. The Lord’s subsequent explanation of polygamy centers around an analogy the Lord himself posits between his commandment to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and his commandment to Abraham to marry Hagar polygamously. In verse 36 the Lord explains: “Abraham was commanded to offer his son Isaac; nevertheless it was written: Thou shalt not kill. Abraham, however, did not refuse, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness”.

Now, given the importance of his children having a correct understanding of their Father’s mind on this topic, we cannot believe that this analogy was chosen capriciously. This is not an arbitrary analogy being made,. and since it is the only analogy being made, we must pay attention to it and try to understand why that analogy was chosen.

God wants us to see how and why he views those two situations as analogous: sacrifice Isaac; take Hagar to wife. By choosing the story of Isaac to be the analog of the story of polygamy the Lord reveals his mind to us and constrains forever and irrevocably any discussion we, his children, might choose to have on the subject of polygamy.

We must understand correctly why the Lord elects to use this particular analogy, or we are likely to seriously err in our understanding of the role and place of polygamy in God’s plan for his children.

The first and most telling point to note about the analogy is that the story of Isaac is a story of sacrifice. The Lord is telling us that the term “Abrahamic sacrifice” refers not only to the story of Isaac but applies to the story of Hagar as well.

Before the Lord even delves into the analogy, his very positing of an analogy between the Isaac situation and the Hagar situation is revealing. Of all the possible analogies of sacrifice that God has commanded in the history of the world (sacrifice of animals under the Mosaic law; sacrifice of possessions under the law of consecration; sacrifice of home and country as the early saints did in crossing the plains; sacrifice of your own life as Joseph Smith and others have done), God chooses the most wrenching sacrifice he has ever commanded to serve as the analogy wherewith to instruct us concerning polygamy — the sacrifice of one’s own innocent child by one’s own hand. This choice of analogy by the Lord is meant to reveal to us that in the Lord’s eyes the Hagar situation is no light matter or run-of-the-mill sacrifice but rather is like unto the heaviest and most heart-wrenching of all sacrifices God has ever required of man.

In positing this analogy then we get a parallel, and that parallel is being commanded to kill your innocent son is analogist to being commanded to marry polygamously. Why, because murder is as grievous as sin as adultery and vice versa.

Now, what is an Abrahamic Sacrifice? Let’s make sure that we understand that. Sacrifice is one of the first principles of a gospel — we know that, and we know that there are various forms of sacrifice….

But the heaviest sacrifice a person can ever be called upon to make — the Abrahamic sacrifice is slightly different from these other three. In the Abrahamic sacrifice, we are asked by God to make a conscious choice in a situation where what he requires of us cannot be regarded as a desired goal from all that we know about God’s laws.

We can all understand how obedience to God’s laws, for example to the Ten Commandments, brings a happier, richer, and more peaceful life. But what if God were to command us to break the Ten Commandments? Reason alone would tell us we would lose the happiness and peace that would come from obedience to the law. But the test of the Abrahamic sacrifice is not a test of reason. It is a test of faith. It is the ultimate test of faith….

Or it could be like the Priesthood Ban which seems to have required a new understanding of race and relationships before old roads could be turned into a truer, more direct path.

Or perhaps there is no revelation at the moment because God has revealed for now what he intends to reveal whether we mess it up or not because the end result of our misunderstanding is beneficial for now…like endless punishment was misunderstood by pretty much everyone as something different than God’s punishment.

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

Maybe it’s the Abrahamic sacrifice for this time, with a twist to keep us in our toes…which implies it will be removed later now I think about it as was the sacrifice of Isaac and plural marriage.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2012/02/15/fair-examination-9-polygamy-as-an-abrahamic-sacrifice-dr-valerie-hudson

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2011/a-reconciliation-of-polygamy

Or it could be like the Priesthood Ban which seems to have required a new understanding of race and relationships before old roads could be turned into a truer, more direct path.

Or perhaps there is no revelation at the moment because God has revealed for now what he intends to reveal whether we mess it up or not because the end result of our misunderstanding is beneficial for now…like endless punishment was misunderstood by pretty much everyone as something different than God’s punishment.

I am having a real problem imagining that killing one's oldest son is not as much of a "sacrifice" as taking another wife.

A second wife or killing my son?

Seriously?

Perhaps I am still too much a natural man, but ask 100 men on the street to compare the two choices, asking which they think would be harder.

Straight up? I just don't get it.

This is not a question to ask investigators 

Edited March 17, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

 

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

am having a real problem imagining that killing one's oldest son is not as much of a "sacrifice" as taking another wife.

Whatever gave you the idea she is claiming plural marriage is harder than sacrificing your child? In fact she states in the quote above

Quote

God chooses the most wrenching sacrifice he has ever commanded to serve as the analogy wherewith to instruct us concerning polygamy 

In the article, she opens with saying some practiced plural marriage without problems while others had tremendous hardships. It is not the intensity of difficulty that is being claimed to be analogous though.

I think you need to reread it because that is a fundamental misunderstanding of what she is saying Imo.  Probably even better to read the article as she sets it up in detail. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Whatever gave you the idea she is claiming that? In fact she states:

 

Sounds to me it is about polygamy.

Regardless those words taken alone simply make no sense to me

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds to me it is about polygamy.

Regardless those words taken alone simply make no sense to me

I am clueless how you got there. You can certainly take the time to actually read what she said before condemning her if what little you read of her doesn’t make sense to you. If you are not going to try and understand what she means (not everyone wants to take the time to read her article, so I get that part), better not to criticize surely. 
 

To me, she is saying the type of sacrifice is analogous. Both sacrifices are based not on reason, but on faith, but a deeper, personal faith because one is command to act against laws one has previously given…normally one would view killing your child as breaking the law against murder and one would view taking another woman to bed as adultery…but when both are commanded by God, they become something else, an exception to God’s general law.  “An Abrahamic sacrifice involves at least three elements that are to be found in the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac: 1. God makes plain to Abraham a law, “thou shalt not kill;” 2. God then requires Abraham, an innocent and righteous man, to depart from that law, sacrifice Isaac, an innocent child, and the choice to depart therefrom would seem to erase any joy in Abraham’s life, because the true happiness is to be found under the law — don’t kill Isaac; and 3. God provides a means of escape from the departure from the law — an angel is sent to stay the hand of Abraham, and the ram in the thicket is provided by the Lord, which allows renewed joy from being able to live under the law — don’t kill Isaac — once more.”  Both are usually grievous sins that can spiritually destroy one. But then God commands an exception and finally after the demonstration of obedience, God returns to the general law again (no killing, no additional wives/women). 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

Lol well if the bishop tells me that I need to bring another woman into my marriage or that I need to kill my son… I’m pretty sure I’ll see hell before I do either one.  I’m ok with that.  Heaven you can have 😇

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

You have provided ZERO evidence to support your claim. 

Yes, I have. The church doesn’t really use the labels of gay, lesbian, bisexual, etc. to label someone as having a permanent unchangeable sexual orientation the way you do. When the church uses these terms at all it recognizes that these terms mean different things to different people and doesn’t necessarily mean a fixed permanent sexual orientation. 

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not arguing just to argue. 

Yes, you are. This entire argument you insist on caring on has zero to do with what we were talking about. I didn’t say that the church doesn’t use these terms at all. I said that I don’t believe in using these terms to permanently label people. And even if the church were to do this (which it doesn’t at present) I still wouldn’t believe in using these terms to permanently label people the way you are. 

In any event, the point I made (which you dodged with this ridiculous pointless argument) is that since the church didn’t say that it was okay for people to openly identify as gay while remaining celibate until a couple of years ago, we shouldn’t expect to know any really old members who have openly identified as being 100% gay while remaining celibate their entire lives.  

Do you have a response to this point or do you just plan on continuing to deflect by arguing about nonsense? 

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am clueless how you got there. You can certainly take the time to actually read what she said before condemning her if what little you read of her doesn’t make sense to you. If you are not going to try and understand what she means (not everyone wants to take the time to read her article, so I get that part), better not to criticize surely. 
 

To me, she is saying the type of sacrifice is analogous. Both sacrifices are based not on reason, but on faith, but a deeper, personal faith because one is command to act against laws one has previously given…normally one would view killing your child as breaking the law against murder and one would view taking another woman to bed as adultery…but when both are commanded by God, they become something else, an exception to God’s general law.  “An Abrahamic sacrifice involves at least three elements that are to be found in the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Isaac: 1. God makes plain to Abraham a law, “thou shalt not kill;” 2. God then requires Abraham, an innocent and righteous man, to depart from that law, sacrifice Isaac, an innocent child, and the choice to depart therefrom would seem to erase any joy in Abraham’s life, because the true happiness is to be found under the law — don’t kill Isaac; and 3. God provides a means of escape from the departure from the law — an angel is sent to stay the hand of Abraham, and the ram in the thicket is provided by the Lord, which allows renewed joy from being able to live under the law — don’t kill Isaac — once more.”  Both are usually grievous sins that can spiritually destroy one. But then God commands an exception and finally after the demonstration of obedience, God returns to the general law again (no killing, no additional wives/women). 

Sounds like a great lesson in postmodernism to me.

What ELSE could it be when God contradicts himself while pointing to different circumstances at the same time?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Still no revelation from God whether he approves or disapproves of same sex marriage.  What is the point of claiming to have a prophet that receives revelation from God when no revelation comes?

The prophets have revealed plenty about God’s views on same-sex marriage. They have consistently and repeatedly declared that same-sex marriage is against the laws of God. 

9 hours ago, california boy said:

26% of members strongly support gay marriage.  Another 68% just don't know.  That leaves only 6% of members who hold your position.

You are misrepresenting the results of this study. The study is NOT about whether or not members of the church believe that God approves or disapproves of same-sex marriage. It’s about whether or not the member supports same-sex marriage.
 

This is extremely vague. What does it mean to support same-sex marriage? Does it mean to support the legalization of same-sex marriage? Does it mean supporting individuals who enter into so-called same-sex marriages? it’s no wonder that most of those surveyed said that they do not know. 

Since the church leadership has been unwavering that same-sex marriage is against the laws of God, most members undoubtedly agree with this. I have spoken to many members about this subject and the vast majority share the same views I have expressed. 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My compass

That’s all well and good, but how do you know if your compass is aligned with God’s will or not? 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

11 hours ago, Dario_M said:

And what where those penalty's for those man?? if i may be so free to ask??? You know what. Never mind i allready know. ..Death?? 💀

The wage for all sin, including homosexual sex, is death. But God sent his son to die for us so that we can repent and receive mercy and forgiveness for our sins and have everlasting life instead of receiving the just punishment for our sins. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sounds like a great lesson in postmodernism to me.

What ELSE could it be when God contradicts himself while pointing to different circumstances at the same time?

Did you read the article?