From a sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Taking Hold of God,” delivered October 7, 1877:
In the present age, if any man can talk well, he will get a following whatever he may teach. I am astounded at some professors who can hear this man, today, and that man the next, though the two are diametrically opposed. Surely there is some difference between truth and error. Surely mere cleverness cannot neutralize false doctrine.
Our forefathers discerned between things that differed and when false doctrine came before them they cast it out, notwithstanding the eloquence of its advocate. I do not want you to be bigots. God deliver us from their bitter spirit, but I do want you to be sound Believers. There is a great difference between obstinate bigotry and a decided maintenance of that which we have believed. After all, what is the chaff to the wheat? There is a difference between the doctrines of men and the teachings of the Lord. No lie is of the truth. Garnish it as you may, it is still a lie. Oh to be rooted and grounded and built up in Christ! One of the most desirable things in this fickle age is to see around the minister of Christ a people who know the truth, and feel that the truth binds them fast to their God.
———
“His winnowing fork is in his hand,
and he will clear his threshing floor
and gather his wheat into the barn,
but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Matthew 3:12
Kate,
Excellent point.
Every Mormon sect will say that all of the other Mormon groups are apostate. The FLDS make a good point of accusing the LDS of being apostate when you consider that the (LDS) abandoned the practice of polygamy and run as fast as they can from the Mormon prophet Brigham young and his inspired “revelations”. But in typical sneaky LDS fashion, the LDS have kept polygamy on the books and continue to embrace it as a concept.
Confusion and apostasy are a central feature in the confused world of Mormonism.
“In contrast to the LDS and RLDS, the Temple Lot group have no first presidency, high priests or patriarchs, and no prophet as leader (having 12 “apostles” instead). In common with the RLDS group, they reject the Pearl of Great Price, the doctrines of celestial marriage and eternal progression, and baptism for the dead.”
“Mormons will point to the apparent unity of their church and say it is proof theirs is the one true church. Mormon missionaries will not tell you, however, that the Utah-based LDS church is one of over a hundred mormon sects, or that there are numerous differences in doctrine between the Utah-based LDS group and the next largest group, the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS).”
……..and then:
The Church of Christ is the true Church restored in the last days by Christ himself to prepare the world for His final return.
These guys must be the true restoration because they say so, right?
“Organized by His divine revelation and patterned after the primitive New Testament Christian Church, the Church of Christ possesses true priesthood authority and spiritual gifts given by Christ for the purpose of spreading His Gospel to all “kindreds, nations, tongues and people.”
Our Basic Beliefs
The basic beliefs of the Church of Christ are in an all-knowing, unchangeable, loving God who has a plan for mankind to spend eternity with Him. The plan is available for all mankind and He has provided the directions and requirements of obedience necessary in His Holy Scriptures. He has also given each individual the free will to choose to follow Him and receive His blessings, or to follow their own desires and receive the consequences of their choices.”
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/basicBeliefs.html
They tell us about the history of the Mormon church. An excerpt:
“Some members of the Church were confused because they knew the truth of the Gospel; but confused by the new doctrines introduced by ministers they trusted, that were not found in the Bible or Book of Mormon. These doctrines included the consolidation of power into the hands of one man as “Prophet” (not unlike the Pope) the offices of a High Priest and a First Presidency, the practice of baptism for the dead, the belief in a changeable God and the mysticism of Free Masonry. The name of the Church had even been changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
I love their view of history, especially the history of the Mormon church.
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/about.html
Truth within the Mormon restoration is a very elusive commodity.
We have these Mormons show up here, like Shem, who try to tell us that we don’t know what we’re talking about, that they have the truth, but their truth doesn’t match-up with the truth of the leadership over the years. Quite frequently, their truth of Mormonism doesn’t jive with each others’ truth.
The Salt Lake City bunch appear to be neither fish nor fowl. The entire spectrum of Mormonism is tone confused mangled mess. It’s been said that to try and find the Mormon truth is like attempting to nail Jello to the wall. Mormonism can’t even settle on who God is. That’s about as basic as things get in the world of religion.
How about this group emerging from the LDS fold in Salt Lake City. Seems these Mormons are seeking the “truth” for themselves.
“New Order Mormons are those who no longer believe some (or much) of the dogma or doctrines of the LDS Church, but who want to maintain membership for cultural, social, or even spiritual reasons. New Order Mormons recognize both good and bad in the Church, and have determined that the Church does not have to be perfect in order to remain useful. New Order Mormons seek the middle way to be Mormon.”
…….and then there’s this guy who has a site called “Pure Mormonism”. He’s some where out there, clever and searching for “the truth”. He likes the BoM, Joseph Smith but doesn’t care much for “the church”. GASP!!! Not like THE CHURCH. Get the smelling salts Mable.
My Testimony Of The Church
Spoiler alert! I haven’t got one.
That’s because I’m not supposed to have a testimony of “The Church.” And neither are you.
I have a testimony of the Christ. I also have a testimony of the Book of Mormon, the purpose of which is to lead men to Christ, and in my case that book was instrumental. And I have a testimony that God raised up Joseph Smith as a prophet through which He revealed many important things.
But I don’t have a testimony of “the Church.”
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/
Oh well at least he’s trying to find the Mormon truth I guess.
Problem is, there isn’t Mormon truth. The truth is found in the Bible and in the revelation of Jesus, the true Christ and not the invented Jesus of Mormonism.
Shem,
I am not looking to debate the J.S.T. with you, I am guessing you will claim you know all of this, but in case you dont, or for all lurkers who dont know this I am posting it.
Also I own a copy of the J.S.T of the Bible. I dont believe JS ever completed the J.S.T as you feel he does, and not all LDS do either.
We read Then we read in the JST pg 11
we read in the Preface to the JST it is possibly not complete. LDS over on the Fairlds board will tell you it is not complete. Where are the LDS that feel it is not complete getting there information?
JS claims that the book of Malachi is “correct” yet the angel Moroni quotes it differently. Joseph Smith history 1:36-39. So is the Prophet correct, or the Angel who told JS about the golden plates correct?
This is sad, in the book Evidences and Reconciliations, pg 353-354 we read
So was/is the J.S.T a correction? or a new translation inspired by God?
If as these people and sources are correct, and the JST of the Bible is not complete, then God must be a failure, because not only did he commanded JS to finish the job, but this denies the teaching of 1 Nephi 3:7
Kind of strange, that the BoM claims God will not command you to do something unless He makes it possible for you to do it. But then Commands JS to COMPLETE the JST of the Bible, then allows JS to fail. Even Bruce M claims in the book Mormon Doctrine pg.383 claims the JST is not complete.
Why is it JS simply copied some verses word for word and claimed he correct these verse, when in fact their is not a single change made? below are some examples.
I could go on with a ton more verses, But it even states in the JST on Page 11, Psalms 1-11 and 18-32 are exactly word for word as the KJV? How is this Correct or inspired as JS claims?
Then their are some verses in the JST where their is only one single letter added or on single word changed, and it still works out to saying the same exact thing.
Here is another verse that I simply do not see how it could be “corrected” or “inspired”
Notice that the only change between the verses are simply the movement of the word (MUST). How is this a correction? The JST is so full of stuff like this it is not even funny.
Brigham Young said
I think it is really confusing for BY to say what he did, Knowing that the Bible was “Corrected” by JS from a revelation of God.
Then again, BY on pg 126, goes onto say,
Then many years later we read,
Now, According to A of F number 8, the Bible not translated correctly. If this is true, then can you tell me what part is NOT TRANSLATTED Corectly?
How do you come to the conclusion you did, if you even answerd the question?
Can you give me a list of ten inaccurate translations?
Can you list any errors that are now in the Bible? if so, how did you come to that conclusion?
If God really did tell JS to “correct error” in the Bible, why are you still using a corrput version?
According to D and C 124:89
God says, the JST is His Holy Word. so why all the problems that are both found in the JST and the fact that BY and others (talmage), For one, seem to teach the Bible is Superior, why?
Now here are some things that the Bible teaches.
If the Bible, Gods Holy Word, says this stuff about it, and it is incorrect, then first off, how can I trust anyone, if God allows His word to be corrputed? Then if it really is Gods word, and it is useful for correcting Error, and I cannot trust it, then how can I trust JS. If he really heard from God, to correct error, but had much error himself, both in the JST and the BoM, with the 4,000 plus changes, Who can I trust?
Falcon,
Next we’ll be told that the LDS are the true church because they have more members and more full time missionaries. Maybe this is why the numbers game is so important to the LDS.
Isn’t it interesting how the Churh of Christ practices Mormonism? They are grass roots in my opinion. They still worship the Holy Trinity and what Joseph Smith started out with. This was Mormonism in the beginning.
“Some members of the Church were confused because they knew the truth of the Gospel; but confused by the new doctrines introduced by ministers they trusted, that were not found in the Bible or Book of Mormon. These doctrines included the consolidation of power into the hands of one man as “Prophet” (not unlike the Pope) the offices of a High Priest and a First Presidency, the practice of baptism for the dead, the belief in a changeable God and the mysticism of Free Masonry. The name of the Church had even been changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
This proves my point perfectly. The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith was the “minister they trusted” who revealed all of those things the LDS and others are confused about.
I don’t understand why people choose to be confused by the teachings of men, being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, while Jesus is right there and easily accessible. ALL Mormons need to ditch their prophets and come to the true and living Christ of the Bible.
“Each member of the ministry of the Church of Christ has been called by Divine revelation, and does not receive a salary from the Church, but labors in various occupations to support themselves and their families. For this reason we do not see ourselves as a faction of the original; we are the remnant of that original Church restored by the power, and according to the prophecy of God.”
Isn’t this interesting from The Church of Christ? They see themselves as the remnant, not a faction or as Shem should call it, ” a splinter group.” They even have the original name. Does that mean they are the true Mormons? The true restored church? They have the same problem though, they can’t prove there was a great apostasy. To claim there was is to call Jesus a liar.
I get a kick out of Mormons when they say Christianity is apostate because there are so many different sects. They really need to look into their own backyard. So many different sects of Mormonism…….
Here is how those like Shem feel that they are getting around this. They say that the “church” doesn’t teach those things, because they didn’t vote on it. Their “prophets” taught those things. And who are they? Just some guys with a penchant for opinion. But like all of the rest of the Mormon myths, I’m going to show how ridiculous this is when my post “The Doctrine of Christ” goes up tomorrow. You see, if you simply read the JOD and Conference Reports, etc. these guys let everyone know right there when they were giving their “opinions”. They said so! What modern “apostles” and “prophets” have done is create a false dichotomy — these guys taught opinion and we don’t always know when they did. But that is another dishonesty. They gave very explicit statements about that very thing. But not according to the modern bunch of “seers” and “revelators”. They would rather quote unverified statements (which I show in my upcoming post) — folklore if you will, to try and prove otherwise. In other words, quote something obviously made up, to prove a made up point.
Just imagine you are living in the time right after Christ died and you are a follower of The Way, and you are listening to the Apostle Peter give the church instructions. Do you think that they would have said to the church, ‘Hey, God told me so and so, but this is only my opinion (and therefore not the “truth”) until we vote on it?’ Ridiculous. But that is what the whole idea behind this current relegation of doctrinal teachings like Adam God and the Priesthood Ban etc. to the realm of folklore is, ridiculous. We don’t know where those teachings came from, therefore we are off the hook.
That is how much value that modern Mormonism places on the truth these days.
Rick,
I’m writing up an article now called “Translating Translate“, and it specifically addresses the JST, and how ridiculous the whole idea behind the varied uses of that word is. It is simply pseudepigrapha.
Pseudepigrapha (also Anglicized as “pseudepigraph” or “pseudepigraphs”) are falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed authorship is represented by a separate author; or a work, “whose real author attributed it to a figure of the past.”[1] The word “pseudepigrapha” (from the Greek: ψευδής, pseude, “false” and ἐπιγραφή, epigraphē, “name” or “inscription” or “ascription”; thus when taken together it means “false superscription or title”; see the related epigraphy) is the plural of “pseudepigraphon” (sometimes Latinized as “pseudepigraphum”).
Pseudepigraphy covers the false ascription of names of authors to works, even to authentic works that make no such claim within their text. Thus a widely accepted but an incorrect attribution of authorship may make a completely authentic text pseudepigraphical. Assessing the actual writer of a text locates questions of pseudepigraphical attribution within the discipline of literary criticism. (wiki)
Both the Community of Christ and the Salt Lake Mormons are trying to distance themselves from this monstrosity. This, from Robert J. Matthews, considered the foremost “expert” on the JST,
And of course Matthews shows how the Utah Mormons have tried to confuse people by deceptively continuing Jo’s original deception by labeling it a “Translation”,
It is not a “translation” by any stretch of the imagination, it is a revision, commentary, or pseudepigrapha, since none of it can be verified as actually having come from ancient manuscripts, the main reason for Jo revising the Bible in the first place:
We have Mormons posting here who claim they have the final word on Mormonism i.e. doctrine and practice.
Then we read all sorts of proclamations by various Mormon leaders over the years that contradict what our Mormon posters say is the real deal Mormonism. Even that giant of the Mormon faith, Bruce McConkie had his every word fawned over by the Mormon regulars in his book “Mormon Doctrine”. Now, today, the LDS church won’t even print it! Brigham Young may as well be named the “loser prophet” for all the respect his revelations and teachings receive.
So with so much “opinion” and “folk doctrine” and “folklore” for that matter, and with all manner of Mormon sects roaming about, who thinks they can define Mormonism? Mormonism is what ever anyone wants it to be at any given moment.
Those of us who study Mormon history, doctrine and practice, have as legitimate claim to defining it as anyone else. Mormonism is a mess. Those who put their time, money and energies into it are getting some temporal reward from it much like if they belonged to a fraternal organization or lodge. But in terms of their spiritual destiny, these Mormon folks have much promised to them but a bad ending coming.
Hay Rick and Sharon.
Let’s go to this. Even if we went up for the day. Everyone is welcome it says. Man this would be way cool. We could attend an event held by the real deal Mormons who claim to have the real revelation. I’m on a roll having gone to Nauvoo this summer and visiting all the LDS and CoC stuff. The CoC, BTW, own all the best stuff down there.
These events are open to anyone who wishes to attend.
Below is a list of upcoming events.
Friday, August 30th – Monday, September 2nd
Minnesota Reunion
The 2013 Minnesota Reunion will be held August 30 – September 2, 2013 at the Bemidji local of the Church of Christ in Bemidji, Minnesota. Activities will start on Friday afternoon and end Monday morning.
Has anyone had any contact with this group? We could maybe get some first hand info and post it here on MC.
Falcon,
This sounds like a plan. I work on Friday but can leave around 2pm. I have friends who are a pastor of a church up in Saint cloud, I am asking him if me and my wife can spend the weekend at his house, if so I plan on going to this, So if you are planning on going, and same for you Sharon, if you plan to go please let me know and we can meet up somewhere. I am leaving my kids at home.
Grindael, If your posting the info on the J.S.T AS a topic, I cant wait to see it, if your not posting it, then send me a copy after you are done writing it. I spent some time of my own researching and writing about the J.S.T.
What I posted came from my research and is just a small amount. Thanks.
Kate, Falcon, some of things you mentioned about the claims by Mormon leaders
reminded me on a short journey I made years ago . The statement by Charles Spurgeon
that Sharon cited is also related , he said : ” Surely there is a difference between truth
and error …. our forefathers discerned between things that differed and when false
doctrine came before them they cast it out….”
Few things are more important then being safe from being misled by false doctrine .
Years ago I heard the claims of Mormon leaders to be Jesus’ ” modern day ” apostles ,
the successors to those men through whom He established His church and sent out to
teach about Him and how to receive eternal life . So their claim was very serious.
Therefore I decided to compare apostles , and by doing so it would tell me about these
latter days apostles as they claimed to occupy the same office and fulfill the same duty
( provide safety from false doctrine Eph 4:14 ) as their predecessors in Jesus’ time did .
Since the last of Jesus’ apostles lived to about the end of the first century , I used that
time frame then looked at those men who were mentored and influenced by Joseph
Smith as apostles ( men like B.Y. John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff , Orson Hyde , etc ),
the last of these men lived to about the end of the 19th century , so the comparison
was close enough . One thing that I discovered was some statements from them that
they viewed the Bible as the foundation of their faith , and also they testified that
Jesus’ apostles faithfully fullfilled their duty as apostles . So I appreciated this common ground I shared with Mormon leadership.
Now for some of claims made by Mormon leaders : Joseph Smith and his successors
are the revealers of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and of salvation for these latter days;
that these men would teach gospel truths with no uncertain sound , they would correct
the misconceptions about God/Jesus and mis interpretations of scripture taught by
other churches thereby maintaining purity of doctrine and avoiding confusion and
vacillation . Brigham Young as prophet assured his flock that he would never teach or
condone incorrect doctrine to be passed to his flock by him or those officers he sent
out to teach .
Those are the claims .
Now it needs to be mentioned that these claims ,in and of themselves , are not wrong ,
but they do warrant an evaluation ( testing —1Jn 4:1 ) of the teachings of those who
made these claims , so it’s the teachings by these Mormon leaders that I focused on
and compared them to what the Bible revealed concerning God , Jesus , and how to
receive salvation ( eternal life).
The reason this comparison is crucial was because I was aware of the warnings about
false ( imitation) prophets/apostles that Jesus warned about would arise in the latter
days . By comparing apostles , I made made my decision to anchor my beliefs in the
teachings of those men who Jesus appointed to teach long ago . The Bible is my
written standard , foundation , where I will anchor my beliefs , and the Holy Ghost
has confirmed that I’ve made the right decision .
I hope anyone who is wondering if Mormonism has the truth about Jesus and
salvation , that they take the time and earnestly test the leaders of Mormonism
because not all prophets /apostles are equal . Rev 2:2
Rick B
You said “Christians claim LDS teach works, LDS deny works, but then claim, we must live by and follow all of Gods Commands.”
The church has never denied works, and I don’t know of anyone on this blog that has either. We do deny the false claims that works are the focus of our doctrine, or that the works by themselves can save us, as many people try to claim, but we have never denied the need for them.
You said “So tell me or give me a list of Gods Commands that LDS feel we must follow or live by and do, and if any of these are not found in the Bible, but are from other sources, please state where they are from. Then tell me, do you live by all the ones you listed for me?”
Here is a brief list, all of them from the Bible.
1. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me
2. Thou shalt not make unto the any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain
4. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy
5. Honor thy Father and thy Mother
6. Thou Shalt not kill
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery
8. Thou shalt not steal
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
10. Thou shalt not covet
11. Get baptize by proper authority
12. Receive the Holy Ghost by proper authority
13. Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength
14. Love they neighbor as thyself.
While I struggle with some of these, I know that as of now God has accepted my labors and I am assured salvation in the Celestial Glory.
You said “Also I own a copy of the J.S.T of the Bible. I dont believe JS ever completed the J.S.T as you feel he does, and not all LDS do either.”
I don’t know what publication you have, but the quote you give is not in the one that I have. I have The Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible edited by Thomas A. Wayment. In this publication Mr. Wayment sets the KJV side-by-side with the JST, and only includes those verses that he could verify were changed through an in depth study of the original manuscripts, which he was given access to. It is not an attempt to print the Bible as translated by Joseph Smith, but to reproduce as accurately as possible the work that Joseph Smith did do.
In the introduction of this publication he states “After the work had been declared finished, the prophet did not indicate that he intended to make any more major corrections. The difficulty lies in the fact that the manuscript was never fully prepared for publication.” He later says that “spelling in the manuscripts are not uniform, the chapter headings and system of numbering are not regular, many changes are made inconsistently throughout the manuscripts – such as ‘saith’ being changed to ‘said,’ or ‘ye’ to you’- some points of insertion are unclear, and a few others left unmarked…Also the punctuation employed by the prophet’s scribes is somewhere between modern punctuation and that of the KJV.” This is all to demonstrate that while we can accept that basic work of translation was completed, the work of producing it in publication form was not.
You said “JS claims that the book of Malachi is “correct” yet the angel Moroni quotes it differently. Joseph Smith history 1:36-39. So is the Prophet correct, or the Angel who told JS about the golden plates correct?”
Both; just because Moroni says something in one way does not prove that Malachi said in the exact same words. Malachi wrote to Israel around 400 BC, while Moroni was speaking to an American boy in the 1800’s AD.
You said “So was/is the J.S.T a correction? or a new translation inspired by God?”
It was a translation, which was done through correction. The term translation means to change from one state to another. We use it to refer to those who were taken off the earth without tasting death, saying that they were translated. The Inspired Version changed the Bible from a corrupt state to an incorrupt state, and thus is a translation, though not of the common veriety.
“Kind of strange, that the BoM claims God will not command you to do something unless He makes it possible for you to do it. But then Commands JS to COMPLETE the JST of the Bible, then allows JS to fail.”
There is no contradiction because Joseph Smith completed the task he was commanded to do, the task of translation. The task of publishing was given to a group of men, and to the church as a whole. Even with this the scripture never says they will accomplish the command, only that God will make it possible for them to accomplish it. If you don’t do it the way that God has prepared you will fail, and you can’t blame it on God. God wanted the church, and especially the elders to raise the needed money to complete the publication, and they did not do this.
You said “Why is it JS simply copied some verses word for word and claimed he correct these verse, when in fact there is not a single change made? below are some examples.”
As I noted earlier, I have a volume that reproduces only those changes that can be verified in the actual manuscripts that Joseph Smith dictated, or using the Bible he read from in doing the dictation. Of all your examples none are actually changed made by Joseph Smith himself.
You said “it even states in the JST on Page 11, Psalms 1-11 and 18-32 are exactly word for word as the KJV? How is this Correct or inspired as JS claims?”
It also says that Ruth, Obadiah, Micah, Habakkuk, and many others are word for word from the KJV because Joseph Smith declared that they were already completely correct in their translation. This proves nothing, except that not every word in the Bible needed to be corrected. Some were already correct.
You said “Then there are some verses in the JST where there is only one single letter added or on single word changed, and it still works out to saying the same exact thing.”
Of course, when one edits a book they not only correct the important errors that alter the meaning, but they also correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. They also update the language to the time period in which the editing is taking place. This is common practice, and thus for you to complain about this is to set a double standard. No one ever claimed that the ever single change made by Joseph Smith was a profound doctrinal importance, so stop claiming that this has to be the case.
Falcon
“You my friend don’t even know what Mormonism teaches.”
I know a whole lot more than you, pal, as you continue to demonstrate. I don’t care about your quotes because you have no understanding of what you quoting.
God is self-existent, as are all things. He did not always exist in his current state, but he always existed. Doctrine and Covenants 93: 29 “Man was also in the Beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.” In another place Joseph Smith states that the spirit is uncreated, as God could not create himself. What this means is that the portion of a person that makes them uniquely them has always existed and always will exist. We are all self-existent along with God. It is just that we were taken from that original existence (whatever it was have don’t understand it nor do I really care that much) into another state of existence. Our heavenly Father took us and made us spirit children. Our mortal father than took us and made us physical bodies. In the end God will renew, immortalize and glorify our bodies. But that core essence that makes us who we are is still the same as it always was.
God is transcendent. What does it mean to be transcendent? It means to pass beyond, to exceed or to surpass. To be transcendent means that one has gone beyond, exceeded or surpassed something else. God has gone beyond mortality, he has exceeded the limits of this existed and surpassed anything that we could even imagine while in mortality. He is a man who has transcended mortal life. Just because we have the potential to transcend mortality ourselves does not alter the fact that God has already done so. The real problem here is that you are equating transcendent with being fundamentally different, and that is not what the word means. No we do not believe God to be fundamentally different than us, but we do believe he has transcended us.
Now, I don’t think I ever said that God was always God. I do say that God is eternal, but that is not the same thing. By this I mean that He continues and increases His dominions through the begetting of spirit children, bringing them to exaltation, and then them begetting more spirit children, and so on. He is eternally our God, for there was never a time in our existence that he was not our God and Father, but again, that is not the same thing.
You said “So Shem, that’s just a few.”
Yes, it is just a few examples of your own ignorance as to what our doctrine is.
You said “Thankfully we have a large number of former Mormons who post here and can substantiate, as they often do, that you are speaking out of your hat.”
Of course it doesn’t really matter that these former members don’t really understand much themselves. All that really matters is that they agree and support you and allow you to continue in your delusions. I have met former members that would say the exact same thing I am saying concerning our faith, and would tell you that the ones you listen too don’t really know the doctrine.
You said “Unbelievable, you come here and deny classic Mormonism”
I have never denied the truth, only your lies, exaggerations and inaccuracies. Of course, since you have deluded yourself into believing that your mutilated understanding is the real doctrine you can continue to make these false claims.
“the Adam-god doctrine”
You know, I have discussed this quite a bit, and no one here seems to actually understand anything. But, again, that really doesn’t matter. After all the real point of mentioning this is as an old standby diversion that you can pull out whenever you feel you need a little extra (apparently the more you throw the more likely you are to actually hit something) but ultimately is a pointless comment.
You said “Mormons will deny what their church has taught and believed and declared even when direct quotes are offered.”
I never deny anything that was actually taught or declared, and I never deny what other people may have believed or not. The problem is that it is common practice with you and others here to post a quote and then claim it means something that was never intended. As it is said, you mine quote, but without any real in depth analysis of what you are mining. As a result you frequently try to claim that Iron pyrite is really gold, and refuse to listen to those who actually know otherwise.
You said “We have Mormons posting here who claim they have the final word on Mormonism i.e. doctrine and practice.”
I have never made this claim, and I don’t know of anyone else who has either. The final word rests with the current President of the Church and with no one else. Anyone saying anything differently is either lying or has an inflated sense of his own importance.
You said “Those of us who study Mormon history, doctrine and practice, have as legitimate claim to defining it as anyone else.”
The arrogance of this statement shows clearly that you are the last person anyone should be asking concerning this subject. Especially considering that have stated that the standard works, which are the basis of all doctrine and practice, are the worst source to learn it, and have stated that you have not read them yourself. All your understanding seem to come from faulty, generally antagonistic sources and thus have made you the very worst source for actually learning anything concerning our faith.
Kate
You said “You cannot deny that Mormonism has produced MANY prophets over the last 180 years. Just because one sect no longer believes in a prophet doesn’t mean anything.”
I do not deny that many false prophets have arisen from within the church and have created many problems. This is not unique to us, however, as many false prophets have arisen among all Christian sects. Now more may use the title of prophet who once where of the true faith than before, but that is because we are the only ones that actually acknowledge it as a legitimate title in the modern day. The rest use the titles that are generally accepted by the people they break away from.
The real difference is that it is only in this church that we have true prophets once again on this earth, and there are many. After all, every member of the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve, and the Quorums of the Seventy are sustained as prophets. So we have several hundred alive today, and hundreds more who have lived.
“Just your opinion, they claim you are apostate…Again, just your opinion, they say the same about you.”
It is not just my opinion. These things are denied by the rest of the splinter groups. Something is always dismissed to allow them to accept their beliefs. Some believe that Joseph Smith became a fallen prophet, others believe later men fell. Some deny certain portions of the revelations in order to break away. These things are facts, and not opinion. Now, I will admit that it is largely a matter of faith in accepting that these claims are false and thus proof that the organizations that espouse them are false. But then it is largely a matter of faith that anything of this nature is accepted or rejected, even your own acceptance of Christ.
Old man
You said “the fact remains that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Amos that talks of a Christian apostasy.”
The fact remains that this is a matter of interpretation, not an established fact. I have shown very clearly how I think it should be interpreted. You have presented an alternate interpretation, and I explained the reasons why I reject that. To simply tell me I am wrong only proves my original point that it doesn’t matter what evidence we give because you will always find a reason to reject it.
“The Bible may not make give a ‘direct definition’ of a prophet but it does make it very clear who is NOT speaking for God. That was made clear in my original post to FofF, something you conveniently choose to ignore.”
I didn’t ignore anything. I may not have referenced it directly, but I stated clearly that Joseph Smith did fulfill these requirements, despite your unfounded claims otherwise. I have yet to read a prophecy uttered by Joseph Smith that was not fulfilled in its exactness, and so according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22 he is most certainly a prophet. I have seen many attempts by people to prove otherwise, but I have yet to see anyone who actually presents anything beyond subjective claims.
“It is evident from the manuscripts prepared by the Prophet and his scribes, and also from the statements by the Prophet himself, that he did not correct all of the passages that could be corrected in the Bible. Hence, the new translation is not finished”
Nice quote, but could you give a reference so we can read it in context.
You said “What I find interesting is that God would command Smith to translate the Bible but was not able to keep him alive until it was finished.”
That is because you do not understand the workings of God. God commanded him to translate the Bible, and that he did and he completed. However, God commanded others to assist in the printing. Of course, I have told you this before, and you seem to have conveniently forgotten it. If those who were to assist in printing had remained faithful to that duty it would have been done. They didn’t and thus lost the power of God in completing the task.
The translation was finished but it was not able to be prepared for printing, and thus the work of producing the Translation was not complete.
Shem,
“Something is always dismissed to allow them to accept their beliefs.”
Didn’t your sect dismiss polygamy? Blacks never holding the priesthood until after the second coming of Christ? Adam/God? Isn’t this what your sect did? Dismissed what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young revealed? Tell me again why your prophet is THE true prophet? You can’t. All prophets of Mormonism make the same claim your sect does. They all see your sect as apostate with a false prophet, just as you see theirs. I don’t have this problem anymore, I don’t follow a man, I follow Jesus. Big difference.
As to your comment about many prophets in Christianity, totally different. Prophets in Christianity are not the same as Mormon prophets. Christians worship Jesus not a self proclaimed prophet. There is prophet worship with the LDS, just attend general conference or a college graduation where Thomas Monson is the speaker and you will see it.
Kate
“Didn’t your sect dismiss polygamy?”
No, we just stopped practicing it. It is still taught and is still part of our doctrine. The doctrine and the revelations have never changed.
“Blacks never holding the priesthood until after the second coming of Christ?”
No, because it was understood that they would hold the priesthood at some fruture time, and it was only the opinion of some that that time would come in the Millenium. Actually, it wasn’t even an opinion, but rather a statement that if it did take that long it would matter because time would be provided.
“Adam/God?”
Never a doctrine or scripture and thus being dismissed or not means nothing.
“Isn’t this what your sect did? Dismissed what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young revealed?”
There was never a revelation of Scripture from any prophet that has been dismissed by the church, and you have failed over and over to prove otherwise.
You said “I don’t follow a man, I follow Jesus. Big difference.”
I agree, which is why I have always followed Christ and have never merely followed a man. Of course we both follow men to the extend that we rely on them to reveal the will of Christ to us. You do so in your acceptance of the Bible and what it teaches; I do so with that, all the other scriptures, and the mordern prophets; the principle is the same.
“Christians worship Jesus not a self proclaimed prophet.”
We have never worshiped a prophet of any kind, and your accusations only prove that you don’t understand our faith. We revere the prophets, just as the Israelites revered Moses, or Samuel, or Elijah, and sough them out when seeking to know God’s will.
“There is prophet worship with the LDS, just attend general conference or a college graduation where Thomas Monson is the speaker and you will see it.”
I have attending such meetings (I have missed few General Conferences in my life) and I have never seen anyone worship the prophet. You seem to have tinted glasses on, seeing only what you want to see.
This is ridiculous. It is exactly the opposite of what Critics are saying. It is not because they are “weak” that they are teaching what they teach, it is because of their own vaunted “spiritual qualities”, or their callings as “prohpets, seers, and revelators”. Mormons like Shem want to have this both ways. They say they are prophets, yet only when it is convenient for them to be so. It’s totally ludicrous. Did “human frailty” make Jo Smith invent an angel with a drawn sword to prod him (literally it seems) to practice polygamy? Critics say yes, because he was a sexual predator. That is not a small human weakness, that is a monstrosity. Still Mormons BELIEVE this fantastic story, but won’t believe that Brigham Young taught Adam God.
LIE. It was a doctrine, Brigham Young said so, and so did all of his apostles and the rest of the Church Hierarchy. It may not be classified as a “doctrine” to modern Mormons, but that is what means nothing, because voting on something does not change the truth of something. This argument is totally ridiculous and I’m sick of hearing it, because it is a flat out lie.
Adam God is one. Blood Atonement is another. The United Order is another. Joseph’s revelation to marry the Lamanites is another. John Taylor’s revelation that Polygamy would never be revoked is another, and also the one Woodruff had in 1889. I can go on and on with these.
Another LIE. Brigham Young said that the blacks WOULD NEVER hold the priesthood until every single worthy son of Abel had done so first. It’s even in a First Presidency Statement in 1949. Another doozy from the guy that lives in a bubble of denial.
Shem saying these things doesn’t mean a thing. He has nothing to back up his own words. They are WORTHLESS.
You have never “discussed” it. That would take actually quoting Brigham Young and explaining what he meant. You have only given your opinion about it, which is totally without a basis in reality. It doen’t matter to you, because you choose to ignore it. Go right ahead, but don’t tell intelligent people that we have it wrong. You do. You know absolutely nothing about Adam-god, and only call it a diversion because you have no satisfactory answers for it that will make your Church look like it has anything close to the truth. The pointless comments are your feeble, inadequate and ignorant responses about it.
I DARE you to have a real discussion about it. I GUARANTEE that you won’t. This will prove that you know nothing about it and can’t defend your opinions about it. (Or those you copy from Mormon Apologists who also know nothing about it).
LOL 🙂
shematwater says:
August 17, 2013 at 3:01 pm
Kate
“Didn’t your sect dismiss polygamy?”
“No, we just stopped practicing it.” You just stopped practicing it? Really? Just like that? Why?
“It is still taught…” No. It is not. Not openly in ANY of the three meetings I attended every Sunday for almost 8 months. Polygamy was in fact called an “aberration” and a “mistake” by the missionaries and the Mormon couple who were instructing me as an investigator. Why is the Church still teaching it if everyone just stopped practicing it?
“…and is still part of our doctrine.” Yes it is which is most confusing given their insistence that polygamy was an aberration and a mistake. When I asked why D&C 132 was still a part of Mormon scripture the missionaries and the Mormon couple who were instructing me, fell all over each other in a verbal tap dance without ever giving me anything resembling a plausible answer.
” The doctrine and the revelations have never changed.” They don’t have to when you can abandon them for the sake of convenience or dismiss them as opinion.
So Shem,
Why did LDS “just stop practicing polygamy”? I am most curious as to why the church would “just stop” after Joseph Smith was commanded by a sword-brandishing angel to begin this practice on pain of death.
Where is it being taught? By whom? Please refer me to the current teachings.
If LDS “just stopped” practicing polygamy please explain why the church would still be teaching an abandoned doctrine.
Why after abandoning the practice is it still part of the doctrine?
D&C 132 is a very clearly written doctrine. If it has indeed been abandoned but is still being taught somewhere within the Church, why is this not shared in a forthright manner in response to an investigator’s inquiry? Why don’t your missionaries know this?
Thank you
Shem said
You said all of these are in the Bible, well then give me chapter and verse for these here?
Also you seem to ignore what the Bible says and you believe what you want. Again as I have said many times over and over, The religious leaders came to Jesus, we could simply change it and say, LDS leaders came to Jesus and said
Notice the religious leaders/ LDS leaders and or people claim Works (Plural) They want works, yet Jesus replies with work (Singular) One and Only work is to believe on Him. Why is that so hard? So tell me why I should believe you over Jesus?
Then as if thats not enough, Jesus said
All of the laws and commands of God are summed up and complete in one word, (LOVE).
I dont have to look at all the laws and commands of God and say, am I doing this? Did I keep this? Etc.
If I love God and love my neighbor, I wont want to Lie, cheat, Steal, Covet, Etc. It’s pretty clear to me JS did not know this, because of his polygamy issue. He went after other mens wives, Claiming God told him to at the point of his own death. Yet Why would God say, Dont Covet, and Love you neighbor, But then tell these false prophets to go after other mens wives?
Jayjay
First of all, let me say that I am sorry for your experience. If they acted like this and said these things they were wrong and probably need to be corrected by their mission president.
However, a single set of missionaries and one couple is hardly proof that the church doesn’t teach the doctrine. It is only proof that these individuals are uncomfortable with it and try to make excuses for something they personally have difficulty accepting.
As to where it is taught, at the very end of Lesson 31 in the Doctrine and Covenants Teachers manual for Sunday School it gives the simplest and best explanation of the doctrine I know of. You can read it here http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-sealed—for-time-and-for-all-eternity?lang=eng. It does point out that the lesson is not focused on this aspect of marriage, but does allow for members or investigators to ask concerning it.
Then, in the Book of Mormon Teacher’s Manual for Sunday School, lesson 12, we read an explanation of the reference to Plural Marriage in Jacob, and in this lesson we read why the practice was dropped. Read it here http://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-12-seek-ye-for-the-kingdom-of-god?lang=eng, at the end of the lesson.
Now, if you want a slightly more in depth explanation, read here http://www.lds.org/topics/polygamy-plural-marriage?lang=eng. This is from http://www.lds.org and gives a brief history of the practice.
Now, in my experience it is up to the teacher in any given ward and class to choose to address this topic, and many don’t. However, many do, and I have always been very willing to discuss it in any forum, as long as the one I am discussing with is actually willing to hear what I say. I do agree that many members seem to shun the subject and even choose to believe that it was not really doctrine. This is their choice, but it is not the position of the church.
Q. Why did LDS “just stop practicing polygamy”?
God commanded us to stop practicing it. It is that simple. The practice has always been one that is closely regulated and one that God has reserved to right to command and repeal and he sees fit. It was never a basic requirement of the gospel. It was only required when God commanded it, and when he did not it became a grievous sin to practice it.
Q. If LDS “just stopped” practicing polygamy please explain why the church would still be teaching an abandoned doctrine.
The doctrine was never abandon. The practice stopped, but the doctrine is still very much a part of the gospel and always will be. One must understand the difference between a doctrine and practice.
Q. Why after abandoning the practice is it still part of the doctrine?
Because a practice does not define the doctrine. It is the doctrine that defines the practice. Before the time of Christ people practiced the sacrificing of animals. This was ended after Christ’s atonement, but the doctrine of Sacrifice was never abandoned or changed. We simply changed the practice that was based on that doctrine. The same thing is true here.
Q. why is this not shared in a forthright manner in response to an investigator’s inquiry?
It should be, but that is the choice of the individual who is sharing the gospel. The average member may not feel comfortable with the subject, and thus will try to avoid any actual discuss of it. I think this is sad and can be damaging to others, but it is not a reflection of the church. I know some members who refuse to accept that it really is a doctrine, and they need to deal with that. I would simply suggest that one asks others and keeps asking until they find someone who is willing to discuss the subject with them.
Q. Why don’t your missionaries know this?
Many do know this and will talk about it if asked. However, many were raised by the members that are uncomfortable with the doctrine, and some have been taught by their parents that it is an aberration. Since it is no longer practice the doctrine is not a focus of our lives and thus is not a focus of our lessons. Because of this many people in the church don’t learn as much as they should. Yes, this is a fault among the members and local leadership, and I agree it needs to be addressed. But it doesn’t mean it is not the doctrine of the church.
Rick
The problem with everything you are saying is that you are not actually thinking about the implications of the words. Analyze their meaning and you will see things much clearer.
“This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.”
If you believe Christ then you will follow his teachings. I believe in Christ, so when he tells me to be baptized if I want to be saved, I am going to be baptized. When he tells me not to lie or covet, I am going to avoid these things because I believe him.
I am reminded of a story I once heard. A man was going out hunting, and as he was purchasing his supplies he happened to meet a famous hunter who was known for always catching what he was after. They began talking and the man asked the hunter what his secret was. The hunter explained the various methods and techniques that he had learned to the man and when they parted wished him luck. At the end of the hunting season the Hunter again met the man and asked him how he had done. The man told him that he had not caught anything. The Hunter than asked him “Did you not follow my advice?” The man said no, and when asked why he stated “I found a better way.”
You see, when Christ told the Pharisees that the work of God was believe on the one that God sent, this is what he was talking about. He was telling them to listen and hearken to his teachings. Yes this is a singular use of the word work, but that is meaningless, because the work encompasses a great deal.
Now, speaking of love, I would agree with Christ that all things hinge on love. And what else does Christ say? “If ye love me keep my commandments.” (John 14: 15) Love sums it up because if we love God we will do nothing to offend him but will seek to obey all his commands. If we love our neighbor as our self we will always seek his good and never intentionally do anything to harm him. So, again, all the other commands are summed up in these two, because they detail what is best and how we should act towards God and man in order to avoid offending or harming them.
John 3: 5 “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Born of Water: baptism by immersion; Born of Spirit: receiving the Holy Ghost. Both required to be saved.
Hebrews 5: 4 “And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”
One must have the proper authority to perform anything in the name of God that will have any binding affect.
Now, I know you will argue the point, and I am not going to oblige on this thread. You asked for a list, and I have provided it. You can no longer say that no one has ever answer your demand on this point, and I am going to leave it there.
Shem, You basically said, you wont debate this with me, you wont and cannot, and you did not answer me. You just make stuff up like your false prophet did.
You said
The Bible does not say this, you need to seriously torture the scriptures to make it say this. I can and have already shown you many times over, Verse after verse where it clearly says, Jesus did NOT BAPTIZE anyone. The apostle Paul said, all we must do to be saved is believe, he does not say, Believe and be baptized. Paul also says, I did not come to baptize, and dont even remember how many I did, if even at all.
The verse you gave does not have Jesus even saying, you MUST BE BAPTIZED. You said
Show me one single verse where Jesus very clearly and plainly says, I tell you, you must be baptized in order to be saved. It is not their and you simply cannot show it. You must give a verse like you did and then claim, thats what it means. We were all born of women, and women have their water break, we are born of water through birth. You simply believe what you want, sadly the end will be eternal death.
Rick
Only a fool thinks he knows the mind and ability of another. I won’t because it becomes and endless debate as you have proven over and over again that you refuse to listen to anything I say. I have talked about this very subject in the past on this cite. No, I am not going to search through every single thread in the past year to find where it was. I remember doing it, and I have done so more than once. Yet you keep bringing it back up over and over, proving that you are ignoring me.
Here are a few more scriptures for you.
Mark 16:16
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Notice that faith and baptism are required for salvation.
Luke 7:30
“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.”
When we refuse baptism we are denying the counsels of God.
Acts 2:38
“Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
When asked what to do Peter told the people to be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost, making no mention of Fatih.
Acts 10:48
“And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”
Peter commanded the gentiles to be baptized in the name of Christ.
Acts 22:16
“And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Ananias commanded Saul (Paul) to be baptized that his sins might be washed away.
Titus 3:5
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost”
It is through the washing (baptism) that we receive the regeneration and are renewed through the Holy Ghost.
Of course I also note that you actually never explain what John 3: 5 actually means; all you bother to do is to tell us that it doesn’t mean what I say, and that means very little.
Also, it really doesn’t matter if Christ went personally to baptize anyone, although the Bible never once says he didn’t. It doesn’t say he did, but that is hardly proof of anything.
As to Paul, I notice you give no reference, but it doesn’t really matter. He never says he didn’t baptize anyone, only that the focus of his ministry was not on the performing of the ordinance, which he left to others.
All you have, and all you have ever had, if your claim that I am wrong with nothing better to offer as to what is right.
Shem,
I have to comment on your point about practices v. doctrine. When the practice is stopped, the doctrine gets pushed to the back burner, so I hear you say.
Is it not, then, possible, that other sayings that were once considered doctrine be pushed to the background, too? I know you say Adam/God was not doctrine, but Young’s words are very much certain that Adam/God is truth.
And in our discussion, you say that Adam is the god of this world in the sense that he will have some part in determining our destinies or organizing where we go. I am still not sure what you mean by all of that, but isn’t the very admission that Adam is the god of this world an admission that Young’s points are doctrine?
Now, if practices dilute doctrine, which is what you essentially say, how does your church keep doctrine strong when a practice disappears? This seems terribly problematic, doesn’t it?
MJP,
It is very problematic. Go read Brian C. Hales response to the polygamy thread (about him) to see this very thing in action. (his comment is very near the end)
I have to step in here, because Shem is wrong. There is a mention of Faith. You just didn’t read far enough… Now, read what Peter said:
Who would accept the message? ONLY THOSE WHO HAD FAITH, because Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. ~Romans 10:17) which Peter preached to them in the whole part of the chapter that Shem never references.
Context is devastating to these arguments, and quoting stand alone scriptures is disingenuous. That is why Shem will never understand John 3:5, because he never reads it in context.
Few love to hear the sins they love to act. ~William Shakespeare
MJP
I am not sure the best way to explain Adam’s role to those who do not have a firm understanding of more basic aspects of the doctrine of the church. I have tried, but I find that what I say is usually inadequate. I will attempt it again, as it is something that I feel needs to be clarified. In order to do this I will compare the economy of heaven to that of the Church.
In the church the First Presidency are the governing body over all the Earth, and the President is known as the President of the Melchezidek Priesthood.
The church is then divided into stakes, with each stake being Presided over by a Stake President. In each stake the Stake President is the President of the Melchezidek Priesthood, and it is under his direction that almost everything is handled. He has authority given him from the First Presidency to convene church courts for the purpose of transgression among the members. He has authority to govern and direct the work of the lesser offices that are placed under him (like bishops, Elder’s quorums, and the like). In general, it will be to the Stake President that the greater matters of the church are brought and he will decide them. It is through his authority that we are granted a temple recommend, or that we are able to serve missions, or that any man is ordained to the Melchezidek Priesthood, and so on. Now, if we disagree with his direction, or feel he has acted wrongly, we have the right to appeal the case to the First Presidency, and they have the authority to override any dicission made by the Stake President.
So, when you are thinking of the Economy of Heaven place it in parallel to this. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are like the First Presidency, ruling over all the worlds that the Father and Son have created. Adam acts as a kind of Stake President over this one Earth, having all the authority to direct and govern the work of this world. Now, you will note that in the church we use the same term for the First Presidency as we do for the Stake Presidency; calling all members of either quorum President. Following this tradition, Brigham Young used the same title for Adam that is used for the Godhead, calling him our God. He meant nothing more than that he is the President of this Earth, acting under the Authority of the Father and the Son which they have given him.
Speaking of Practices and Doctrine, first of all, a practice does not dilute a doctrine. A practice emphasizes and brings a doctrine to our attention and thoughts. This was the reason why there were so many different kinds of sacrifice under the Law of Moses; the people needed a lot of reminding.
Now, it is true that some doctrines are not as vital to us as others, and so when there is no practice directly associated with them it tends to result in them dropping out of focus. Speaking of Adam and the Fall, the doctrine surrounding that is brought into sharp focus in the Temple (and I will say no more on that subject). The Atonement of Christ is brought into sharp focus through the Sacrement, as well as through Baptism. Families are brought into focus through marriage and family home evening. These are all doctrines that are essential for our salvation. There are others that, at the current time, are not essential. They include plural marriage, blood atonement, and others. We have no practice bringing these doctrines into focus because they are not as important as others. I still think we should learn them, yes, but not until those doctrines that are essential are understood, which is why the lessons are designed the way they are. It does not mean the doctrine is any less true than it was, or that the church does not still believe and teach it as doctrine. It means that there are more important things to be talking about so let us focus on those things first.
Shem,
Not buying it. Either point. Adam is back to word games. Practice and doctrine not meshing is indeed a problem. If something is doctrine, it is held to the highest importance, even if there are some doctrines more important. All doctrine is a truth of a church, and should not be pushed aside– especially one that carries threats of god’s anger as does polygamy.
Shem, have you ever considered the mental gymnastics you must do to reach the conclusions you make? Young was clear in his comments, and they have nothing to do with comparing the hierarchical structure.
(And, by the way, this answer concerning Adam is very different from what you explained previously. Earlier, you stated that Adam was indeed a god– our god, specifically, not the real God. When I asked since he is our god, what use do we have of the Father and Christ, not to mention the Ghost, you responded his role is limited to somehow organizing us in the afterlife. That he is now somehow a stake president, or president of this earth, is a very different answer. If that’s what you meant before, why didn’t you say that? And does being a stake president mean that someone is already a god, like Adam? And if Adam is the president of earth, why are his roles only limited to end times?
All of that, by the way is not what Young said. In fact, Young was very clear that Adam was our God, and that everyone would someday understand. The use of ‘our’ does not change that Young meant Adam was God with godly powers and control over us. A plain reading of Young’s comment is clear on that. The words that “he’s the only one with whom we have to do” makes this clear. His later comments that Adam hold the keys to our eternal destiny is telling, and that Adam is his father and his god. Then there are hymns about him, too.
All in all, Shem, it is clear that Young thought much more highly of Adam than what you present.)
I’ll leave with this point: as with polygamy and practices and doctrines being diluted when practices are not continued, it is entirely possible that this is what has happened with the Adam/God doctrine. You can’t make it go away but you can dilute it since its not something that is now very important to your faith. I believe that is what has happened.
I know this topic is not about Adam God, But I also am sick of these word games Shem plays, So for all you lurkers out their, I will post the entire Adam God speech and then later share some thoughts, then you decide if Shem is being honest or Not.
ADAM/GOD
My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner. One thing has remained a mystery in this kingdom up to this day. It is in regard to the character of the well-beloved Son of God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views. Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle, or, in other words, He has a body, with parts the same as you and I have; and is capable of showing forth His works to organized beings, as, for instance, in the world in which we live, it is the result of the knowledge and infinite wisdom that dwell in His organized body. His son Jesus Christ has become a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, and may properly be called God’s minister to execute His will in immensity; being called to govern by His influence and power; but He is not a person of tabernacle as we are, and as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ are. The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct, then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
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. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and overrighteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.
It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!” What a learned idea! 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.
I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. I will repeat a little anecdote. I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this subject, when I replied, to this idea—“if the Son was begotten by the Holy Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties.”
Treasure up these things in your hearts. In the Bible, you have read the things I have told you tonight; but you have not known what you did read. I have told you no more than you are conversant with; but what do the people in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know about this subject? Comparatively nothing.
Lets start with the fact that BY calls it a sermon, sermons are teachings. Why would a “prophet” Of God teach His opinion? And not say that it was simply his opinion, but call it a doctrine?
Why would he claim it has remained a mystery to this day? But then teach as if he is clearing up this mystery for us? Notice BY clearly says
He is our father and OUR GOD, and the ONLY GOD with whom we have to do. How can BY say that, and then Shem come along and say, Thats not what he meant and we dont know what he meant.
He goes onto say, Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. It really does not get any clearer than that.
BY later says
So BY claims to have told us the truth, and shem says, it is wrong. Who do I believe? A so called prophet of God, or a guy that does not agree with his own prophet?
BY goes onto call Adam our God by saying this
The same character that was in the garden? And he is our farther, that same character was Adam, so Adam is our father in heaven, and our father in heaven is God, is it not?
Now Shem claim BY never taught or said Adam/God was Doctrine, yet BY could not be any more clear in saying that right here,
So now let Shem come and play all the word games he wants, people can read the full context and see for themselves that me and Grindael are not lying and we have not taken things out of context.
MJP
Nothing I have said now in anyway contradicts what I said in the past. The only direct references we have in the scriptures regarding Adam, or Michael, are in reference to the role he will play in the last days. That does not mean that this is the limit of his authority. He holds the keys of salvation, and no Spirit or angel ministers on the Earth without his direction. He works under the direction of the Godhead, just as a Stake President works under the direction of the First Presidency. However, it is through him that all these things happen, as he directs the work of salvation for all people on this earth, with the exception of Christ, who is over Michael. Thus he is the only one with which we will have direct dealings, just as we deal directly with our Stake President and not the First Presidency.
When Gabrial appeared to Mary and Joseph it was through the direction of Michael. When Elijah and Moses appeared to Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration, it was through the direction of Michael. When John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John appeared to Joseph Smith; when Moroni, Elijah, Moses, and all the others who ever appeared to anyone at anytime, it was through the direction of Michael; for he is the prince of this Earth, the Archangel, the Ancient of Day. He is now a god, glorified in heaven at the right hand of Christ. The reason he plays such an important part in the events of the last days is because of this authority he has been granted.
As to doctrine, just because it is doctrine and true does not mean it is necessary for us to learn it in depth. Our doctrine imbraces all truth, no matter the source. One might call the laws of physics to be the doctrine of the church, as they are a truth; yet we do not study physics in our meetings because understanding it will have no effect on our salvation. Plural marriage is a true doctrine and part of the laws of Heaven. However, right now the only thing we need to understand is that God forbids it at the current time. Beyond this there is no need to understand it, because our eternal salvation is not affected one way or the other.
Rick
If you care to actually use your brain a little you will notice a few things.
First, Brigham Young stated this:
“It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
Thus the closest comparison you can make is that he taught that Adam was the Holy Ghost.
Second, you are basing all your claims on a single sentence in which Brigham Young states:
“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.”
Who was in the garden. It is true that Adam was, but there were others as well. Of course there was Eve, but I think we can both agree that Brigham Young was not refering to her when he talked of our Father in Heaven. However, the Bible also clearly states that God the Father was in the Garden, and walked with Adam. He calls to him after Adam ate the fruit.
Then, in the Book of Moses we are told that “And Adam and Eve, his wife, called upon the name of the Lord, and they heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them, and they saw him not; for they were shut out from his cpresence.” (Moses 5: 4) This would indicate that God was still in the Garden, and that he was in the Garden when Adam was there, for Adam had been in his presence.
So, while Brigham Young does say that the Father of Christ was the figure in the Garden, he does not clarify which figure. He does, however, clearly show that he never equated Adam with Elohim, or the God the Father, and thus we can conclude that his intention in this statement was to refer to God the Father, and not to Adam, thus declaring that the Father of Christ was none other than God the Father, who was in the Garden with Adam, and is our Father in Heaven.
Another thing that people need to remember is that this sermon is not about Adam, but about the Father. Keep it in context.
I agree that this is true, and I think that everything that Brigham Young taught in this sermon is true, but it does not contradict what I have said in the least.
As to Rick and Grindael and their tactics, they have shown they are willing to misrepresent sections of quotes and ignore others in order to try and present things in the way they want them to be. Thile this is not ourright lying it is dishonest. If they were honest they would have pointed out that Brigham Young does not, nor has he ever equate Adam with the Elohim, who is our Father in Heaven. Instead they conveniently ignore this part of the quote so that they can claim a false meaning for the rest.
Shem,
If Adam/Michael is the only one we have direct dealing with, I’m back to the question of how that plays in our role with God. Is God some distant being who only watches from afar? Or does God directly deal with us? Didn’t God speak to Smith directly? If God deals with us directly, then the statement that Adam is the only one we deal with is inaccurate.
Sorry, but something is off with your description.
As to doctrine, I’m afraid if you are willing to let certain doctrine pass as unimportant then there’s not really much to discuss. I find it terribly problematic. You don’t.
Shem said
Shem, Your the lying, ignorant person. I gave the entrie speech, so their was no hiding anything. Again, it is lose, lose with you. If we quoted simply a verse or two, you would cry and say, were not giving enough info and leaving things out to make it say what we want. But if we give the entire thing, then you cry we are mining quotes and we do not address enough of it. It is their for all to read.
You also said
So your implying or saying, BY never clealry stated, Adam is our God. Well you know as well as I do, your now lying, I say that because your leaders have stated over and over, Adam God teaching is false and wrong. They were not and are not simply speaking to people like Me and Grindael, they are speaking to other LDS. Bruce Mc even wrote at leangth and said it was a false Doctrine. Many LDS from BY day till know have believed it to be Doctrine. Mabye not many, but even one person that is LDS and believes it, is still one LDS who feels he also said what he meant and meant what he said.
You said your church doesn’t teach the Adam/God doctrine. I’m willing to concede that the church may not teach or admit to this position publicly, but based on the following quotes from Brigham Young himself, how can you believe that the LDS church doesn’t hold to that teaching.
Brigham Young is the man next to Joseph Smith that every Mormon looks to. I mean, they named a college after him. He’s quoted every day by Mormons. Books for Mormon teaching are filled with his advice and instruction. Will you take any of that advice from a guy who holds to this Adam/ God doctrine? He sure held to it.
He called it, “one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven.” Brigham Young taught it publicly as fact. If you don’t believe me, read your own copies of these publications. Stop ignoring facts. Look them up for yourself. Read the entire context.
These are some quotes from “Journal of Discourses,” and some other LDS sources.
How much unbelief exists in the minds of 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…Then he said, “I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful. I received my crown and exaltation…I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle…” (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873, page 308; Deseret Evening News, June 14, 1873.)
Who was the Savior begotten by?….Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days.
(Pres. B. Young, Feb. 19, 1854; Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives; Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 179 in chronological order, Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11
Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God…It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven… (President Brigham Young, in the Tabernacle, General Conference, October 8, 1861, 10:30 a.m.; Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864, Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 in chronological order, Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8)
[In this next verse Shem- 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.]
You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding…I do not believe that portion of the Bible…. (Pres. Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, Journal Of Discourses 2:6).
*******
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.” (President Brigham Young, April 20, 1856, Journal of Discourses 3:319).
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. (Brigham Young, April 9, 1852. Journal of Discourses 1:50)
These references show that Brigham Young, show clearly that President 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.
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, 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:
And also with Michael or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days. (D&C 27:11, August 1830) Joseph Smith
Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet. (D&C 116, May 19, 1838)Joseph Smith
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)
From Daniel 7:9, 13, 14, 22 we find:
9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
22 Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
From these and the Doctrine and Covenants references we have:
a. From Daniel 7:9:The Mormon scriptures purport that Father Adam has a throne.
b. From Daniel 7:13-14: The Mormon scriptures purport that The “Son of Man,”–Jesus Christ , will come to and will be brought before “Father Adam” and “Father Adam” will give Jesus Christ dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him. Only God the Father would have the authority to have Jesus Christ brought before him, and this means that LDS scriptures disagree sharply. The Mormon church says it rejects this doctrine, but it’s weird that Mormon scripture doesn’t.
*******President Brigham Young chose not to believe Genesis 2:7, simply because he didn’t want to. This is common among people who have little use or respect for the Bible. It didn’t serve his purposes Matt. But the Bible doesn’t serve our purposes—we serve the Bible’s purposes because they are the purposes of God the Father and our Lord Jesus the Messiah. You can’t pick and choose from the Bible–it is final in all matters of truth and doctrine. You believe it is the pure Word of God or you don’t. It’s that simple.
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:20)
1. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” 1 Timothy 2:5
2. “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Isaiah 43:10
3. “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God …Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.” Isaiah 44:6, 8
4. “Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;” Isaiah 44:24
5. “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else…Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.” Isaiah 45:5-6, 21
6 “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,” Hebrews 6:13
7. “Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.” Nehemiah 9:6
8. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” Colossians 1:16
9. “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;” Hebrews 1:2
10. “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psalms 90:2
11. “Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.” Psalms 93:2
12. “But the mercy of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting …..” Psalms 103:17
13. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24
14. “Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” Luke 24:39
15. “And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Genesis 17:1
16. “Unto thee it was showed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.” Deuteronomy 4:35
17. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:” Deuteronomy 6:4
18. “Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.” Deuteronomy 4:39
19. “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;” Deuteronomy 7:9
20. “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.” Exodus 6:3
Using your brain isn’t your strong suit, Shem. Brigham Young also explained what he meant by “Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael. But that would probably be too much to ask for, for you to do a little research before you go and make a fool out of yourself.
On January 5, 1852 Young gave a speech on slavery and said,
Young here is speaking of the grandfather god, Elohim. Young taught that there were three gods over mankind. The first was Elohim, the second Yahovah and the third, our direct god, was Michael/Adam. To illustrate this point, Young at the School of the Prophets taught, “Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam.” (Joseph F. Smith Journal, entry for June 17, 1871 (LDS Archives)quoted in Gary James Beraga, The Adam God Doctrine). In 1862, Young taught,
To show you how deceptive modern Mormon “apostles” can be, here is Mark E. Peterson quoting the same passage…
Notice he changes “grandfather”, to “him” and then puts ellipses where he left a whole bunch out. Young was talking about the grandfather god, Elohim. Yahovah was never Jesus Christ in early Mormonism, he was the father of Michael/Adam. Even Young said that it didn’t matter which god we worship, because we are all the same “species”:
On February 8, 1857 Young gave an address and said,
He then said a little later in the discourse,
Now, you can say what you will about the discourse found in JOD 1:50-51, but there is another who took notes, Wilford Woodruff, and here is what he wrote,
It is presently unknown what President Young may have taught privately about Adam-God at this early time, but his beliefs were apparently being embraced by other general authorities. Some of those we have access to are these: “President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us.” Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 435 (April 9, 1852) “Adam brought animals and seeds to this earth from a different planet.” –Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 244 (1860) “Adam is our Father and God, … the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord.” –Franklin D. Richards, Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 534 (1854)“Orson Spencer upholds Brigham Young teaching on Adam God.” –William Clayton, Private Journal MSS (October 3, 1852) “Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth. So says Brigham Young.” –William Tullidge, Women of Mormondom, p. 179 (1877) “Before Adam fell he was a resurrected man.” “Biblical Cosmogony” article, Contributor, vol. 8, p. 218 (1886)
For some to say this teaching only got ‘bare mention’ in the Church is only a ploy to downgrade the importance of this teaching by Brigham Young. Woodruff’s notes in his journal show that later Mormon claims that this sermon was ‘mistranscribed’ is a deliberate falsehood. And though this doctrine would not be published for almost two years, Young again elaborated on Adam in a discourse given on August 28th of the same year:
MJP
You said “As to doctrine, I’m afraid if you are willing to let certain doctrine pass as unimportant then there’s not really much to discuss. I find it terribly problematic. You don’t.”
Not really. I agree that in regards to certain doctrine there is not much need of discussion, and I don’t really find any problem with this at all.
You asked “Is God some distant being who only watches from afar? Or does God directly deal with us? Didn’t God speak to Smith directly? If God deals with us directly, then the statement that Adam is the only one we deal with is inaccurate.”
How well do you know the workings of the LDS church? If you know the way it operates than you have a very good comparison to how the eternal worlds will operate. I did not give a detailed description of every aspect of church affairs, but all of it has its parallel.
For instance, while we do not have direct dealings with the First Presidency we do get direct communication from them. This happens at General Conference and at times when they feel the need to publish a letter or proclamation. We also get more personal contact at our Stake Conferences when, every few years, a member of the First Presidency comes to address us. However, even in all this the First Presidency does not take over the operation and daily running of the Stake. That is left to the Stake President. If a person went to the First Presidency for such things they would be directed back to the Stake Presidency, for all things must be done in order.
This is also seen in the workings of Heaven. Yes, Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appear to Joseph Smith, and they did so before anyone else did. There are stories of them appearing to others as well. However, in none of these stories do we read that they did anything to organize or restore the keys of the Priesthood. These things were done by others who had been called and sent for this purpose, under the direction of Michael. God did not restore the priesthood, he had John the Baptist, and later Peter, James and John do this, because it needed to be done is order, and that is how things had been organized. Moses restores the keys of gathering Israel, Elijah restored the Sealing Keys, and Elias restored the Keys of the Dispensation of Abraham. The reason is because that was their responsibility and they had been organized and sent by Michael, who operates under the direction of Christ.
I do believe we will have a very personal relationship with the Father and with Christ when we enter Heaven and the Eternal Worlds. However, when we go to undertake any work, we will be directed and operate under the authority of Adam, because that is how the economy of heaven is organized and in Heaven all things are done in their proper order.
Rick
1. You said “If we quoted simply a verse or two, you would cry and say, were not giving enough info and leaving things out to make it say what we want. But if we give the entire thing, then you cry we are mining quotes and we do not address enough of it. It is there for all to read”
You need to try to understand my words and stop conflating them. You first example is what would be called quote mining, not the second.
Second, if all you did was give the entire thing I would say nothing. But that is not what you did. You gave the entire quote, but then you proceeded to give your interpretation of the quote, in which you ignored certain passages and misrepresented others. It doesn’t matter if you were to post every word Brigham Young ever said, if you then ignore some of them in trying to explain what you think it means than you have misrepresented the quote.
You said “Well you know as well as I do, your now lying, I say that because your leaders have stated over and over, Adam God teaching is false and wrong.”
Again you misrepresent our leaders. They have stated that this is a false idea, but they have also stated exactly what I said. They will also point out that Brigham Young never taught this, but do admit that some people have misunderstood his words and have thus falsely concluded this.
Bruce R. McConkie does write at length about this in his book Mormon Doctrine, and this is what he says:
“Cultists and other enemies of the restored truth, for their own peculiar purposes, sometimes try to make it appear that Latter-day Saints worship Adam as their Father in heaven. In support of their false assumptions, they quote such statements as that of President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam is our father and our god and the only god with whom we have to do. This statement, and others of a similar nature, is perfectly consistent and rational, when viewed in full gospel perspective and understood in the light of the revelations relative to the patriarchal chain binding exalted beings together. Full and detailed explanations of all important teachings on these points are readily available.”
“Faithful members of the Church worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and view Adam in his proper high place as the pre-existent Michael, the first man and presiding high priest (under Christ) over all the earth for all time, and as the one who will again lead the armies of heaven in the final great war with Lucifer. There is a sense, of course, in which Adam is a god. But so also, in the same sense, are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Moses and all the ancient prophets; Peter, James, and John; and all the righteous saints of all ages, including those of both high and low degree.
All exalted beings become joint-heirs with Christ and inherit the fulness of the Father’s kingdom. Having entered in at the gate of celestial marriage, and having pressed forward in righteousness, overcoming all things, they pass by the angels and the gods “to their exaltation and glory in all things. . . . Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, Because they have all power, and he angels are subject unto them.” (D. & C. 132:19-20.) Of all these Adam is the chief, presiding (under Christ and the Father) in the patriarchal order over all the rest. There is no mystery about this doctrine except that which persons ignorant of the great principles of exaltation and unfriendly to the cause of righteousness have attempted to make.”
There is also this quote “”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, pp. 96-106
Widtsoe, John A. “What Are the Facts Concerning the so-called Adam-God Theory?” Evidences and Reconciliations, Vol. 1, pp. 287-290. lrs/mcj
Young, Brigham. “Sermon of Brigham Young on Adam as God.” Millennial Star, Vol. 15, pp. 769-770. kt
I have never said anything on this point that the leaders of the church have not said, and it is your own dishonesty that claims otherwise. We denounce the theory that has been put forth, which uses some quotes from Brigham Young for its support. We also declare that this was not the meaning of Brigham Young’s words.
Now, you give a nice rundown of passages from the doctrine and Covenants, but your attempt to show their meaning only shows your willingness to twist words to suit your purpose. You cannot interpret our scriptures according to your doctrine, nor can you use your interpretation of the Bible to explain our doctrine. Adam is Michael, the Ancient of Days, and he stands as the Father of all men who ever lived on this earth, for all are descended from Adam. For this reason he hold great authority over this earth, and in vision is represented as sitting on a throne to symbolize this. When he gives the dominion to Christ that is to show that he submits all things to Christ. He rules this earth, but when Christ returns that stewardship will be turned back to Christ, who is the King of both Heaven and Earth.
This is the meaning of these scriptures. They in no way support what you claim.
As to all your quotes from Brigham Young, some I recognize and some I don’t. I do not have the time or the resources to look them all up, nor do I really care to. Some I have already pointed out your error in understanding them. Some I know to be an expression of his opinion, and not that of doctrine. Considering your habit of misrepresenting his words I have no reason to accept anything that you say regarding them.
I have decided to look up those quotes Rick gives from Brigham Young that I am able to at this time, and I have to say he has once again proven his dishonesty in misrepresenting President Young.
Rick said this: “In this next verse Shem- 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.
He then gave the following quote:
“You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding…I do not believe that portion of the Bible…. (Pres. Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, Journal Of Discourses 2:6).”
Now, if we are to trust what Rick says and how he gives the quote than we are to believe the Brigham Young didn’t like what a particular verse said and so chose to ignore it.
However, if we are to read the quote in its entirety, and not the chopped version he gives, then a whole different meaning becomes apparent. What did Brigham Young actually say.
” You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please − that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to.”
(get the full sermon here http://www.jhuston.com/Documents/jd2.pdf)
So, Brigham Young is not saying that he ignores anything, simply that he understands the passage to mean something different than what the rest of Christianity believes it to mean. As Rick is fond of saying, should we not take him at his word? Rick obviously doesn’t, as he needs to selectively quote in order to lay false accusations against him.
You will also note that neither this quote, nor the one from April 20, 1856, Journal of Discourses 3:319, say anything about Adam being God. They speak only to the method and location of his creation, and the role that Adam played in the creation of this Earth. In fact, in Journal of Discourses 3:319 Brigham Young speaks to Adam’s Father and being God, and thus contradicts this whole idea.
This is simply a modern day lie. All of Brigham’s “apostles” admitted what he taught and exactly what he meant. To deny it is a lie. And that is what modern Mormon “apostles” have done since Charles Penrose. In fact, Bruce McConkie admitted he did to Eugene England. No wonder they don’t print Mormon Doctrine anymore, it is filled with lies, that ignorant people like Shem believe.
Notice Shem will only quote a small part of Young, to try and hide what he really said, and simply repeat the lies of modern day Mormon leaders. This tells the viewing audience all they need to know.
Actually, Shem does it again. He only quotes a part of what Young said, and destroys the context. Here is what Brigham Young actually said from the Journal of Discourses,
Young calls the story of Adam in the Bible, “baby stories”. In other words, a fairy tale. This proves that you are totally wrong, as usual. Journal of Discourses 3:319:
This is an integral component of Adam God. Adam was not made of the dust of this earth, he was born and raised on another planet, and came here with one of his wives. He already lived on an earth and became a god. He then fathered all of the spirits to come here, and then “fell” so he could give them mortal bodies. Brigham Young constantly mentions Adam’s God and his God (who he calls the “grandfather god” and that is Elohim) also. That doesn’t contradict Adam God because Adam had a father and a God, it was just not Elohim. (And Adam was not Elohim and Young NEVER taught this). This is what Young taught, and anyone who says he did not, is lying.
And Fielding Smith also taught that Joseph Smith never used a stone in a hat to translate the Book of Mormon. He lied about that too. He lied more than McConkie did.
So, McConkie lied in Mormon Doctrine. Funny how that works, isn’t it? And notice that McConkie had no problems using the word “cult”. Guess he didn’t like those Fundamentalist Mormons believing that part of what Young taught. Can anyone say hypocrite and liar?
Shem,
Thanks for clarifying. God and Christ are not intimate with this world in your view, then. I hardly call bi-annual mass meetings with leadership being intimate with the people. Access– sure, but very, very limited.
And this question just occurred to me: who, literally is our father? The father-God, or Adam? By that I mean who begot us?
MJP
You said “God and Christ are not intimate with this world in your view, then. I hardly call bi-annual mass meetings with leadership being intimate with the people.”
This is not what I said at all. Did you not read this “I do believe we will have a very personal relationship with the Father and with Christ when we enter Heaven and the Eternal Worlds.”
What do you think I am talking about but an intimate relationship with our Father and with Christ, who is our brother. We will have a very intimate relationship with them, just not a direct working relationship with them. These two things are very different.
In a family business one has a personal and intimate relationship with each member of the Family, but they still work through the channels of business when at work.
Just so that people realize, what I gave was the context of the snippet that Rick gave. If Grindael wants to accuse me of lieing in doing so than he better start yelling at Rick as well, because Rick was the first one to yank this statement out of its context.
Also, I have read the entirety of that quote, and it changes nothing. Despite the idiocy and delusions of Grindael, President Young was calling the doctrine of the Christian world Baby Stories, not the bible itself. Grindael either is too ignorant to know the difference, or simply wants to spread his delusions through dishonesty.
Changes nothing? Really? Rick DID NOT GET THE CONTEXT WRONG. If he did, then how come Woodruff wrote this in his Journal in 1854?
And.. in March, 1856?
In case you don’t believe it, here it is again over a month later,
Why would Orson Pratt be in danger of “falling” because he believed that Adam was made from the dust of the earth? Believed what was written in the Bible? Because he was challenging Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam as God the Father. That is why. They told him he was wrong and needed to get “revelation” on the matter.
HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR CAN THIS BE? HOW IGNORANT DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT GET IT? WILLFULLY IGNORANT. So, stop with the false accusations. You are totally wrong about this, and have been since the beginning. I have lots more quotes to back it up, something you do not have. You simply have not read the material. You simply have not done the work necessary to know what these men taught and did. I have. Please go do some reading and research. You are making a fool out of yourself.
And Young did think that the Bible account in Genesis was a “baby story” and Moses gave that account to the Israelites because of “their folly”. He did not believe that portion of the Bible. It is you, Shem, who are delusional and ignorant, because you haven’t read Young’s discourses, you only read small snippets of them quoted by Apologists. Here is Young AGAIN, making himself PERFECTLY CLEAR:
Stop attacking those who know much more than you ever will about these things Shem. Once again, I have made you look totally foolish, and I really hate doing that, but you bring this on yourself. Do yourself a favor and READ and COMPREHEND before you make foolish accusations that are not based in reality.
Grindael
When you stop being a liar and an idiot I will stop calling you out as one. Fair deal.
Read more carefully what you are quoting. I have read these quotes, despite your arrogance in thinking otherwise, and they change nothing. Yes, he said that Moses gave the account of the Rib according to the folly of Israel, but then this is same reason that Christ spoke in parables to the Pharisees and the unbelieving among Israel of his day. This only proves that Brigham Young believed that that account was given to satisfy curiosity, but also to conceal truth from those who were not to have it.
Now, speaking of the last quote you give, in typical fashion you ignore those parts that give us context. In the very beginning of this discourse President Young states
“I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare.
I expect in my remarks I shall allude to things that you search after as being absolutely necessary for your salvation in the Kingdom of God. It is true if you are faithful, and diligent there are things that will be fully made known to you in due time at the proper time, according to the will of the Lord. But so many among us are preaching, lecturing, contemplating upon, and conversing about things away beyond our reach, sometimes I wish to gratify the people by speaking upon these subjects; for I think upon them as well as you; I meditate upon the future and the past as well as you, and I now gratify myself by gratifying the people.”
So, what he is speaking of doesn’t really matter, and he is giving us his thoughts, not doctrine.
He later says this:
“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.”
We have no need to even address what he is saying, and what he is saying is simply what he believes to be true.
Again he later declares
“Many inquire who is this Savior? 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.”
So, we are again dealing with his speculations and personal ideas, which he has previously telling us he chose to speak on to gratify the curiosity of the saints.
Actually, he uses the phrase “I reckon” thirteen times in this discourse so as to clearly show us that he is not teaching essential truth, but is offering his thoughts and ideas in regards to certain matters.
So, once again you have simply proven that you are willing to twist President Young’s words to fit your own agenda. I have never denied that Brigham Young had these views; I only deny that he ever taught them as doctrine that was to be binding on anyone, and he himself declares that it was never his intention to do so.
I know you like to sling insults, but I have read, and I do comprehend. I comprehend a great deal more than you. All your reading and quoting has done nothing to give you an understanding of anything you claim to know.
Wow Shem, you must be desperate. That is all you have? I’m enjoying getting you all worked up because it only shows how much of a fool you are. We know who the liar is here. Let’s PROVE IT AGAIN, as I have done so many times before. Let’s examine why Young used those terms. He did so, because it was his vernacular. But first, Brigham published this in the Deseret News in 1873, a few years before he died, which blows your pet “theory” out of the water. Ready?
Young explicitly states that Adam God is a REVELATION. He also said,
Young is calling you and everyone who doesn’t believe this was a revelation a dumb as*. If the shoe fits, Shem. 🙂 There is nothing that you can say to deny this. So shut up. You are a fool. As for Young vernacular,
Brigham Young often referred to himself as a “Yankee guesser” and on one rare occasion when he was waxing prophetic about being prepared for future calamity said, “I do not care whether anybody believes it or not, it makes no difference to me. I am a Yankee; I guess things, and very frequently guess right. JOD Vol. 12, May 26, 1867.
Young could almost be called a reluctant prophet since he was very leery of being compared with his mentor and idol, Joseph Smith in this regard. In 1857 Young spoke of the church as being the Kingdom that Daniel spoke of, and said that “I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser.” JOD Vol. 5, July 26, 1857, page 77.
Yet in the same discourse he said,
When the cornerstones of the Salt Lake Temple were laid in April, 1853 Brigham Young told the gathered “saints”:
Even though Young called himself a Yankee guesser, he viewed himself as far more than that. In the same discourse he said,
He said he guessed about the Temple, but actually said he saw it in vision. Young may not have been prone to prophecy, but he was well aware of his calling to teach correct doctrine:
As for doctrine, Young also said that a person could be a real disciple without having visions [..] but that person could not be a “special witness’ to the doctrine he believes in as Brigham Young was. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p.208, February 16, 1856) Now, about that word reckon. Matthew Brown from FAIR tried the same argument as you. You forgot to mention some things that Young said in that discourse, which leads me to believe you never read the whole thing or you are being purposefully deceptive. Well, Brown lied in his presentation about Adam God too, and he is simply wrong like you are.
For those that don’t know, Matthew Brown is a Mormon author and historian whose emphasis is on the history and doctrine of Joseph Smith and his successors through Brigham Young. He acted as the compiler and editor of the journal for the The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) which they claim “is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice” from January to September 2010. He worked for FAIR.
What Mr. Brown did not do, (OR SHEM) is reveal what Young said close to the opening of this address, where he stated:
He also said:
Though Young did not deem the items of Doctrine that he was discussing that afternoon necessary for the people to know right then, and that they should not trouble themselves about them ” immediately”, that still did not mean that Young was implying that the items were NOT true, or that they were NOT revealed from God. He is simply implying that some were not ready to receive them, and he knew it, but that he was going to indulge them anyway. One recalls here, that Joseph Smith did the same thing with polygamy, and only revealed the principle to a chosen few, and NEVER had it ratified by the Church in his lifetime. It did not make the principle any less true for Smith, or any less a revelation claimed by him to come from God.
This is the key to understanding Young’s entire discourse. This is what many modern Latter-day Saints fail to understand about Joseph Smith and Young in particular, that the Mormons in Smith and Young’s time, truly believed that when they spoke, they spoke with the authority of apostles and prophets and that their words were scripture. A revelation being scripture, is a far cry from having it ratified and made binding upon the entire Church. Because it is not, does not make it any less a revelation, as Young claimed that Adam-god was. Young has said this on more than one occasion, but never as clear as the above, where he tells the congregation that he is going to MAKE a little scripture. Then, he proceeds to lay out the case for Adam-god. Whatever ‘rhetoric’ he used….it doesn’t really matter if he says, I guess this, or I reckon that. He already said he was going to ‘make a little scripture’ and that should be enough for ALL to realize Young was telling his audience to take these words very seriously.
And Young, before he even gets to the deep part of the discourse, says this: “Now to know the only wise God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, will put the man, the woman, congregation, or nation in possession of eternal life.”
Back to Matthew Brown:
But is this exactly true? One must read the discourse to know. And what else did Young ‘reckon’? He reckoned this also (which Brown (AND SHEM) failed to mention):
1. “ I reckon that all things were first made spiritual preparatory to the natural organization.”
2. ”I reckon the Father has been through all this.”
3. “ Then I reckon that the children of Adam and Eve married each other”
4. “I reckon that Father Adam, and Mother Eve had the children of the human family prepared to come here and take bodies; and when they came to take bodies, they entered into the bodies prepared for them; and that body gets exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowed in Father’s kingdom.”
These four points, which Young also said ‘he reckoned’ about, are well taught and part of revealed doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and contained in Mormon Scripture. Interesting, that Brown (or SHEM) does not mention them at all.
Point 1: All things were first made spiritual preparatory to being made temporally. Taught by Smith and written in a letter by him in 1842, and canonized in section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
“Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as are the records on the earth in relation to your dead, which are truly made out, so also are the records in heaven. This, therefore, is the sealing and binding power, and, in one sense of the word, the keys of the kingdom, which consist in the key of knowledge.”
Young here uses the word ‘reckon’ in front of this teaching, which is confirmed in scripture. Was he ‘guessing’ this too? Of course he wasn’t. Shem’s argument comes from total lack of knowledge about Brigham Young and Mormon Doctrine. Bubble Denial for sure.
Point 2: The Father has been through this. Read Smith’s King Follett Discourse, which is recognized as a DOCTRINE of the Church. Was Young ‘guessing’ this too?
Point 3. Then, the Children of Adam married each other. Right out of Genesis. Was Young ‘guessing’ here too?
Point 4. The doctrine of the pre-existence, and how men come here to take bodies to get ‘exaltation’. Was Young ‘guessing’ this important doctrine also? No. It was established. So why did he use that exact expression? It was the way he spoke.
Young did say that these matters he was relating were not immediately necessary for the Saints to worry about in that setting. There were gentiles there. There were unbelievers there. But Young also emphasized that it was ‘eternal life’ to KNOW WHO GOD WAS. That is necessary, according to the scriptures themselves and proclaimed by Smith in his Follett Sermon.
This sermon was couched in this kind of language because Young was being cautious with doctrine he thought ‘too precious’ to be “cast before swine.” In one instance, Young remarked:
This concept of Young’s that some ‘were not worthy’ of some doctrines is crucial in understanding Adam-god, and why Young only taught it selectively, and sometimes in public, taught about God in the general terms that are used by Mormons today. Nevertheless, this doctrine was accepted and affirmed by all the authorities of the Church except Orson Pratt (who eventually came around with the threat of excommunication) and possibly Amasa Lyman (who didn’t think that Christ was divine).
And Young is ON RECORD, published to the world in 1873 that Adam God was a “REVELATION” direct from God. Thanks for admitting he taught this, now you know it was a revelation. Who looks foolish now, Shem?
Grindeal
Shall we actually use our intellect for a moment, or do you prefer the deluded drivel that you have just spewed forth?
“Deseret News, June 18, 1873”
I have never denied this, nor do I wish to. This is doctrine. But nowhere in this quote does it say anything to what you are claiming.
“Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young. Watt, G.D., transcriber, October 8, 1861.”
Again, nothing in this cantradicts anything I have said.
In both of these you continue with your attempts to make any use of the word God or Father be equivilant with Heavenly Father, and this is not the case. Adam is our Father, as is stated in the Doctrine and Covenants; he is also our God, for he is the Prince of this Earth, holding the Keys of Salvation to all who have lived on it. These two quotes say nothing beyond these points.
“have received the spirit of Christ Jesus which is the spirit of prophecy…but I am a Yankee guesser”
JOD Vol. 5, July 26, 1857
Here is a prime example of your twisting the words of President Young, and you go on twisting them as much as you can. He declares in one sentence that his testimony in the work and divine nature of this church is true, and so you claim that his guesses regarding the motivation of president Buchanan has to carry the same testimony. That is ridiculous and you know it. He was speaking on two very different topics, one being a testimony of the truth, and the other being a reasoned thought as to the motivation of another man.
Of course, you leave out the context of both the quotes you give, because putting them in context completely destroys anything you are saying.
“I am a Yankee; I guess things, and very frequently guess right.”
Yes, President Young was a Yankee Guesser, and because he was we at liberty to accept his guess or not, which is what he clearly said in the sermon I previously addressed.
People always accuse us of altering the meaning of words, and yet that is exactly what you have done here. You have altered the meaning of the word Guess in order to allow you to twist the words of Brigham Young.
You are the one that does not take him at his word, because if you did you would accept that much of what he said was his own thoughts and opinions, or his guesses, as you have shown him to have declared more than once. But you cannot do this because then you would have to retract 90% of everything you have said in the past.
You said “He said he guessed about the Temple, but actually said he saw it in vision.”
And he is a great example of your misrepresenting his words, even after directly quoting them. He said he saw the temple itself, how it would look and where it would stand. He also said that he guessed that the event of laying the cornerstone would long be remembered. These are two very different things. He never said that he actually saw something that he was only guessing about, and to make that claim shows how dishonest you really are.
Need I continue? You have proven your dishonesty over and over again, and even though I continually point it out to you, you still claim that you have the truth.
I am not going to address anything else you have said, nor will I continue in any manner on this thread with you. I will return to my policy of ignoring your comments as much as possible as they are nothing but lies.
What’s come to be known as Brigham Young’s ” Adam-God doctrine “, comes from testimony
not only from Young himself but the spiritual witness of those officers who served with him . It
was doctrine , he was’nt mistaken as this was his belief , he was’nt guessing whether it was truth
because he had a testimony confirming it and thus he proceeded to publically introduce it .
Unfortunately many of his flock became very troubled at his new revealment . Thus he backed
off and told them not to worry about it , not to concern themselves with accepting it at the
present time etc . This is where some Mormons today pick out to “prove” that he did not personally believe it was new truth from God , and the newest excuse seems to be that Young
was only “guessing ” about it’s validity . However this excuse , like all the rest offered by those
Mormons who like like Shem try valiantly to rescue Young from being exposed as the false
prophet he was , have been dismantled over the years by non-Mormons and even some
Mormon researchers .
The evidence that Brigham Young taught the ” Adam -God doctrine” is available for anyone
concerned about whether they can trust Mormon prophets to teach accurately about God , after
all , this ” advanced doctrine” which was once confirmed by the testimony of church officers in
private , will one day return in the teachings of Mormon authorities . Polygamy has been shelved
for a future date , why not Adam God ? Such is the world of Mormon prophets and people need
to know what their getting into by following such men .
Lastly , Mormons like Shem admit that B.Y. did believe and then did teach that Adam was the
father of the spirits as well as the bodies of mankind . Then he (Shem) states that this could
be a true but he personally can’t say one way or the other . Strange indeed .
The amount of material that grindael has provided gives us a look at this doctrine ( Adam -God)
that is valuable since it covers a wide range of statements by those who at the time were in the
best position to know their prophet and also his new teaching , unlike Mormons today .
Mike
You aren’t really paying attention to what I am saying if you actually think you have accurately described anything I have said.
I have always, and will always agree that Brigham Young believed this. I have never disputed that he taught it. What I dispute is that personal belief is not the same as binding church doctrine. The two must be separated.
“to concern themselves with accepting it at the present time”
Please note also that Brigham Young did not say to not concern ourselves at the present time, but that we should not concern ourselves at all. He never once limited this, and so why are you trying to do so?
How so, when Smith didn’t separate them for polygamy, and Young didn’t separate them for the ban on blacks. Once again, we are dazzled by the brilliance of Shem speaking from looney tune land.