Mormon apostle Quentin L. Cook spoke Saturday morning (6 October 2012) at General Conference using Alma 5:26 as his text. In this Book of Mormon passage Alma asks those people who have believed in Christ and pledged to follow Him whether they still believe. To those who “have felt to sing the song of redeeming love,” Alma asks, “can ye feel so now?”
Mr. Cook posed this same question to his audience on Saturday and said that if any of them are in a “spiritual drought,” if they are angry, hurt or disillusioned, it is important to find out why they feel this way. He explained that people experiencing spiritual drought have not necessarily been involved in major sins, but have made “unwise choices” that put them in this spiritually dry place.
“Some are casual in their observance of sacred covenants,” he said. “Others spend most of their time giving first class devotion to lesser causes. Some allow intense cultural or political views to weaken their allegiance to the gospel of Jesus Christ.” With renewed emphasis, Mr. Cook continued,
“Some have immersed themselves in internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcomings of early Church leaders. Then they draw incorrect conclusions that can affect testimony.”
But there is a way to get out of this mess. Mr. Cook counseled, “Any who have made these choices can repent and be spiritually renewed.”
I understand the need to repent for failing to honor and keep covenants. As we’ve talked about fairly recently here on Mormon Coffee, vows made to God are not to be taken lightly. Also good advice is the suggestion that people should spend their time more wisely and not be distracted or swayed by the siren call of any given unholy cultural or political view.
Mr. Cook’s final example of an “unwise choice” was not as universally predictable. He suggested that research of the history and character of early Mormon Church leaders results in “spiritual drought” or, in other words, anger, hurt or disillusionment — a crisis of a Mormon’s faith. In order to be “spiritually renewed,” he said, anyone who has dug deeply into early Church history should repent.
This strikes me as odd given that the opening verses of Alma 5 relate the historical narrative of the “fathers” while Alma admonishes the people to “sufficiently retain [this history] in remembrance.” To be fair, a Mormon would find the history recounted in Alma 5 to be faith-promoting, not faith-challenging. Nevertheless, history should never be thought of as a threat to truth.
To compound the spiritual effect of faith-challenging history, Mormonism, as a religious system, calls for members to have faith primarily in the Church and its leaders (as the transmission vehicle of God’s power and will). Therefore, when Mormons learn of the “shortcomings” of early Church leaders, of course their testimonies are affected. They have stood in Fast and Testimony meetings countless times repeating, “I know Joseph Smith was a true prophet. I know this Church is true and is led by a living prophet today.” When they learn that Joseph Smith did not behave like a true prophet, that he fails the biblical tests of a true prophet, that the Mormon Church’s leaders did not (and do not) act as though a holy God is actually leading them, many Mormons find themselves in a crisis of faith. A professed Mormon apostle tells these disillusioned and hurting people that they can receive “spiritual renewal,” but first they must repent of seeking to know the truth.
Will this counsel allay the concerns of Mormons who are questioning the validity of the so-called inspiration of their leaders? Or will it add one more burdensome red flag to a growing collection?
My heart breaks for people who so desperately want to serve God in truth but do not know where to turn. Dear ones, to have an unshakable testimony you must invest your faith in Christ. He has no secrets, no skeletons in His closet. He is always good, always righteous, always true. He will not chastise you for questions, He will not tell you to repent for immersing yourself in seeking His truth. He is an open book, from Genesis to Revelation, and He continually calls to you, “Come unto Me!”
Mike
If you are going to complain about Parkman diverting the conversation to a topic he likes, then why don’t you complain about others doing the same thing?
For instance, the mention of the Adam God theory has no bearing on the subject at hand, and yet it has been introduced yet again.
Also, you again bring up a discussion on the virgin birth.
In all honestly you guys divert the conversation just as much, if not more, than Parkman, and you try to divert it in four or five different directions at the same time. At least he sticks to one.
Falcon
Our works have to mean more than just gratitude, because the judgment we receive in the eternal worlds is based on our works. Never does the Bible say we will be judged according to Christ’s work done for us. It is always that we will be judged according to our works.
Kate
I couldn’t care less that you used to be a member. This has never impressed me, and usually means you know even less than those who never were members.
Your attempt to prove Brigham Young taught that Adam is Heavenly father is just additional proof that you don’t know the doctrine, but have swallowed the lies, exaggerations, and misrepresentation of the world.
(continued)
Let us look at these quotes individually.
“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pg. 51
Now, people want this to mean that he is talking about Adam; after all Adam was in the Garden of Eden. However, God was also in the Garden of Eden, and walked with Adam, and after Adam was driven out God spoke to him from the Garden. So, what is really meant here is not Adam, but the Father, or Elohim.
Also consider this “”Elder Charles C. Rich, of the Council of the Twelve, was not present on the day when President Young gave an address that was wrongly reported as saying Adam was our Father in heaven. (See JD 1:51)… In a copy of the Journal of Discourses Elder Ben E. Rich, son of Elder Charles C. Rich, referred to the misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand corrected the statement to read as follows: ‘Jesus our elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.’ In this same statement Ben E. Rich wrote ‘As corrected above is what Prest. Young said, as testified to me by my father, C. C. Rich.’”
Petersen, Mark E. Adam – Who is He? Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1979. Pages 16-24.”
(continued)
“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later!” Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pg. 51
“…as first man, the father of us all, Adam stands at the head of the human race, and will ever be the representative of his children, before our Father in Heaven, the Father of our spirits. It was in connection with this thought that the oft-quoted statement was made about Adam, that ‘he is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’” Widtsoe, John A. “Evidences and Reconciliations.” Improvement Era. November 1938. Page 652, 690.
Adam is our father, for we are all descended from him. He is also our God, or the patriarch of this Earth, and our head in the counsels of the eternal God. It is with him that we will most often have direct dealings. This does not mean that he is our Heavenly Father, or the father of Christ, except in the sense that he is the father of all people born on this earth.
(continued)
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints In regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me-namely that Adam is our father and God-…’ (Deseret News Weekly, June 18, 1873)
See the previous quote for understanding.
“Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell…. Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.” Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 285, 290
First, let me state that this is a ridiculous reference. Not that Brigham Young did not say this, but that it is trying to attempt to link two comments that are five pages apart, without giving any of the context in between.
However, let us also look at the actually wording of the quote. Does Brigham Young say that Adam and Eve are the parents of our spirits? No, he doesn’t. What he does say is that he will not deny it, but he does not confirm it either. The quote leaves the question open, without answer, and that is it. It proves nothing except that Brigham Young refused to either confirm or deny the idea.
(continued)
“I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 50
Now, I will not say that Brigham Young did not say this. However, I will say that if he did it is not recorded in the first volume of the Journal of Discourses. I have checked, and this quote is nowhere in that volume. So, until a proper reference is given I will not comment on it.
Shem, while I admit that it is difficult to stay on topic consistently , still I find Parkman’s
attempt to divert attention away from whatever the topic happens to be a bit over the top.
When he mentioned “authority” etc the first thing that I thought of was how Mormon
leaders introduced their teaching on the virgin birth to their flock . That said , I’ll try to
remember the point you have raised .
I need to say that the way you responded to Kate concerning her being a ex-Mormon , I found
that to be cold . The last time I read of how your leadership talked about ex-members it was in
a much more decent tone as it was their hope and desire they return .
Shematwater.
First off let me say that I’m not here to impress you or anyone else. As a member I only knew what had been spoon fed to me by a church that encouraged me NOT to read anything that wasn’t church approved. The LDS church is less than honest with it’s history and past doctrines. Everything you said was a HUGE stretch of the imagination. If Brigham Young did not teach as doctrine that Adam is God then why do many other sects of Mormonism still believe it and worship Adam as God today? My own Mother who is a devout LDS Mormon will tell you that she knows Brigham Young preached and taught it. She can’t however, tell you why. Brigham Young spoke plainly and openly and it’s a shame that you and your leaders don’t have the courage or integrity to do the same. Twist and spin all you want but you can’t hide it, it’s there in black and white preserved by your own man/prophet and your own church records.
Mike,
It doesn’t surprise me at all that shematwater responded this way to me. I hit a nerve. He can’t honestly show what his leaders (past and present) teach or have taught. His “opinion” on the Adam/God doctrine doesn’t matter because it’s only one of many and not “official.” He may not care that I am an ex Mormon but I care that he’s still in a false religious system that has no affiliation with the True and Living God of the Bible. Maybe one day he will take a closer look at what is actually written by his prophets and leaders and see it for what it truly is.
“Mr. Cook’s final example of an “unwise choice” was not as universally predictable. He suggested that research of the history and character of early Mormon Church leaders results in “spiritual drought” or, in other words, anger, hurt or disillusionment — a crisis of a Mormon’s faith. In order to be “spiritually renewed,” he said, anyone who has dug deeply into early Church history should repent.”
I don’t think that discussing the Adam/God doctrine is off topic, after all isn’t Brigham Young an early church leader? Does research of history and his character result in “spiritual drought” or in other words, anger, hurt or disillusionment? Does it cause a crisis of faith to some Mormons who had never heard it before? I would bet it would cause a crisis of faith for the missionary that said she had “never heard that before.”
Rick,
No I haven’t really seen shem’s replies, I haven’t been on here for weeks. I think it’s sad that the Journal of Discourses is only reliable and truth if it’s “faith promoting.” Mormons need to take the good with the bad, there is no picking and choosing. I didn’t realize there where so many different sects of Mormonism who all believe different parts of the original until I started really studying Mormonism. We’re never told about that from the LDS church. I did know about the FLDS because some live around here. They of course are looked down upon for their beliefs, the same beliefs that early Mormon prophets taught and LDS once believed and practiced (think polygamy). It’s all so bizarre. Honestly if I were to return to Mormonism I would belong to the Community of Christ because they’re directly affiliated with Joseph Smith’s family who did not follow Brigham Young West. Logically they are the true Mormons.
Kate, I’m sure Shem is’nt the first Mormon that has let his anger for former members
like you be known , and I’m sure he won’t be the last . I tip my hat to you and all those
women who have walked free from a false prophet led organization into the arms of
the Lord Jesus Christ .
Shem , concerning Brigham Young and his heresy of Adam-God : there’s important
points on this to remember: 1. B.Y. testified that it was his duty to see that correct
doctrine is taught and to guard the flock from error , making sure that false doctrine
is not condoned and thus passed down to posterity .
2. recent apostles ( Spencer Kimball, Bruce McConkie) have called the Adam -God
teaching a false doctrine.
3. several Mormon scholars have concluded that based on the evidence B.Y. did
in fact teach the Adam-God doctrine. They do admit that LDS embraced it but not
all. They say that it was not voted on to be church doctrine .
4. B.Y. became frustrated that not everyone would accept his teaching , so he chose
to suspend it until a later time , so he is seen teaching about God/Adam closer to his
former position etc, in short he was somewhat inconsistent .
5. Mormons have offered a variety of alibi’s in an attempt to deny this doctrine.
one of these is that the sermon as recorded in vol.1 of the JofD was wrongly reported
or misquoted . I find that to be not very convincing because this same sermon was
printed again over a year later in the Millennial Star without any indication that it had
been originally recorded wrong .
cont. I’m interested in the reference you cited , apostle Petersen’s book , ” Adam–Who
is He ? You cited the 1979 ed. as stating that elder C.C.Rich was NOT present when
B.Y. preached his sermon as recorded in vol. 1. Yet I notice in the 1976 ed he states
that C.C. Rich was present and that he personally penned in his copy of the J.ofD that
B.Y. was reported incorrectly . Author Chris Vlachos in his book, ” Adam is God? ” goes
into this episode and from what he says there are some very inaccurate statements
made by apostle Petersen concerning Rich .
Bottom line here is that there appears no reliable evidence that B.Y. was misquoted
here.
This whole affair with Brigham Young underscores the dangers of following prophets
who claim to be directed by Jesus to relay His truths to man without testing them
by the Word of God —Gal.1:8 ; Matt 24:11 .
This doctrine BY. claimed God revealed to him led some LDS to actually worship
Adam as they took this new teaching about Adam’s exalted status serious . This
controversy lasted into the 20th century . Peter long ago warned about prophets
who would ” introduce” heresy —2Pt 2: 1. Perhaps one day soon more conscientious
LDS will do the right thing and hold B.Y. accountable for teaching doctrine
that not only caused LDS to worship Adam but tarnish the name of the One True God
above —-Jer 10:10 . Maybe then we can all move on .
““I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 50”
I also cannot find this quote and I did an electronic search of over 2000 books. Please tell us who’s sound bites you are following.
“Brigham Young did in fact teach that Adam is God the Father.”
If you study all of what he said about Adam you will learn that Brigham Young knew the difference between God the Father in Heaven and a god who was the first earthly father of the human race (adam).
He even makes it harder for those who just follow sound bites when he said,
“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.” (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot, 1854-1886], 1: 51.)
” Now, people want this to mean that he is talking about Adam; after all Adam was in the Garden of Eden. However, God was also in the Garden of Eden, and walked with Adam, and after Adam was driven out God spoke to him from the Garden. So, what is really meant here is not Adam, but the Father, or Elohim.”
Since God the Father was also in the Garden from time to time you have to study out the rest to find that Brigham was talking about God and not Adam.
If you want to go beyond sound bites and find out for yourself, both FAIR and mrm have copies of the JOD available for you to study.
I don’t know anything about this quote in question, but I Googled it and found this (for information only):
“but I Googled it and found this”
Are you willinmg to share the link? I would like to see the rest of it.
Sharon, this statement by B.Y. is cited by Melaine Layton’s book on Adam -God . She gives
the reference as : ” Discourses of B.Y. on microfilm , Call #Ms . d 1234 , Church Historian’s
Office , S.L.C. Utah .
Parkman , it’s obvious that Kate’s reference was a typo by her , something any of us might
happen to do . If JofD vol. 1 p. 50-51 was all there was to this doctrine then there would’nt
be as much importance attached to it . Those close to B.Y. and many of his flock embraced
his teachings about Adam -God. But it’s important to note that if you are looking for him
to be consistent in his teachings about God /Adam then you’ll be disappointed. After he
could’nt persuade all his flock to embrace his new revealment about Adam he elected to
suspend it for a later time , he backed off and appeared to teach closer to what he did before his
” revelation ” on Adam etc. But that did’nt stop many from keeping their new belief in Adam
and some of these saw Adam as worthy of worship . This was a behavior that carried into the
20th century . This whole mess was the result of sincere people who were convinced to trust
a prophet and who then embraced a heresy he ” introduced ” to them —compare 2Pt2:1 .
The Mormon people were the victims of a broken trust . Matt 24:11 .
Judged By Our Works?
Our Mormon friend Shem says we will be judged according to our works. I might ask, and for what purpose? It would have been helpful if you would have included some Bible references. Let me help you out a little.
First Corinthians 3:12-15 says:
“Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each man’s work will become evident, for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.”
So what is the “foundation” which Paul writes about? In First Corinthians 3:11 he writes:
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
I could go on for several posts about this but suffice to say this reference is not talking about “salvation”. There are no works that can contribute to our salvation. Only faith in Jesus and His finished work on the cross can save us. We can’t add anything to that. When we live in a manner consistent with our confession of faith we are indeed doing such in gratitude for what Christ did for us because we can’t save ourselves.
In-the-end, any works that we do is to bring honor and glory to Jesus; not to ourselves.
““I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.” – Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 1, p. 50”
I also cannot find this quote and I did an electronic search of over 2000 books. Please tell us who’s sound bites you are following.
Sorry, was in a hurry last night, I quoted this from The Signature Books Library, it can be found in The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, 1852-1854 I will provide a link to the page and you can read the whole sermon given by Brigham Young on 8 October 1854
There was so much material in that sermon that I think reading the whole thing will hopefully clear up the confusion for parkman and shematwater.
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11179
That quoted portion is all there was, Parkman, but you can find the quote at this page: http://www.letusreason.org/LDS11.htm
See, here’s the problem with talking to a Mormon about works and grace.
Mormons are talking about an entirely different religious system that bears no resemblance to Christianity. Mormons are working to become gods just like the millions and billions (they think) of other gods that have gone on before them. They belief that the institutional LDS church has a system by which they will achieve deification. Thus when Mormons talk about “works” they are talking in relation to that (false) religious system.
It’s really a waste of time discussion. The discussion would bear fruit only in regards to a Mormon at the contemplative stage, who is beginning to see the fruitlessness of Mormonism, and wants to have the security of knowing they are saved through Jesus.
Christians “work” to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ after being saved. We are saved by the gift of God i.e. grace through faith. We know we cannot save ourselves. I’ll put my faith in Jesus and not the rubbish of works as Paul referred to it.
“…you can find the quote at this page: …”
thank you
”… wants to have the security of knowing they are saved through Jesus.
Christians “work” to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ after being saved. We are saved by the gift of God i.e. grace through faith. We know we cannot save ourselves.”
Some traditional Christians teach that you cannot even want the faith in Jesus unless God gives it to you. You are then saved by the faith that God gave you because he only saves those He wants to save. After God has saved you, you are only able to do good “works”.
Is that traditional Christian teaching a true teaching from God?
I cannot say I am very surprised that Parkman claims he searched 2000 online books and could not find the quote, Yet Sharon and Kate google it and Boom, it’s as easy as that. I really find it hard to believe Parkman has ever searched out anything other than what he really wants to believe.
“Parkman claims he searched 2000 online books and could not find the quote, Yet Sharon and Kate google it and Boom, it’s as easy as that.”
I said nothing about searching 2000 books on line; I searched through my home library.
“I really find it hard to believe Parkman has ever searched out anything other than what he really wants to believe.”
By starting with a bad interpretation of what I said, you then came to believe something about me that was not true. I wonder how many other beliefs you have are predicated on bad understandings.
“There was so much material in that sermon that I think reading the whole thing will hopefully clear up the confusion for parkman and shematwater. http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=11179 ”
Thank you for pointing out that book, I need to add it to my library. It is more complete then what Sharon “googled”, and it does not have commentary to tell you what the sound bit should mean.
To follow-up on my Mormon vs. Christian view of the role of grace and works.
As I pointed out, the difference rests in the fact that the two aren’t the same religion. Christianity flows from God’s Word the Bible. Mormonism flows from the latest revelation that the current prophet says he received from the Mormon god.
Mormons then take their “revelations” and over-lay them on the Bible trying to get something in the Bible to support the latest and best (revelation). That’s why Mormons say the Biblical text is corrupted and can’t be trusted. The revelations aren’t supported by Scripture so Scripture should be question; as they see it. Besides that, Brigham Young was fond of saying basically that when he preached a sermon it was as good as any written Scripture ever was.
So when Mormons point to the verses in the Bible that reference “works” they scream “Eureka! We found it!” when in reality all they have done is mined the Scriptures to try and find something to support what they want to believe; the latest revelation.
As I mentioned, a discussion on works is a waste of time with a Mormon. It’s like cross-cultural communication.
In Mormonism, “revelation” trumps everything. This is because of the error of thinking that they have a prophet that is speaking today, directly from God. Since there is no “test” except for how it makes someone feel, the false prophet has a blank canvas on which to paint.
It would behoove Mormons to look to God’s Word for the answers rather than use the Bible as a prop whenever it serves them.
“Mormons then take their “revelations” and over-lay them on the Bible trying to get something in the Bible to support the latest and best (revelation).”; “So when Mormons point to the verses in the Bible that reference “works” they scream “Eureka! We found it!” when in reality all they have done is mined the Scriptures to try and find something to support what they want to believe; the latest revelation.”
I see how you do this kind of activity when you try to force the definition of the Trinity into the Bible.
”This sermon given by Brigham Young on October 8th 1854 is a treasure trove of his teaching on the subject of Adam. It really is worth reading.
Yes, this is a good sermon to read. Brigham Young teaches the differences between God the Father, His first-born Son, Jesus the Christ, and the man Adam.
There are many places where God the Father, who created the spirits of all men and woman, speak to both Jesus (Yahovoh) and Adam (Michael), here are two;
“…said He, “Yahovah Michael, see that Eternal Matter on all sides,…”
“Yahovah Michael goes and does as he is told.”
I see how some maybe confused. When you add in the mining of a talk to find what you want it to say, the way Brigham Young jumps around in his talks makes it easy for someone to find something it does not say.
While studying this sermon, I came across ,”You will get it by the President of the Resurrection pertaining to this generation, and that is Joseph Smith Junior.” I looked it up and came across something interesting here at mrm.
Joseph Smith – “President of the Resurrection” http://www.mrm.org/president-resurrection
Your author wants you to believe that we are teaching that “the President of the Resurrection pertaining to this generation” is the same as “resurrection and the life”.
Not so, we teach that Joseph Smith is a helper of Jesus Christ and that Joseph will have responsibility to see over A PART OF THE PEOPLE and THAT HE SERVES UNDER THE DIRECTION AND AUTHORITY FO JESUS CHRIST.
Parkman, I will post in order what was said.
First you said
Then I said
Then Parkman said
Ok Parkman, Call me crazy, but you said electronic search. How can you do a electronic search of your home hard bound books? Do you really expect me to believe you read through 2000 books in a very short time looking for a quote?
If you did not mean electronic search, then you should have said that, But as typical Mormonism, you will back track, and change the meaning of electronic search to mean, you looked through books one at a time.
This goes along with the History issue we are talking about. LDS ignore the evidence of what was said and ignore the history from even a few posts back, and only look to what was said despite the changes.
Rick
Are you truly ignorant of modern technology that you cannot understand what Parkman is saying? He obviously has purchased digital copies of over 2,000 books and has them on his home computer. Thus he can do an electronic search without ever connecting to the internet. That should be rather obvious to anyone who knows what is available out there.
Mike
My comment was a little cold. However, I am tired of people trying to claim greater knowledge, or more accurate knowledge based on them having been a member in the past. That is what I was commenting about. Yes, my frustration did get the better of me, but I have had too many people try to tell me that I can’t know more than them because they used to be a member.
Speaking the idea, it was not a change in doctrine, and I agree that there appear to be inconsistencies in what Brigham Young taught. But it is not that at one time he taught one thing and at another time he taught something else. It is that in the same time period he appears to be teaching two different things.
Now, I thank those who have given a more correct reference to the one quote. As I said, I did not doubt he said it, but was not going to comment on it until it was verified. Now that it is I can say it was familiar, as I have read this sermon before. Let me give another quote from it, near the beginning.
“I will tell you what I believe still further than this; though I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine, and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any trouble about them whatever.”
Clearly Brigham Young never wanted anyone to make a big fuss over this. In fact he opened this sermon with this statement, “I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare.”
I will read this sermon again, as I seem to recall that on more than one occasion Brigham Young declared directly to be speculating, and not teaching actual doctrine. This would again prove that nothing he says in this sermon is important for us, and can be ignored without any danger to our personal welfare.
Shem,
Any wrong teaching about God is a danger to our personal welfare. No one here is saying that everyone followed the Adam/God doctrine. My point is that he preached it and taught it and some did follow him in that teaching. Lots of people died believing Adam is God. The LDS church has officially said that he did in fact teach it and it is a false doctrine. What you are saying is not “official” and if your own church leaders have admitted it, maybe you should too. Rather than go around in circles with you over this I will just say that your church knows he did teach this and they are really the only ones with authority in your religion where this subject is concerned.
I have never claimed to have more knowledge just because I was a member! I was absolutely clueless as a member. After years of hard study I found the truth of Mormonism. After studying the Bible I have also found the True and Living Christ of the Bible. Mormonism and Christianity also have different Christs. I have more knowledge now because I have studied church publications that I didn’t even know existed. I have studied those “not church approved” things as well. I think Mormons have a right to know all history, doctrines, and the character of their leaders past and present. How can they make informed choices without that? How do they even know what they believe and who they worship if they aren’t allowed to see all sides?
Shem said
Shem, How about as falcon said to you in another post, you guys be more clear in what you say?
Before you even replied to me saying this, all I did was read what Parkman said out loud to my wife and said to hear, How do you understand what Parkman said?
She replied with, it sounds like He is saying he Googled it. Then I read what his other reply was, she felt he was not clear in what he said. And before you decided to claim she is ignorant, let me add, she has a bachelors degree in environmental science, and worked for 3M. Then and now she home schools our 3 kids, she has been doing that since they were born, and the oldest is now 14 and in 9th grade.
So it seems someone who is very smart though the same as I did. So no offense, but I think you simply backing a fellow Mormon despite the fact he either is an Idiot since he worded it the way he did, or he really did change his mind.
” How can you do a electronic search of your home hard bound books? Do you really expect me to believe you read through 2000 books in a very short time looking for a quote?”
I said nothing about hard copy books.
I got a PDA when they first came out and I have been adding to my electronic library ever since. The 2000 number only refers to books on religion, I also have many others. I even have a “text to speech” program that reads to me when I am doing other things. It is better than most of what is on TV.
“…you guys be more clear in what you say…”
Much of what I say is edited from mrm. My replies are often delayed in being accepted, it messes up clarity.
“The LDS church has officially said that he did in fact teach it and it is a false doctrine.”
Please provide the complete quote of a Church leader saying what you said he said about Brigham Young teaching the “Adam God Theory”.
A careful reading of the whole of what Brigham Young said will show that he understood that Adam was not God the Father of our spirits. You will see that Adam was the first human father of all the bodies that Heavenly Father’s spirit children have and are using in this life.
Just remember, you are one of the ones that complain about the use of the term “god” to refer to people who are in heaven helping Heavenly Father.
“She replied with, it sounds like He is saying he Googled it. Then I read what his other reply was, she felt he was not clear in what he said.”; “but I think you simply backing a fellow Mormon despite the fact he either is an Idiot since he worded it the way he did, or he really did change his mind.”
I guess it is a matter of background. You and your wife most likely have not taken advantage of adding large number of electronic books to your library, so you do not know what a wonderful addition it can be to a hard copy library. And I am only an idiot because you have not lived in my shoes. ;>)
Parkman. You should be banned for slander and lying.
You cannot chalk your mistake of not being clear up to mrm delaying what you write. If they edit something then clearly note that. Not simply remove it and never say anything. Also they would not remove part of you saying you used online books. That makes no sense.
“Parkman. You should be banned for slander and lying.”
No lies and the “slander”, as you call it, is the same as I learned was ok for you and yours.
Shem, Brigham’s Young’s Adam-God-doctrine was/is no small matter. A Mormon apostle
( McConkie) has taught that it is false doctrine that is severe enough to place one’s salvation
in jeopardy for embracing it . This is interesting since he and some other General Authorities
as well as some BYU professors have admitted that B.Y. did in fact teach this as doctrine
which he personally embraced and as result many of his flock trusted his conviction . It’s
important to note that the exalted position of Adam that B.Y. believed and was revealing as
new spiritual truth to his flock was not his only new revealment about Adam . This whole
issue is an example of why Jesus warned about prophets in the latter days who would claim
to be representing Him but who introduce false teachings that will spiritually injure sincere
people. Today we have been given a way to evaluate anyone claiming to be sent by Jesus
with new spiritual insight about God for His [Jesus ] followers — the words of Jesus’ apostles
in the Bible . Sadly , latter days prophets like Brigham Young chose to run past that Standard
and swerved off into teaching this egregious doctrine about God/Adam .
Let me close my comments by saying that a former LDS named Grindael has personal story
relating to this issue and how he resolved it , he addresses it in detail including what you
posted about B. Y. Grindael [ Johnny] can be reached at Facebook “Mormon and LDS Facts”
or ” Mormonite Musings” ,on MRM’s blogroll.
That’s all I have for now on this thread .
Kate
Please give me a direct quote from an official spokesman of the church where it is declared that Brigham Young taught this. I have a quote for you, and maybe you can listen to it and learn something.
“If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ…”
Smith, Joseph Fielding. “The Adam-God Theory.” Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1. Compiled by Bruce R. McConkie. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1954. Pages 96-106.
This is very true even in the sermon of your last quote. He never once says that Adam is Elohim, but always refers to him as Michael. If we are to be honest about what Brigham Young taught we must remember this point.
Mike
In everything I have read from Brother McConkie and other leaders they have denied the idea that Adam is the God we worship, which is an idea that Brigham Young never taught, as you can see. He said a lot of things, but he never called Adam Elohim.
Rick
I agree that Parkman’s first post is easily seen as a reference to the internet. However, he clarified what he meant in a later post, and all you did was tell him he wasn’t being honest. That is what I was commenting on. Once he clarified that it was not an internet search that he had done it become rather obvious that he was talking about a digital library.
Kate
What I said about your having once been a member was more a comment on your general attitude. No, you never once made a direct claim that since you were a member you know more. However, by your comments it seems clear that you have this attitude. Actually, this very comment shows it quite clearly.
You say “I have more knowledge now because I have studied church publications that I didn’t even know existed.”
By this it seems obvious that you hold the opinion that anyone who is still a member cannot have the same level of knowledge as you. You hold your previous membership up as some kind of evidence that you have a greater knowledge. It is not exactly because you were a member, but because you are no longer a member. It is basically saying “Look at me. I was smart enough to leave, so you should listen to me, as I obviously know more than you; considering you are still a member.”
To people in general:
I have finished reading the sermon that was quoted earlier, and I would like to point out a few additional quotes from it.
Pg 87 “These are my views with regard to the gods, and eternities.”
Brigham Young states directly that he is giving his views, not doctrine.
Pg 90 “You may add these words to it, or let it alone, it is all the same to me”
Brigham Young here states that it doesn’t matter if we agree with him on these points or not.
Pg 97 “I will tell you what I think about it, and as the [Southerners] say I reckon, and as the Yankees say I guess; but I will tell you what I reckon.”
Again Brigham Young makes it clear that he is giving his speculations, and not actual doctrine.
Pg 97 “Adam then was a resurrected being; and I reckon, Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve.
Here we have him saying that the very idea that the original quote given by Kate is his speculation, or his opinion, and is not to be taken as doctrine.
So, this particular sermon proves nothing except that Brigham Young thought on this subject and reached various conclusions. It shows nothing of doctrine, only of speculation, and thus should not be used in an attempt to prove anything in regards to the discussion, and Brigham Young declares that none of it matters.
On the subject of being judged by works, here are a few biblical quotes
Be ye strong … for your work shall be rewarded, 2 Chr. 15:7
Give them according to their deeds, Ps. 28:4 (Rev. 2:23).
renderest to every man according to his work, Ps. 62:12 (Prov. 24:12, 29; Rom. 2:5–11).
God shall bring every work into judgment, Eccl. 12:14
to give every man according to his ways, Jer. 17:10 (Jer. 32:19).
do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly, Micah 6:8
they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, Matt. 5:6
shall reward every man according to his works, Matt. 16:27 (1 Cor. 3:8; Alma 9:27–28; D&C 138:59).
as ye have done it unto one of the least of these … ye have done it unto me, Matt. 25:40
he that doeth truth cometh to the light, John 3:21
If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham, John 8:39
he that … worketh righteousness, is accepted with him, Acts 10:35
doers of the law shall be justified, Rom. 2:13
receive … according to that he hath done, 2 Cor. 5:10
let every man prove his own work, Gal. 6:4
Father … judgeth according to every man’s work, 1 Pet. 1:17 (Rev. 20:12–13).
we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, 1 Jn. 3:22
Relation 22: 12 “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.”
See also Revelation 20: 12-13
Shem, I am not going to keep going on about Adam God either, But he did teach and believe it. read this.
And this
And this
Cont
It becomes pretty clear that President Young just disregarded a verse in the Bible because he felt like it. That Adam was created by God the Father from the dust of this Earth should be clear to anyone who reads the verse, even casually. President Young simply chose not to believe it.
These references show that Brigham Young, taught that not only was Adam God, but that he was also Michael the Archangel, and he called it doctrine and a revelation from God. This is absolutely refuted by the Bible
Another point I’d like to make to you is that though the LDS Church likes to say today that it disagrees completely with the Adam-God-Michael the Archangel doctrine as taught by President Young,
Cont,
but he didn’t have to submit these teachings formally to a Mormon Church membership vote because it was already in Mormon Scriptures. You should check these out:
Both of those verses are reinforced in D&C 138:38 when LDS President Joseph F. Smith wrote:
Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all. (October 3,1918)
From these we learn:
1)That Mormon scripture purports that Adam/Michael is the Ancient of Days and the father referred to by Daniel the prophet in the Bible (see Daniel 7:9, 22 shown below).
2)Mormon scripture purports that Adam is the father of all, the prince of all.
3)Mormon scripture purports that Adam has the title Father – Father Adam (from the 1918 revelation)
Rick
I never denied that Brigham Young taught much of what you say, but you are still not getting the point. It doesn’t matter, and it never will. Brigham Young himself stated this, and I am content to leave it at that, because that is what he himself said. Why should I listen to you make a big fuss about it when the man who actually made the comments never did?
To conclude, you really have no clue as to LDS doctrine if you can actually try to claim that the verses from the Doctrine and Covenants teach that Adam is the God we worship. It is ludicrous in the extreme and once again shows that you do not know our doctrine.
Adam is the Ancient of Days, which refers to the fact that he was the first of all men to live on this earth. Daniel 7:9,22 do not refer to his as the Father, or even a father, but as the Ancient of Days. It is you that interprets this term to mean the Father and not us.
Adam is the Father of all, for all men born on this earth are his descendents. He is the prince of all, as he was the first and the greatest Patriarch of the Human race. Notice that he is not called the King, for that is Christ. Adam is the prince, or the next in authority after Christ.
Adam does have the title of Father, because of the fact that he is the great progenitor of the human race, and thus is the physical father of all the living.
None of this makes him out to be the Heavenly Father that we worship. That is Elohim, the Head of the Gods, and not Michael the Archangel.
To people in general:
Shem , you come up a little short in your effort to downplayed the importance of what
Brigham Young taught about Adam . This teaching was an example of what he felt was
line upon line as he was building on what his mentor ( Joseph Smith) had taught him .
It was serious to him , and many of his flock knew that and accepted it as new spiritual
truth from the “living ” prophet. Let’s look again at your commentary on some of the things
he said:
You said : ” Brigham Young states directly that he is giving his views , not doctrine.”
The fact is that he did state that it was in fact doctrine which he will advance , and concerning
the importance of his “views” in regard to god , he has stated elsewhere that what he believes
about God came from the heavens . Furthermore, the following is said about his mentor :
” At times the inspiration of the Holy Ghost came upon him with such force he knew the
ideas that had entered his mind were of divine origin.” [ What it means to be a L.D.S. , Deseret
Sunday School Union Board 1963, p 254] . We should’nt easily dismiss this belief of Young’s
simply because he said it was his idea , it was still a serious new doctrinal revealment to him .
You also said that B.Y. states that it did’nt matter if anyone agree with him on these things .
Now considering that this new doctrine from the start had troubled some of his flock he
chose to not be overly adamant
cont.
he chose not to be overly adamant at this time (1854) in stressing it , they would come to
understand it later and not to worry themselves about it at this time etc. What he could’nt
afford is a church divided .
Was this teaching only a guess /speculation ? This is a well used excuse utilized by some
Mormons unwilling to admit B.Y. did in fact teach this belief of his as doctrine .
However, the personal witness of those close to him , and many of his flock accepted
this teaching as doctrine ( Mormon apostles, BYU professors, and historians have concluded
he did personally believe and proceeded to teach what is commonly called the Adam-God
doctrine). This was serious to him , it has since been deemed false doctrine by recent Mormon
leaders . Brigham taught , condoned , this heresy . It matters not how many followed him in
accepting his doctrine , one is to many , a false prophet is’nt measured by how large his
flock is .
Lastly, I see how you have attempted to prove your case by using B.Y.’s use of the word
“reckon” to prove that nothing of doctrinal importance was being offered by him.
But this term was more important than you give it credit for in how B.Y. used it elsewhere.
In short, that is rather weak argument. ( similar to how Apostle Petersen once tried to
convince people that parts of B.Y.’s sermon in vol. 1, p 50-51 was’nt recorded accurately ).
Shem, this issue does matter given Jesus’ warning in Matt 24:11 to watch out for prophets
in these latter days who seek to introduce false teachings.
Mike
It only matters to those who have no faith in the truth but are seeking earnestly to tear down the true church. Brigham Young said it did not concern our welfare, and said that we were free to accept or reject it as we chose. So, whether we accept or reject it is of no consequence, and should be left at that.
I am tired of people outside my religion telling me what is important to my faith and what isn’t. You are not of my faith; you do not know what is involved in my faith; so stop telling me what ideas and quotes are important to it and which ones aren’t.
To point out one more time, Brigham Young never once equated Adam with Elohim, the Head of the Gods. This is the God we worship. Adam is Michael, the Archangel, and is the chief ruler of this planet under Christ. Brigham Young did express the opinion that Adam was an exalted being before this earth was made, and that we are his spirit children, as well as his physical children. I have never denied this, and nor will I. But the idea doesn’t matter, and was declared by Brigham Young to be his opinion.
And it is your attempt to make his opinion be more than it is that is weak. He may have believed everything you say, but not everyone who lived at that time would have agreed. In the book American Moses we read how Brigham Young never wrote his sermons before hand, or even used notes. He never prepared, and he always spoke with great conviction. His opinions were strong, but the strength of an opinion should not be used to try