“You should have seen it! It will go down as epic in Church ball.”
“I was THERE and it was pedestrian, man.”
“WHAT?! No way. Everyone had the jaw on the ground!”
“You’re full of exaggerations today.”
“If there’s anything that can’t be exaggerated, it’s what happened on the court.”
“Yeah, right. You can exaggerate all the time about your game. But you can’t exaggerate the nature of God.”
“Whoa, big change of subject. You trying to get heavy on me again?”
“Well your head is big right now, it can fit big ideas, can’t it?”
“Hah. Okay, shoot.”
“Well, to exaggerate is to talk it up bigger than it is, right?”
“Yeah.”
“Well, it’s impossible to do that with God. There isn’t anything even imaginably better.”
“You mean better for us, right?”
“No, I mean for anyone, anywhere.”
“Well then why do we care?”
“Because it’s awesome. Listen, what’s better, to have sinned, or to have never sinned at all?”
“To have never sinned.”
“What’s more moral than never having sinned?”
“I don’t know.”
“Mmm hmm. OK, so what’s better, to know everything or to know only something?”
“To know everything.”
“Can you have a greater knowledge than the knowledge of everything?”
“No.”
“Mmm hmm. Ok, better to have all power, or to have only some power?”
“All.”
“Can you have greater power than all power?”
“No. This is stupid, man.”
“That’s my point. It’s obvious that there’s nothing more moral than never having sinned, that there isn’t a greater knowledge than the knowledge of everything, and that there isn’t a greater power than all power.”
“So?”
“So you can’t exaggerate when there’s nothing left to exaggerate with.”
“And… ?”
“Well, the God of the Bible is called the ‘Most High’. If you said there was a higher God than him, he’d have to be Kinda High, not Most High.”
“Are you bashing my religion, man?”
“Maybe. I mean, I can obviously exaggerate your god.”
“What? How?”
“Well, what if I said that your god never sinned?”
“You’d only be speculating.”
“Mmm hmm. And what if I said your god always knew everything?”
“You’d be wrong. He had to learn to become a god just like all the other gods. But that’s deep man. It doesn’t concern my salvation.”
“And what if I said your god always had all power?”
“You’d be right.”
“Really?”
“Sure.”
“Did he create the planet his spirit-grandfather was born on? Wasn’t he in spirit-baby-diapers or something?”
“Oh gosh, you always bring that up. Here we go into bashing mode again.”
“Dude, you know me, I love you bro.”
“Yeah, but I hate it when you disrespect my religion.”
“Well, at least hear me on this. If you tried to disrespect my God by exaggerating him, you couldn’t. You couldn’t even if you tried. And I mean tried hard. It’s not even possible with my God. He is the Un-exaggeratable Most High.”
“Fancy name.”
“But if someone tried to bash your god, they’d have an easy time, because it’s easy to think of a God greater than yours.”
“Dude…”
“OK, I’ll stop now. But just think about it, OK?”
“Whatever. I guess.”
“Think about it next time you exaggerate your game. I AM watching the same game, you know!
“But not really. You have to be on court to get the full effect.”
“Mmm hmm!”
In ‘bragging about God’, I would like to compare what BY did with Adam-God [he did brag about it being a new revelation] & Smith did with Polygamy. The letter by McConkie to Eugene England is revelaling:
Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.”
What happened is that Young got opposition to the doctrine by the Church. But smith did the same thing with polygamy. He taught [in public] that it was NOT practiced and there were scriptures in the D&C denouncing it. [since removed]. How is this different than what Young did? It is not. He continues:
“I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.”
Polygamy was adopted by the Church, Adam-God was not. That makes BY a false prophet & you then have to question your testimony and status as a Mormon.
How could Brigham Young have taught false doctrine & gone on to his eternal reward as a ‘great prophet’ when he said he received a revelation from God that he was Adam & then have it proclaimed false & if you believe it you are damned?
You cannot have it both ways as McConkie tries to reason out here. You either believe Young and are damned, or he is a false prophet for having taught it & believed it and proclaimed it a revelation. How is he then a true prophet of God? He is not, and the Mormon Church falls with him.
As much as Evangelicals want the Church to fail, it is evident that not many members pay much attention to Doctrine that is not orthodox to the Church, maybe it’s conveyed more in the remarks make by BY stating the following: ” I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know”. Fine enough with me, since I don’t fully understand much of that which is given to us in snippets and not fully addressed as Standard Doctrine. I can wait in patience to further my education when I pass through the veil of death. I have lots of questions and can look forward to expanding my education way into the future where I believe knowledge will continue into the eternities. Just having the knowledge that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored to the earth again is very securing to me.
J.
How is what Brigham young revealed on Adam-God a ‘snippet’?
You have Mormon scholars like David Buerger & Chris Vlachos writing 60 page papers on it. This is not a ‘snippet’ of a doctrine. It is what one prophet believed and taught, and others have called false doctrine. The question here should be, why was it taught and why are some calling it false doctrine? How can the Mormon Church be led astray by one of it’s own prophets and still be true?
I am secure in the knowledge that my God Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. He is not the ever changing God of Mormonism, caught up in a parade of gods that is never ending and which most Mormons have no idea of who he really is or who they are worshipping.
If the Mormon prophets can’t get god right, how can they get anything else right? They can’t.
BY is one of the few early leaders that mention it. Since there is nothing in the standard works that even talk about the Doctrine, then I imagine that little is known other then the copied quotes and a few songs.
Like I said, believing this doctrine is even a possibility for me. I would never teach it or preach on it, but it has sparked my interest and now that we have debated it, I have learned more on this topic than ever before, I admit to doing more research then ever before.
Janet
Janet said
Janet, why is it the Adam God “Doctrine” is only two pages long and LDS teach it is not doctrine and we cannot be sure of what was said, yet the King Follet Discouse is 11 pages long, written after Adam God and is found in the JoD, and mormons to this day teach much of it and believe much of it as scripture?
In the above quote by you, you said it is not mentioned in the standard works, neither is the doctrine of the king follet discourse, but that is taught as truth and fact by your church. Why is one believed but not the other? O-I know, you guys like one but not the other. Rick b
I don’t pick and choose any certain doctrine and truthfully cannot answer your question which is a very good point. Who knows what really lies behind the what, how and why of BY’s doctrine. Milk before the meat maybe, certain things that Mormons would not be able to totally digest maybe. Even the concept and eventual doctrine of Baptism for the dead is unique to any other religion, and yet we have come to terms with it and have mostly as a whole incorporated that doctrine and practice it as a most common part of our religion.
I’m grateful for the debate, I have learned a great deal, and will continue to question even my own beliefs in the search for even more light and knowledge. Nothing has been lost in this debate, only that maybe my own testimony is strengthened even more.
Janet.
Janet,
Have you ever thought maybe your wrong and are following a false gospel?
What are your thoughts on Gal 1 :8-9 where Paul speaks of another Gospel, what is this other gospel Paul speaks of? Your gospel is clearly different from ours.
Do you fully understand that if you really are wrong and our following a false gospel then when you die you will end up being tossed into the lake of fire apart from Jesus forever? Rick b
When I was a Mormon, I was always thinking “how did they know that?”, and decided that it was just a lack of spirituality on my part that kept me from seeing it like they did, or being able to just believe it as fact when it seemed like nonsense.
The whole “milk before meat” thing of the LDS church has been abused to make you think it’s YOUR fault.
The phrase was taken from the Bible, and like the rest of the stuff Mormonism takes from the Bible, has been misapplied.
Is it milk before meat to teach that there is only one God, and then later teach that there are many, and we may become gods ourselves? YOU’VE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! Of course it’s not! That’s just plain old bait and switch. Those two ideas are mutually exclusive!
To say that Adam is God, and later deny it? Meat before milk! Again… God can’t be Michael, Adam, Elohim, and Jehovah. Stick with one please. And He can’t be both 3 gods, and also one god. These things are not compatible.
Milk comes before meat because you start with the basics. Two plus two equals four. YOu have to know that if you are ever going to work up to multiplication, and you have to know multiplication if you are ever going to get to calculus, etc.
But you don’t learn “2 plus 2 = 4” and then after you have successfully committed that to memory, learn that 2 plus 2 = 7. See what I mean?
The EV says God must be of a different species because He is so great. I recognize that this likely comes from a desire to show respect for God, which is a good thing, but is simply wrong. One being’s exaltation does not diminish another’s station. One’s success doesn’t make a failure out of others.
Saying that we are of the same species as God does not diminish Him. Taken as a whole, the wealth of statements in the Bible relating to our relationship with Him clearly suggest that we are in fact of the same species. We are His “offspring.” He is our “Father.”
Consider the Psalms 82 debate: EVs try to make it look like LDS are way out on a limb suggesting that such a passage actually refers to multiple gods. (It requires quite a stretch to mistake Christ’s meaning in John 10).
In an e-mail, William Hamblin noted that prior to 1970, a majority of Bible scholars believed the Psalms 82 verse used the word “gods” to refer to mortals. But since the 1970s and the discovery of Ugaritic texts which shed light on this whole issue, almost all the published commentaries on the topic adhere to the idea that the Psalms text referred to celestial beings, or gods.
Commentaries that claim “gods” in Psalms 82 refers to celestial beings, or gods:
Broadman (1971)
New Century (1972)
Anchor (1970s?)
Cambridge (1977)
Kraus (1978)
New Jerome (1990)
Word (1990)
Expositors (Zondervan, 1991)
Interpretation (1994)
New Interpreters (1996)
Goulden, Psalms of Asaph, (1996)
Whose God is greater?
Consider:
The LDS God has created worlds “without number” on which His children live, truly countless in number. The EV gospel recognizes only this world (which is still impressive on its own, but doesn’t touch the LDS concept).
The LDS view of the atonement is that it redeemed not only those children of God on this earth, but on all the planets (“without number”) which God has created. The difference is truly infinite.
We believe the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ was “infinite and eternal”- that He experienced, literally, the punishment of every sin of mankind on all those planets. Many EVs I have discussed this with maintain that the sacrifice of Jesus was that He was nailed to a cross and died (again, I can’t imagine such suffering). They believed that it was the willingness of God to die like a mortal criminal that was so impressive. The difference in belief here is absolutely staggering.
The LDS believe the suffering of God’s Only Begotten Son included Him experiencing every affliction ever endured by all of humanity on this earth and all others- not just the consequences of sin, but every illness, depression, loneliness, fear, etc. I have never heard non-LDS Christians claim such a belief.
The LDS believe God is intelligent enough and powerful enough to create a set of circumstances that enable His children to become like Him. We also believe He has infinite love for us, enough for Him to desire to make us like Him. My question for EVs is “is it that God lacks enough love to make us like Him, or is it that He lacks the power to do so?”
So when Aaron asks if it is possible to overstate the true God’s greatness, we LDS say no it is not. But in comparing our belief to that of the EVs, there is really no comparison.
OJ said
Just because you believe your god created many worlds verses my God only creating this world does not mean your god is the real one. That is not evidence of truth, since the LDS belief contradicts it’s self and teachings in a major way. Rick b
Whose God is greater?
My God is not Adam from the Garden of Eden. Obviously Brigham Young thought that it was and wanted all Mormons to believe it too, but they would not believe their own prophet.
My God is greater than this.
OJ said, “The LDS view of the atonement is that it redeemed not only those children of God on this earth, but on all the planets (“without number”) which God has created. The difference is truly infinite.”
So OJ, did Satan (who is ultimately your savior since he instigated the fall allowing you to have the “ultimate gift” of free agency) also cause the Adam of every other planet to break Elohim’s (or was it Jehovah’s, or Michael’s) first covenant? Without breaking the creator’s initial covenant, “You can eat of every tree, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, or you will die”, there was no sin and no knowledge of good and evil.
So apparently a created man on every planet (“without number”) also fell, because according to LDS theology God cannot hold us accountable for Adams’ sin, so how can he hold others on entirely different planets accountable? Please show us from LDS “standard works” the truth of your statement. Are you saying that in an infinite universe of men that not one of them made the correct choice and obeyed God’s covenant?
Do you see how quickly the LDS house of cards falls?
Setfree,
2 Plus 2 can equal anything from minus 4 to plus 4 (ie it can equal minus 3, zero, one and a half, etc), it all depends on which direction you are adding them. That is of course talking about vectors in Euclidian space (in this case 2D space because there are only 2 numbers). We are taught this in senior high school here in Australia (both maths and science), and expanded on at uni. But going on with your logic that 2 plus 2 equals 4 only, then 1 plus 1 plus 1 must equal 3 only. Hmm, I wonder where we can use that?
RickB,
Have you ever thought maybe your wrong and are following a false gospel?
What are your thoughts on Gal 1 :8-9 where Paul speaks of another Gospel, what is this other gospel Paul speaks of? Your gospel is clearly different from ours.
Do you fully understand that if you really are wrong and are following a false gospel then when you die you will end up being tossed into the lake of fire apart from Jesus forever?
OK, I’m being a little fascetious in responding to your question with the same question, but its a valid point anyway – isn’t it?
OJ,
“So when Aaron asks if it is possible to overstate the true God’s greatness, we LDS say no it is not. But in comparing our belief to that of the EVs, there is really no comparison.”
There really is no comparison. Two different gods (if that is what you are saying). So when we maintain that there are two different gods and two different Christs are you going to accuse us of using a parlor trick?
Jim, it is fodder for another thread, but the idea of god being our literal father is not derived from the Bible but is rather a 19th century, Mormon import. Many in the Bible, including the Messiah, are identified as servants or friends of God. I would love to know where any people ever got anything close to Mormon theology from merely reading the Bible.
Consider, if all angels and human beings are the literal sons of god then it is our father that sends some of our siblings (granted, few in number) to hell (outer darkness). With him its truly impossible to exaggerate the depths of his madness. Such a loving father. We are all one big happy and dysfunctional family (Rom 9:11-13):
“for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls,
it was said to her, ‘THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.’ Just as it is written, ‘JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED’.”
Ralph,
Do you realize the inconsistency in pointing this out to Rick? You do not believe that those who merely follow a false gospel will be consigned to hellfire. Granted he does. However, the place where you are getting that from, and you are directing Rick to, is scripture for you and us and it speaks of hell? Do you not see the problem here? If I, or Rick, were to come to the realization that you are right then there would be no hellfire for us to be in danger of even if we did not change? So yeah, its not a valid point or at least one for you to make.
RickB,
Aaron’s point in this thread is that the EV view of God is so much greater than the LDS view of God. I don’t really think he was relying on evidences, etc. And I was not either. I am reviewing the different doctrines to point out the fact that the LDS view of God is infinitely greater, exalted, and powerful than the non-LDS Christian or EV view.
Grindael- you need another hobby other than debating polygamy and Adam-God.
Liv4jc,
It’s in the POGP and temple ordinances as well as teachings of modern prophets. In explaining such things to Moses, God said He would only explain the way things worked on this earth. So while we do not know such details about other planets, we do believe Christ redeemed all the worlds He created- “without number.” Are you arguing that I am misrepresenting our doctrine on this matter?
My points are very legitimate. You may not believe our doctrine, but we esteem God as infinitely greater and more powerful than EVs, despite the twisted and manipulated claims made by folks like Aaron. By any comparison, this is true.
House of cards? Think what you want- the restored gospel makes more sense of the universe than the mystical, pagan-based religion of Trinitarian, one-earth, hyper-believism.
David- The version of your question that relates to this thread and my point is- when did people ever come to the conclusion that we are literally children of God based on the Bible? How many non-LDS people believe God is our Father? I invite you to take a survey. Limit yourself to that basic question, and see what you find.
This doctrine is everywhere in the Bible. I think EV are just so indoctrinated with the trinity idea that they do not read the actual language of the Bible on this concept.
David continued…
Your statement intrigues me a great deal: “Consider, if all angels and human beings are the literal sons of god then it is our father that sends some of our siblings (granted, few in number) to hell (outer darkness). With him its truly impossible to exaggerate the depths of his madness. Such a loving father. We are all one big happy and dysfunctional family.”
How is it otherwise if your doctrine is correct? Does God not send people to hell in your religion? Is that somehow less careless or “mad.” What an interesting disconnect. Your logic is not entirely off though. A literal Father would seem to have a greater capacity to love His literal offspring- the inverse corollary to your point.
Your statement really sheds unfortunate light on how too many view their relationship with God. God be thanked for the restoration for this simple, yet fundamental and transforming truth.
OJ,
God does send people to hell in my religion . . .
but . . .
The presupposition that you overlooked, and that we do not share, is that I do not believe that all men are God’s children – literal or otherwise. So you are admitting that God sends some of his own children to hell?
According to my beliefs not all men are His children, or even His friends. These people He (in His infinite wisdom) sends to the pit; there is no exaggerating His wrath nor His mercy. However, your god with His great, though still finite, wisdom sends His own children to hell.
Where in history do we see followers of Jesus that believe that Jesus, Lucifer, the heavenly host, and all of mankind are brothers by the same Heavenly Father?
Replace this – This doctrine is everywhere in the Bible. I think EV are just so indoctrinated with the trinity idea that they do not read the actual language of the Bible on this concept.
With this – This doctrine is (nowhere) everywhere in the Bible. I think EV (Mormon) are just so indoctrinated with the trinity (eternal progression) idea that they do not read the actual language of the Bible on this concept.
And one realizes the need to read the text without reading into it. Show me a place where the son/child wording must be literal and I will show you multiple places where it must be figurative.
I am still waiting on how those the slave/servant references of people, including the Messiah, (parable of the vineyard is just one – Matt 21, Mk 12, & Lk 20) jive with the notion of God being a literal father.
Janet,
I’m sure you feel that your testimony has been
strengthened.But in light of the fact that you
admit Brigham Young did in fact teach Adam-God,
and that today this doctrine is considered
heresey, your testimony amounts to supporting
unreliable guidance from your prophets.
” There are those who believe , or say they
believe that Adam is our father and our God,
that he is the father of our spirits and our
bodies,and that he is the one who we worship.
The devil keeps this heresey alive as a means
of obtaining converts to cultism….and anyone
who has received the Temple endowment and who
yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve
to be saved.”
[Apostle Bruce McConkie, 14 Stake Fireside at
Marriot Center, 6-1-1980 ]
Excuse me, many of the Saints did believe BY, and it was much later that even BY toned down the rhetoric so as not to excite dissension within the ranks as I see it. Moses had the same problem with the children of Israel, they could not abide the glory of God, so were afraid and fell away from accepting the higher laws of God, at Mount Sinai Israel fell back into Egyptian Idolatry with Music and Lost the Covenant.
Janet.
Sorry Mormons, but you’re now stuck with the proclamations of “prophets” who were so impressed with themselves that they never had a thought that wasn’t expressed. That’s why we see so much idle speculation and flights of fancy in these guys, who were basically clueless.
Now you are stuck with your own idle speculations, trying to grab hold of an explanation that makes you sound as flakey as the “prophets” you follow. It’s no big deal within the context of the culture of Mormonism, which has its own strange form of logic and reasoning. Again, a Mormon using this faulty flow of consciousness can make anything fit. Cognitive dissonance is a way of life for Mormons.
However when Mormons come to a site like MC, they are held to a higher level of reasoning, logic and evidence. It’s not like down at the wards where any explanation will do and be accepted as long as the tag line “therefore the church is true” is attached to it.
For cult members, the more obnoxious and creepy a doctrine, behavior or prophetic utterance is, the better. Accepting any of this, to the cult member, proves a higher form of spiritual understanding. They have truly been given over to a depraved mind.
Mormonism, and like cults, are the result of unfettered, free-flowing, mindless speculation on the part of men claiming to be prophets. These wolves become so impressed with their own creative mental meanderings that left unchecked, they suck naive followers into the force of their spiritual gravity and depravity.
The early Christian Church battled men like this and held them accountable for their heretical teachings. The problem with Mormonism is that it has attached a form of spirituality and piety to its false teachings. This form of godliness, serves to disguise the aberrant and destructive aspects of this false religious system.
We are warned constantly in the Bible to stay away from those who teach false doctrine. Unfortunately many do not heed the warnings.
Jude writes: “…..I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 1:3) The gospel of Jesus Christ was delivered once. As Jesus spoke the words “it is finished” we can say the same about the Word of God and the revelation it proclaims. There is no need for a restoration when the true gospel was never lost. False prophets come with false gospels constantly and Mormonism proves the point.
Only a willingness by certain people to accept false teachings keeps these false religious systems going.
I watch and learn so much from all the different perspectives out there, and find it helpful in my own growth as a Child of God.
It’s interesting that over the period of my membership, how many aspects of the Gospel and it’s doctrine have changed direction in my life, accepting certain realities at first to only discard them later as I seek additional new light and knowledge through study and prayer. Adam/God, is it a theory that maybe has or has not been accurately portrayed, or is it doctrine that really is not important at this time to know, since it does not affect our salvation.
Topics such as this and whether Christ married and had children are interesting and even believable, also the how and why of the Conception of the Virgin Marry. All very interesting questions, and one should not be afraid or leery of at least contemplating all possibilities since the scriptures are silent on them, which in no way makes them less important and even demanding of an answer.
Janet.
Janet,
So modern Israel (Mormon church) could be likened until idolatrous Israel in the desert? “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” (from Moses) is likened unto “Adam-God” (from the American Moses)?
Just stating that we have little to go on about A/G Doctrine and much criticism when shown as a theory. Since we can not read the mind of BY, then we are left with a few snippets of what we suggest he meant.
Problem is not so much a problem when viewed with the other snippets stating that Adam was not created from the dust, but was brought with Eve from another world. So much we do not understand, but in our favor is the fact of our continuous beliefs and stated doctrine is that Ex nihilo is impossible.
I can understand you making the above accusation, I would also if I did not have a strong testimony that overrides your skepticism.
Janet.
Janet,
Just to let you know that I have beliefs in both the positive and the negative. I have a testimony as well. I do think that any set of beliefs should be consistent or at least aim to be; I do not see this very much in Mormonism. But thanks for the bone 🙂
Janet said
The problem more lies with you and LDS and not us. You say we have snippets and cannot read the Mind of BY, Yet you yourself admit former LDS from days of Old Believed in Adam God and were excommunicated from the LDS church. So this tells me people back then had plenty to go on with about exactly what he meant.
Then many modern LDS prophets denounce what BY said, thus that tells me they fully understand exactly what he meant when he spoke on it.
Ralph You try and put Gal 1 8-9 back on me, Please grow up, Every time I bring up that passage on this blog or in person LDS avoid it, I asked Janet and yet she has not replied about it. And rarly when you guys do reply to it, you teach the other gospel was only to people back in that day but otherwise really try hard to avoid addressing that question with an in-depth reply. Now your doing it again.
You guys clearly feel RLDS or FLDS or any of the LDS off shoots have a different gospel from you, What about the JW’s, I hear stories from LDS and JW’s how you guys refuse to speak to each other even on the streets if you meet up. What about islams/muslams, Different gospel from you. So any LDS care to address that verse? Rick b
Ralph, you’re funny. But in all seriousness. Will picking on my sad little analogy get you out of the rest of this mess? Look at all of what’s being said. What will you do, what do you do, with all of it?
I’d never considered before that Lucifer gets to have access to all the planets (thanks liv). That makes him pretty great doesn’t it?
Setfree,
I was not picking on your little analogy, I was just showing you that we start learning at school the milk, which is what you said, 2 plus 2 equals 4, but as we get older we actually learn the meat which is 2 plus 2 can equal anything between minus 4 and plus 4 which contradicts what you said about not learning later that 2 plus 2 can equal something else. So yes, what we learn does change as we get older and more able to understand it. We teach one God because that is all we worship, one God. As a person gets to understand this more and our relationship with Him then they understand the doctrine of the existence of other Gods which we do not worship but which still exist.
David,
Anything other than the Celestial Kingdom is Spiritual Death, which is a form of hell. Living conditions may be better than this life but it will still be hell. I have said that in the past and I stand by it. Without living in the presence of Heavenly Father your eternities will be hell regardless of which degree of glory you attain.
RickB,
Galatians is talking about another gospel to what Jesus and His apostles taught. This I believe is aimed at every other church outside the LDS church (including the LDS offshoots). So you have a different gospel, meaning that you are condemned to an eternity without Heavenly Father. Does that make you feel better now that someone has answered it? The verses are self explanatory so why should we answer your question about what they mean? You have not proven to me that I am in a different gospel than what is found in the Bible – conversely I have not proven to you the same. So why argue those verses when we already are doing something else about it?
Ralph, and I’m saying, you’re missing my point entirely.
If I were Jesus, I’d have given a comparison that didn’t have holes in it.
My point is, saying there is one god “because that’s all we worship” and then saying there are more gods is not meat-before-milk. It’s a lie. A flat out “here’s what you believe and we do too” and then “now that you’re here, this is what we really believe”
The Bible only ever gives room for ONE GOD. Period. In fact, it says in Exodus 6:2
And God (Elohim) spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD (Jehovah).
So, Elohim says “I am Jehovah”. And you’re telling me these are two separate people. How on earth can you keep doing this to yourself?
There is a strange disconnect between the believing Mormons of today and the Mormons of the past. (which is not so strange when you learn what Mormon Authorities are trying to hide).The Mormons of today have been lulled into believing a LIE by their current leaders, while the Saints of the past knew EXACTLY where their leaders stood and what they taught. I am concerned about the way those like janet and others say there is only ‘snippets’ of teachings from former prophets on certain doctrines, and that it NOT the case. Here are some of those teachings, from quotes many of you LURKERS may not be acquainted with. These men met REGULARLY, in the School of the Prophets, in the Tabernacle, Historians Office & other places to discuss doctrine. They wrote down what they were taught, and some Mormons, HONEST HISTORIANS, have published these sources. Here are some quotes to show what was REALLY going on with these men & what they taught:
There was an opposing view in the QO12 under Young: Orson Pratt. He believed that Young was wrong (about God progressing in knowledge among other things) & Young called this ‘worshipping God’s attributes & false doctrine). This debate went on for years, and culminated in 1860 when Pratt basically apologized & shut his mouth. These doctrines revealed by Young were so controversial that they stopped teaching them publically, but not PRIVATELY & all the Twelve had to acknowledge Young as PROPHET and that his views were correct. Let’s take another stroll down memory lane, shall we?
“I attended the Prayer-Circle where I had some interesting teaching from President Young in social conversation which was not reported. The following is a key to some of the principles he advanced. He referred to the preaching of Orson Pratt & Orson Hyde the sabbath before upon the subject of the resurrection.
“He said the identical particles of matter in which we had honored our spirits with, i.e., our tabernacles in which he had suffered, traveled, labored, & built up the kingdom of God, that would be the identical body & no other that would be raised from the grave to immortality & eternal life. Adam & Eve had lived upon another Earth, were immortal when they came here. Adam assisted in forming this earth & agreed to fall when he came here, & he fell that man might be & the opposite principle to good, the devil, the serpent, the evil, was placed upon the earth that man might know the good from the evil, for without an experience in these things man could not know the one from the other. As soon as the devil was on earth he sowed the seeds of death in everything so as soon as they began to eat of the fruit of the earth they received into their system the seeds of mortality & of death so their children were mortal & subject to death, sorrow, pain & wo. Then when they partook of life, joy, ease, & happiness, they would know how to prize it. Father Adam would never cease his labors to redeem his posterity & exalt them to all the glory they were capable of receiving. He did not doubt but that Father Adam knew in the beginning how many of his posterity would receive a Celestial glory & who they were & also a Terrestrial & a Telestial, yet man had his agency to act, choose & refuse good or evil as seemed him good & he would be rewarded according to his works. O. Pratt asks will Adam or any God continue to make worlds, people them, taste of death to redeem them—Answer: I have no doubt but it is his privilege but whether He will do it is a question in my mind. How then can his seed increase to all eternity through the increase of his posterity. Many other remarks were made by the President. (-Journal of Wilford Woodruff, CHO, Ms/f/115; May 6, 1855).
“. . . met with the Regency in the evening. The time was occupied till 10 o’clock writing lessons upon the black board. Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth, and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness & unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways. For when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel & tries to lead the prophet– he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling.” (-Journal of Wilford Woodruff; March 11, 1856.)
“Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation. He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle. Do you not suppose that he was acquainted with his associates who came and helped to make this earth? Yes, they were just as familiar with each other as we are with our children and parents. *** Yet Enoch had to talk with and teach his people during a period of three hundred and sixty years, before he could get them prepared to enter into their rest, and then he obtained power to translate himself and his people, with the region they inhabited, their houses, gardens, fields, cattle, and all their possessions.
“He had learned enough from Adam and his associates to know how to handle the elements, and those who would not listen to his teachings were so wicked that they were fit to be destroyed, and he obtained power to take his portion of the earth and move out a little while, where he remains to this day.” (-JD 3:319-320; Discourse delivered by President Brigham Young in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; April 20, 1856)
I desire to pursue some of the ideas that brother Cummings has just laid before you . . . even to the advancement of the Saints at a “snail gallop.” The items that have been advanced are principles of REAL DOCTRINE, whether you consider them so or not. It is one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation to become acquainted with our Father and our God. The scriptures teach that this is eternal life, to “know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;” this is as much as to say that no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge. You hear a great deal of preaching upon this subject; and when people repent of their sins, they will get together, and pray and exhort each other, and try to get the spirit of revelation, try to have God their Father revealed to them, that they may know Him and become acquainted with Him. (-J. D. 4:215-216; Discourse by President Brigham Young delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; February 8, 1857.)
Orson Pratt’s views were the same on Adam as those in the current position of Authority in the Mormon Church today & here is what Young said about him:
“With all the knowledge and wisdom that are combined in the person of brother Orson Pratt, still he does not yet know enough to keep his foot out of it, but drowns himself in his own philosophy, every time that he undertakes to treat upon principles that he does not understand.
“When he was about to leave here for his present mission, he made a solemn promise that he would not meddle with principles he did not fully understand, but would confine himself to the first principles of the doctrine of salvation, such as were preached by brother Joseph and the Apostles. But the first that we see in his writings, he is dabbling with things that he does not understand; his vain philosophy is no criterion or guide for the Saints in doctrine.” (JD 4:266-267; President Brigham Young, delivered in Great Salt Lake; March 8, 1857.)
Present – Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, Geo. A. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, E. T. Benson, F. D. Richards. Ed. Hunter. T.B. G.D.W. J.A.S. R.B. R.L.C.
B.Y. Bro. O. Pratt, has Bro Benson spoken to you about that for which we have met to night No. Well it is this bro. Orson. Your late sermon had like to got into the paper, I want to get an understanding of your views, and see if we see things aright perhaps if I could see it as you Orson does perhaps its all that I could ask, but if not we want to have the matter talked over and laid before the Conference in a manner that we all see eye to eye
O.P. If I could get rid of those things which have lingered upon my mind & which I have believed it to be true. The Bre[thren] are at liberty to publish anything that they see proper or at conference.
I would like to enumerate items, firstly – preached & publish, that Adam is the fa[ther] of our spirits, & father of Spirit & father of our bodies – When I read the Rev given to Joseph I read directly the opposite – Lord spake to Adam, which w Man eventually became Adam’s
(3 blank lines)
B.Y. Your statements to night, You come out to night & place them as charges, & have as many against me as I have you. One thing I have thought that I might still have omitted. It was Joseph’s doctrine that Adam was God &c When in Luke Johnson’s at O. Hydes the power came upon us, or shock that alarmed the neighborhood.
God comes to earth & eats & partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, & if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it. The Spirit is sent when the mother feels earth, God put it into his mouth, & when God, to translate he had the power. Not a contradictory thing in what I have said
Bro. Pratt had the Spirit of God like as all in Pottawatomie & believed when the Revel was given to us.
Bro Brigham, said could a being in a telestial or terrestrial kingdom keep a celestial law, is it reasonable to expect such a thing.
Orson, it is for you to call the 12 together & do as I have suggested or do as you please. It will be brought before Conference and you will be voted as a false teacher, & your false doctrines discharged. I love your integrity, but your ignorance is as great as any philosophers ought to be.
G.A. Smith moved that these items come before the Conference Most of the 12 wished to have it laid before the 12 & not go before the Conference.
Bro Brigham, wished the Twelve to take hold & pray with Bro. Orson & have a good flow of the Spirit, & it will go off smooth. (Minutes of Meeting, at Historian’s Office; Great Salt Lake City; 7 P.M. April 4, 1860.)
Present Elders O. Hyde, O. Pratt, J. Taylor, W. Woodruff, G.A. Smith, C.C. Rich, F.D. Richards.
O. Hyde . . . To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God, and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine, is to lay the ax at the root of the tree Will He suffer his mouthpiece to go into error? No. He would remove him, and place another there. bro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse, or a House and lot, but in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given thus saith the Lord when it was not so? I cannot find one instance.” 2BContinued
wow, how would it be to have such a license for fiction and preaching it as truth
Ralph said
Yes I have and so have others, you simply refuse to look at the real facts. The Gospel you teach and believe cannot be found in the Bible so you need other scriptures and sources like prophets.
You were talking as an example saying milk before meat is, we worship only one God, Funny how the Bible teaches only ONE GOD, God Himself said, I KNOW OF NO OTHER GODS. Yet if His son is a God, the God the father just lied saying their are no other gods.
Then your precious pearl makes God a liar since in one section God says, I know of no other gods then it goes onto say, I sat in the counsel of the gods an we created the heavens and the earth.
But yet you will ignore this evidence and explain why I really am wrong and this really is not a problem, then you will wonder why I cannot see the clear gospel as you do. Rick b
RickB,
If you had proven to me enough that you were following the true gospel I would not be LDS anymore. But one of the main things that has not been proven to me, is the doctrine of the Trinity being in the Bible. Yes many of you have shown me how you INTERPRET the Bible to come up with the doctrine of the Trinity, but that is your interpretation.
I will repeat what I have said in the past but ammend the words slightly, as I have told Andy – In the Catholic Encyclopedia online it says that there is a growing movement in the Liberal Protestantism movement that acknowledges that the doctrine of the Trinity “is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies.” This (ie that the Trinity doctrine is not found in the NT) is now repeated in many reputable Bible Dictionaries. The Liberal Protestan movement still believes in the Trinity, they just do not acknowledge that it is described in the Bible text.
But after reading the Catholic Encyclopedia about the Trinity, it appears that the doctrine is based mainly on 2 verses in the Bible, Matt 28:20 and John 1:1. There are problems with trying to have these verses describe a Trinity as the first is now being regarded as an inclusion in the Bible and the second only describes 2 beings not 3.
Now you can argue all you want, and try and shove the other scriptures you use down my throat, but I am not convinced that the Trinity is the correct INTERPRETATION of the Bible. So if this ‘core doctrine’ is incorrect, then you would be following a different gospel to what Paul and the other apostles were teaching, wouldn’t you? Then you too would be subject to Galatians 1:8-9, wouldn’t you?
Sorry, that was meant to be Matt 28:19. I gave the web address of a site that gives evidence that it is a possible inclusion to the Bible in the blog “Purging the Church” on Jan 21, 2010. In case you missed and you want to look at it, here it is again.
http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html
It gives links to other sites that say the same thing.
Ralph,
Can we not agree that even though the same word is used, “hell”, that we are talking about two different places? You may consider the terrestrial kingdom to be a hell but it does not even compare to a classical view of hell. It is still a really nice place that has the presence of the Son and the H. Ghost.
Again, even if I am wrong by your church I am still ending up in a heavenly hell instead of a hellish hell.
Ralph,
You mentioned ” milk before meat”. While this
is a true concept,an example of this concept,
Mormon style , is in order. A quick overview:
Latter-day prophets started out with milk, the
worship of 1 God.This grew into the worship of
3 Gods while still proclaiming 1 God. A while
later they began to feed their people meat. It
was proclaimed there actually were countless
Gods being worshipped by men and women on other
planets, Gods who were said to be above the 3 Gods
of this planet. Still later, more meat.A Goddess!
Though said to be a partner and fixed by Her
husband’s side, yet ignored, not worshipped. Then
finally the “filet mignon” is consumed.The very
pinacle of feeble,finite, fallen man’s desire —
becoming an Almighty God, adorned by worshippers
himself.
All the above ” meat” served from end time,latter
day prophets [Matt.24:24-25].
Concerning the Trinity. You seem to love to find
references from liberal churches/preachers who
cast a doubt on this doctrine.Many of these same
sources will have thrown the bodily resurrection
of Jesus as well as the Biblical prohibition of
homosexual behavior ,under the bus as well.
Matt.28:19. One wonders what the real reason is
for you to bring this up again. Does’nt your
church baptize in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost? In the LDS published KJV Bible
on page 618 (Bible dictionary) it says:
” We learn from latter-day revelation WHICH
CONFIRMS THE TEACHING IN THE BIBLE, that the
Aaronic Priesthood has authority to baptize
with water….”
When that baptism is performed is it with the
words of Matt.28:19 ? Then does’nt this confirm
the Biblical record? Compare 3 Nephi 11:25.
Interpretation. This is the heart of the matter,
i.e. have Mormon prophets/apostles been reliable
to interpret the written Word of God? Their inter-
pretations have effected the lives of those in their care, those who’ve believed the promise that they would not be misled.
O. Hyde Who is our Heavenly Father. I would as soon it was Father Adam, or any other good and lawful being. I shall see him some time, if I do right. What do I know about Adam, in the Councils of the Great God before he came here, or his privileges. I dont know.
O. Pratt I do not see how I can mend the matter, one way or the other. I think the brethren are laboring under a wrong impression, in all of my writings on doctrine, I have tried to confine myself within revelation. I do not remember one item that I consider new, many of the exceptions what I made last night, are not in writing. On my subject of pre-existence, I have quoted largely from Genesis and the Book of Abraham, I have give it, how Adam and Eve came here and took bodies of flesh and bones, the doctrine was in the Church when I came into it, and I have always rejoiced in it, in regard to Adam being our Father and our God, I have not published it, altho’ I frankly say, I have no confidence in it, altho advanced by bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards approved by bro. Brigham. . . . One [revelation] says Adam was formed out of the Earth, and the Lord put in his spirit; and another that he came with his body, flesh and bones, thus there are two contrary revelations – in the garden it is said, that a voice said to Adam, in the meridian of time, I will send my only begotten son Jesus Christ. then how can that man and Adam both be the Father of Jesus Christ?
O. Hyde When there is a want of union, it requires us to speak plain, bro. Pratt does not claim any vision or revelation, but keeps within the scope of Joseph’s revelations. The Universalians have their belief, The Presbyterians do the same, they consider they believe they are in the pale of revealed religion. all the Sects do the same, yet how widely they differ, then here comes a man (B.Y.) who says he has a revelation, but it means the sects, if is Antagonistic.
I see no necessity of rejecting Joseph’s revelations, or going to War with the living ones, that is the nearest to us. bro. Pratt is like the Jews, who garnish the sepulchers of the dead, but reject those that were the nearest to them. I do not see any contradiction or opposition between B. Young & J. Smith.
O. Pratt it was the Father of Jesus Christ that was talking to Adam in the garden – B. Young says that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ, both of his Spirit and Body, in his teachings from the stand, bro. Richards publishes in the Pearl of Great Price, that another person would come in the meridian of time, which was Jesus Christ.
O. Hyde David in spirit called Jesus Christ, Lord, how then is he his Son? it would seem a contradiction, I went to Joseph and told him my ideas of the Omnipresence of the Spirit, he said it was very pretty, and it was got up very nice, and is a beautiful doctrine, but it only lacks one thing, I enquired what is it bro Joseph, he replied it is not true.
J. Taylor spoke again “if Christ is the first fruits of them that slept” there must be some discrepancy, he must have resumed his position, having a legitimate claim to a possession some where else, he ought not to be debarred from his rights. the power of God was sufficient to resuscitate Jesus immediately, and also the body of Adam. [Taylor would later write a book on God leaving out Young’s teachings]
O. Pratt I have heard brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits, and he came here with his resurrected body, to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death: that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not sustained by revelation.
E. Snow Is there any revelation saying that the body of Adam should return to the dust of this Earth?
O. Pratt if you bring Adam as a Spirit, and put him into the tabernacle, runs easy with me; another item, I heard brother Young say that Jesus had a body, flesh and bones, before he came, he was born of the Virgin Mary, it was so contrary to every revelation given. (Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in Historian’s upper room; Great Salt Lake City; April 5. 1860 10 a.m.)
“I will give you a few words of doctrine, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Brother Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories.
Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel, because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness–and will. It is one of the most glorious revelations [concerning] the economy of heaven, yet the world hold it [in] derision.
Had I revealed the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me [right now] who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass.” (Brigham Young Papers; Ms/d/1234/Bx 49/fd 8, Church Historical Department. Unpublished discourse of Brigham Young given in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle, October 8th, 1861, in the morning session.)
“. . . we repaired to the prayer room where we had a very interesting meeting. The subject of Orson Pratt came up again concerning his false doctrines. President Kimball wished him to make satisfaction to President Young. But President Young said he did not wish him to make any acknowledgement (sp. acknowledgment) to him. Brother Pratt was strangely constituted, he had acquired a great deal of knowledge upon many things but in other things he was one of the most ignorant men he ever saw in his life. He was full of integrity & would lie down & have his head cut off for me or his religion if necessary but he will never see his error until he goes into the spirit world. Then he will say, Brother Brigham, how foolish I was. Now Brother Pratt thinks that he and all the Gods will be learning for many millions of years but by & by will know all things & all will know it alike & that will be the end of their exaltations & knowledge. He cannot see the folly of forming this opinion here in the flesh & in his ignorance. But a thousand years hence he will see the folly of it. I will hold on to Brother Pratt and all those my Brethren of the Twelve notwithstanding all their sins, folly & weaknesses until I meet with them in my Fathers Kingdom, to part no more because they love God and are full of integrity. Brother Pratt said I do not believe as Brother Brigham & Brother Kimball do in some points of doctrine & they do not wish me to acknowledge to others that I do not believe. Brother Brigham said No, you cannot see the truth in this matter until you get into the spirit world.” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, September 23, 1860.)
“The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the son of ADAM. “(Journal of Heber C. Kimball, 20:17. Deseret News, March 11, 1857.)
Historical Note: Orson Pratt was the President of the Qofthe12 until 1875, when Brigham Young demoted him based on his re-admittance date after he had been disfellowshipped in 1842 by Joseph Smith. This made John Taylor President of the Qofthe12. Pratt would have been the next Prophet after Young had he not done this & this is how Young rewarded him for disagreeing with him. What Young did not foresee was the public rejection of his Adam-God Doctrine by Taylor & others that laid the groundwork for it’s total rejection by the Church in later years. So taken historically, Orson Pratt won out over Brigham Young, [at least publically – but who knows what is taught and believed PRIVATELY by the Mormon Hierarchy these days?]
Gary James Bergera wrote a book about this called ‘Conflict in the Quorum’ and “Regarding sources, Bergera informs readers that much of his research was done in the late 1970s at the LDS Church Historical Department when “policies regarding access to the papers of general church officers were different” (viii). Unable since then to reexamine those sources, he had to rely on his old notes and photocopies. We therefore benefit from such research that is no longer possible, which is a major contribution of this book.” ( http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/conflict.htm)
I find it disheartening that prophets need to lie, and not reveal basic truths that they believe to the members of their own church. This has ever been the policy [starting with Smith] and still goes on to this day. (Look at Hinckley’s examples of ‘dodging’ in his public interviews & the Church Policy now about closing the Church Archives to HONEST SCHOLARS.)
All these teachings were advanced by Young as REVELATION, Young claiming to be ‘the mouthpiece of God’. Again, we have a “prophet” advancing DOCTRINE & NEW REVELATIONS & the Church rejecting them. What does that say about modern-day prophets? What does that say about Mormonism & how much weight they put on the words of their prophets? It is a false religion. Young was no ‘American Moses’, he was a Tyrant & a Dictator & a False Prophet.
This teaching alone (from above):
”He did not doubt but that Father Adam knew in the beginning how many of his posterity would receive a Celestial glory & who they were& also a Terrestrial & a Telestial, yet man had his agency to act, choose & refuse good or evil as seemed him good & he would be rewarded according to his works.”
blows the ‘Book of Life’ argument espoused by genius and others right out of the water. What, does God keep erasing and putting names back in every time we repent? How trivial this makes God seem. If He already Knew, why the whole plan of salvation? Why not the one that Jesus had? Here is Aaron’s argument come to the fore: Why would God give Jesus a better Plan? It shows how much speculation was going on and what ‘speculation’ ultimately became doctrine. It had nothing to do with God, but had everything to do with the ramblings of a DICTATOR.
THE REASON FOR THERE NOT BEING A LOT MORE ON THESE TOPICS IS NOT BECAUSE THE INFO IS NOT THERE, IT IS BECAUSE THE CHURCH REFUSES TO RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY HAVE. They espouse lies upon lies upon lies. And who is the father of all lies???