GBH admits that BY taught Adam God
Tyler Waite
"When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied,
"We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven
and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that."
Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was
called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about
what he said about those things."
camnchar
I too was surprised with this amount of forthrightness. Here's a good
follow-up question: "Mr. Prophet, why not end the speculation by simply
asking God to clear up the matter once and for all?"
Chuck
Cheap Suit
He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false prophet.
If Hinckley isn't going to worry about what his predecessors said, why should
anyone?
dangerous
think global, act loco
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
chea...@dangerous1.com
<www.dangerous1.com>
don marchant
<------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
Amelia
http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1 "When I asked him to
characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied, "We don't
speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and
saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that."
Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was
called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about
what he said about those things."
Group: alt.religion.mormon Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002, 12:23am (AKST+2)
From: chea...@dangerous1.com (Cheap Suit)
He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false
prophet.
If Hinckley isn't going to worry about what his predecessors said, why
should anyone?
::::::: Good question. And it won't be long before nobody is worrying
about what Hinckley says either.
Clovis Lark
"I don't know what he meant by that." Pleading the 5th... and a
provocation to any reporter worth their salt to find out what he DID mean.
> Chuck
Clovis Lark
> Tyler Waite wrote:
>> http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
>> "When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied,
>> "We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven
>> and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that."
>> Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was
>> called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about
>> what he said about those things."
> He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false prophet.
False?
> If Hinckley isn't going to worry about what his predecessors said, why should
> anyone?
There is no past, no future, live vicariously for the moment. I apologize
for thinking Hinckley was old. This is the comment of a 17 year old who
thinks they are going to live forever.
Clovis Lark
Surely, comment from the Dubya school of grammar... But makes a point that
I appreciate...
Cheap Suit
> Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote:
> > Tyler Waite wrote:
>
> >> http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
> >> "When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied,
> >> "We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven
> >> and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that."
> >> Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was
> >> called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about
> >> what he said about those things."
>
> > He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false prophet.
>
> False?
Young said that god himself revealed adam-god doctrine to him. Kimball said that was
a false teaching.
Anyone who claims a heavenly source for their inspiration is setting themselves up
for problems when they are shown to be wrong.
God told me that. I just got a warm feeling while typing it.
>
>
> > If Hinckley isn't going to worry about what his predecessors said, why should
> > anyone?
>
> There is no past, no future, live vicariously for the moment. I apologize
> for thinking Hinckley was old. This is the comment of a 17 year old who
> thinks they are going to live forever.
I think I saw Hinckley and Packer cruuuzzzin' state street the other night.
fmhlaw
Cheap Suit wrote:
> He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false prophet.
If BY was a false prophet then so was/is every one of his successors. If BY was a
true prophet and any of his successors contradicts him, then the successor must be a
false prophet. The only way a successor of BY can be a true prophet is if BY was a
true prophet and the successor is in harmony with BY.
Clovis Lark
> Clovis Lark wrote:
>> Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote:
>> > Tyler Waite wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.newyorker.com/FACT/?020121fa_FACT1
>> >> "When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied,
>> >> "We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven
>> >> and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that."
>> >> Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was
>> >> called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about
>> >> what he said about those things."
>>
>> > He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false prophet.
>>
>> False?
> Young said that god himself revealed adam-god doctrine to him. Kimball said that was
> a false teaching.
> Anyone who claims a heavenly source for their inspiration is setting themselves up
> for problems when they are shown to be wrong.
> God told me that. I just got a warm feeling while typing it.
You may need a 4 pack of Quilted Northern to rid yourself of that warm
feeling...
>>
>>
>> > If Hinckley isn't going to worry about what his predecessors said, why should
>> > anyone?
>>
>> There is no past, no future, live vicariously for the moment. I apologize
>> for thinking Hinckley was old. This is the comment of a 17 year old who
>> thinks they are going to live forever.
> I think I saw Hinckley and Packer cruuuzzzin' state street the other night.
Did someone forget to arm the alarms on those used cars lots again?
Tyler Waite
"fmhlaw" <fmh...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3C54A26B...@attbi.com...
a false prophet which explains why he doesn't understand or accept the AG
theory? So does this mean the 1978 revelation was false as well?
fmhlaw
Tyler Waite wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, there was no 1978 revelation. Everyone is of course
free to draw their own conclusions.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 18:59 EST
>Message-id: <3C54A26B...@attbi.com>
Simply and beautifully stated. The problem with this statement as far as
Mormonism is concerned is that Mormonism's claim to "authority" hinges on its
teaching that "Christendom" was "apostate" and that the "true gospel" need to
be restored, via God revealing the "correct" teachings to "modern prophets."
If Mormon "prophets" can teach "the precepts of men, mingled with scripture"
(IOW, incorrect dogma) just as the "corrupt professors of Christendom"
supposedly do, then Mormonism's claims to having special "revealed" authority
and more accurate doctrines are null and void.
The sad part is that most TBMs cannot grasp this simple concept.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: Sun, Jan 27, 2002 20:58 EST
>Message-id: <a32b5a$85q$1...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>
The easiest and most logical position to assume is that all of Mormonism is
false from its inception, and that has never had any "revelations," true or
false. All alleged Mormon "revelations" are merely the teachings of ordinary
men. That is amply demonstrated by how often former "revelations" have had to
be altered, deleted, or suppressed, in order to fit Mormonism's dogma into the
modern world, the "Adam-God" teaching being merely one example.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
> Cheap Suit wrote:
>
> > He's not going to worry about what BY said because BY was a false prophet.
>
> If BY was a false prophet then so was/is every one of his successors.
It would appear so.
> If BY was a
> true prophet and any of his successors contradicts him, then the successor must be a
> false prophet. The only way a successor of BY can be a true prophet is if BY was a
> true prophet and the successor is in harmony with BY.
I can't argue that point. Now we just have to convince everyone else :)
Woody Brison
> Young said that god himself revealed adam-god doctrine to him. Kimball said that was
> a false teaching.
No, President Kimball said that the Adam-God THEORY was false.
Wood
camnchar
news:f36171a3.02012...@posting.google.com...
A distinction worthy only of a trial lawyer, ex-President Bill Clinton, or a
Mormon apologist.
Chuck
Cheap Suit
Especially since Young called it doctrine.
Woody Brison
> "Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote...
> > Cheap Suit <chea...@dangerous1.com> wrote...
> >
> > > Young said that god himself revealed adam-god doctrine to him. Kimball
> said that was
> > > a false teaching.
> >
> > No, President Kimball said that the Adam-God THEORY was false.
>
> A distinction worthy only of a trial lawyer, ex-President Bill Clinton, or a
> Mormon apologist.
That's hilarious! When we're asking whether the Prophets are
contradicting each other, then it's legalistic time. But if
somebody points out that the Prophet was referring to a
popular theory about what the older Prophet taught, not about
that Prophet's actual teachings, then it's a distinction worthy
only of a trial lawyer, etc, (with insults). Thanks for cementing
the whole point: the people making this accusation don't care
what the truth is, they just want to disparage the religion
with whatever argument is handy, true or absurd, makes no diff.
Wood
TheJordan6
>Date: 1/29/2002 12:23 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <f36171a3.02012...@posting.google.com>
Yes, that's the teaching that Kimball said was "allegedly taught by some of the
former general authorities." Since Brigham Young was the primary teacher and
advocate of the "Adam-God" doctrine for 25 years, he is the one whom Kimball
(and McConkie) spoke of as being false. Perhaps you should read McConkie's
letter to Eugene England.
Randy J.
Woody Brison
> >> Young said that god himself revealed adam-god doctrine to him. Kimball said that was
> >> a false teaching.
I, Woody, said,
> >No, President Kimball said that the Adam-God THEORY was false.
Randy Jordan said,
> Yes, that's the teaching that Kimball said was "allegedly taught by some of the
> former general authorities."
Note the word 'allegedly'. That Adam and God the Father are
the same person is not true, and doesn't seem to have been
taught by any General Authorities yet, as much as you would
like to see them get caught in something unrighteous.
>... Since Brigham Young was the primary teacher and
> advocate of the "Adam-God" doctrine for 25 years,
It all depends on what you call the "Adam-God doctrine".
If you mean that Adam is a God, that's undoubtedly true.
If you mean that Adam is among the series of men who must
approve our exaltation if we are to get it, that's true
also. If you mean that he is the father and the first of
the human family, that's true too, as it is also true of
God the Father, for God was Adam's father.
If, however, you mean that Adam was the father of our
spirits, that's false. If you mean that God the Father
came to this earth and lived a mortal life here and was
known as Adam, the husband of Eve, that's false. If you
mean that Adam was the immediate father of Jesus, that's
false.
The basic problem here is that most of you who post on this
topic couldn't find it with two hands. It's somewhat
difficult, but not impossible, to sort thru and understand
most of what President Young taught on this subject as
being consistent with the way the Gospel is taught today in
the Church -- if you have a strong basis of knowledge about
it. If you've read the standard works, been thru the
manual _Gospel Principles_ from cover to cover, lived it
for a year or more, and have been baptized and lived worthy
of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, you should be able to sort
it out if you are of average intelligence and can access
the quotations from an accurate source, and do not abandon
faith as a mooring to truths previously learned.
If however you've not bothered to read the standard works,
not done any kind of general course of study, whether it be
_Gospel Principles_ or other LDS general Gospel course; if
you've not been baptized and gotten the Gift, or if you've
insulted the Holy Spirit to the point where He will have
nothing to do with you, then No, you're not likely to be
able to sort it out. You're not likely to even be able to
correctly identify all of the true and false precepts I've
listed above.
>...he [Brigham Young] is the one whom Kimball
> (and McConkie) spoke of as being false.
President Kimball said no such thing.
>... Perhaps you should read McConkie's
> letter to Eugene England.
See? you assume I haven't, but I've read it and understood
it. Shall we look at some relevant passages?
"In that same devotional speech ...
[multi-stake fireside in the Marriott Center, Sunday, June
1, 1980. I, Woody, was present]
"...I said: 'There are those who believe or say they believe
that Adam is our father and our God, that he is the father
of our spirits and our bodies, and that his [he] is the one
we worship.' I, of course, indicated the utter absurdity of
this doctrine and said it was totally false.
"Since then I have received violent reactions from Ogden
Kraut and other cultists in which they have expounded upon
the views of Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren
relative to Adam. They have plain and clear quotations
saying all of the things about Adam which I say are false.
The quotations are in our literature and form the basis of
a worship system followed by many of the cultists who have
been excommunicated from the Church. ..."
Here I disagree with Elder McConkie in a certain sense.
Sure, people can read the quotations and come to that
conclusion, but I feel that there is some imprecision in
those quotations.
"If what I am about to say should be taken out of context
and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an
entirely erroneous impression and would not properly
present the facts. ... Yes, President Young did teach that
Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related
things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is
not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with
the gospel. ..."
Again, altho I am in absolute harmony with Elder McConkie
on everything, I disagree with the nominal face value of
what he is saying here, taken out of context as it is. If
Brigham Young is able to express things not quite true,
then so is Elder McConkie; we are left to judge which one
is right, or how they are right and in what way. I cannot
suppose that Elder McConkie was entirely serious in giving
a blank check to the cultists, to endorse WHATSOEVER they
care to teach at any time. I'm pretty sure that if we
wish to follow Elder McConkie in what he meant, it has to
be taken with a normal amount of understood assumptions and
some imprecision admitted. When he says, "Yes, President
Young did teach...", I believe he would certainly qualify
that with, "...if the transcripts we have are accurate" --
which I don't know is true. I don't believe that he is
speaking in terms of knowing exactly what President Young
meant on all those occasions, or of having received
revelations from God that it is so. He continued,
"But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and
correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal
scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young
contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of
which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will
believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in
the Standard Works."
In my opinion, we don't have the accuracy in the recorded
sermons of President Young to know exactly what he
communicated orally to his audience. Even if we knew that
we had his sermons recorded word perfect, which we don't,
we would still be without any record of his tone of voice,
his hand gestures, all the extra clues that go with oral
communication. President Young stated that if the
congregation were sufficiently in tune with the Spirit, and
one day they would be but weren't yet, he would be able to
stand up in front of them and give his sermon without
uttering a word -- they would understand his thoughts
perfectly from his facial expressions, etc., and from the
Spirit. And yet, the transcript would be completely blank.
To some extent, President Young and his audiences enjoyed
that level of communication, so therefore, our transcripts
are necessarily incomplete and always will be.
You can't take something that was delivered to one audience
and assume it is valid in general for all audiences, out of
context, chopped up in little pieces, and worked over by
madmen.
President Young did not just get up in front of the crowd,
and if he was feeling grumpy and didn't have the support of
the Spirit, talk anyway. Just as McConkie spoke by the same
power. The Holy Ghost does not contradict himself on
different occasions. Where we percieve a contradiction, it
is our understanding that is flawed. And we can't argue
with that unless we claim to know everything.
The point is, there is enough leeway in these questions,
just in the questions alone, and in the answers, for anyone
who wishes to stay faithful to the Gospel to do so, and for
anyone who wishes to quit, even to allow themselves to be
deceived away, to also do so. It's not a moral duty to
truth or anything like that; there's WAY too many unknowns
in these transcripts for anyone to say that President Young
was in error and be certain of being right.
Now, I realize that some of you are not going to understand
the above. Your minds are darkened and corroded, and you
don't have the knowledge to understand anymore, if you ever
did. I hope however that this little exercise will allow
you to capture some element of truth, whether you recognize
the fact or not. But I'm confident it will help some people.
Wood
alienward
>
>
> It all depends on what you call the "Adam-God doctrine".
>
Billy Brison
Tommy
> topic couldn't find it with two hands. It's somewhat
> difficult, but not impossible, to sort thru and understand
> most of what President Young taught on this subject as
> being consistent with the way the Gospel is taught today in
> the Church -- if you have a strong basis of knowledge about
> it.
heh....same ol' Mormon ploy. If one dissagrees with the accepted stance
it's because of the person, not the stance. If I come to a different
conclusion it's because I somehow have not the intelligence and/or learning
to get it right. Or....
If you've read the standard works, been thru the
> manual _Gospel Principles_ from cover to cover, lived it
> for a year or more, and have been baptized and lived worthy
> of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, you should be able to sort
> it out if you are of average intelligence and can access
> the quotations from an accurate source, and do not abandon
> faith as a mooring to truths previously learned.
Or...the suggestion is that one is not listening to the spirit closely or
accurately enough. Or...
> If however you've not bothered to read the standard works,
> not done any kind of general course of study, whether it be
> _Gospel Principles_ or other LDS general Gospel course; if
> you've not been baptized and gotten the Gift, or if you've
> insulted the Holy Spirit to the point where He will have
> nothing to do with you, then No, you're not likely to be
> able to sort it out. You're not likely to even be able to
> correctly identify all of the true and false precepts I've
> listed above.
Ahh...my favorite. The easiest way to dismiss dissagreement is to accuse
the critic of having grave personal failings. Thus, they are unable to
understand history from a spiritual vantage. This is the one thing
nonmembers cannot argue with. How can you? I could say "Um...I'm sure I
live as decent and honest a life as you". But it's all subjective. So
let's make a deal. You don't suggest all those that dissagree are somehow
spiritually inferior and we'll assume you are not an ass using a cheap ploy
to get out of a real conversation. Deal? Good.
>>... Perhaps you should read McConkie's letter to Eugene England.
>
> See? you assume I haven't, but I've read it and understood
> it. Shall we look at some relevant passages?
I'd say he supposes you haven't read it because it appears to dissagree
with your views. I would agree even knowing in advance that you've read
it.
> "If what I am about to say should be taken out of context
> and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an
> entirely erroneous impression and would not properly
> present the facts. ... Yes, President Young did teach that
> Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related
> things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is
> not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with
> the gospel. ..."
>
> Again, altho I am in absolute harmony with Elder McConkie
> on everything, I disagree with the nominal face value of
> what he is saying here, taken out of context as it is.
Heh...this is great! Please do explain the above sentence.
> If
> Brigham Young is able to express things not quite true,
> then so is Elder McConkie; we are left to judge which one
> is right, or how they are right and in what way. I cannot
> suppose that Elder McConkie was entirely serious in giving
> a blank check to the cultists, to endorse WHATSOEVER they
> care to teach at any time. I'm pretty sure that if we
> wish to follow Elder McConkie in what he meant, it has to
> be taken with a normal amount of understood assumptions and
> some imprecision admitted. When he says, "Yes, President
> Young did teach...", I believe he would certainly qualify
> that with, "...if the transcripts we have are accurate" --
> which I don't know is true. I don't believe that he is
> speaking in terms of knowing exactly what President Young
> meant on all those occasions, or of having received
> revelations from God that it is so. He continued,
So anything a prophet says could be wrong. They could all be wrong. You
have an apostle saying a prophet taught incorrect doctrine. What's one to
believe?
> "But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and
> correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal
> scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young
> contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of
> which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will
> believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in
> the Standard Works."
Which was written by a prophet who contradicted himself at times. Again -
who do we believe?
> In my opinion, we don't have the accuracy in the recorded
> sermons of President Young to know exactly what he
> communicated orally to his audience. Even if we knew that
> we had his sermons recorded word perfect, which we don't,
> we would still be without any record of his tone of voice,
> his hand gestures, all the extra clues that go with oral
> communication. President Young stated that if the
> congregation were sufficiently in tune with the Spirit, and
> one day they would be but weren't yet, he would be able to
> stand up in front of them and give his sermon without
> uttering a word -- they would understand his thoughts
> perfectly from his facial expressions, etc., and from the
> Spirit. And yet, the transcript would be completely blank.
> To some extent, President Young and his audiences enjoyed
> that level of communication, so therefore, our transcripts
> are necessarily incomplete and always will be.
As is all history. So you look at what is left and make an educated guess.
Please name one facial genture or nuance that could have changed the
meaning of Young's message in any way. Unless he said these things, shook
his head and winked, I can't think of anything.
> You can't take something that was delivered to one audience
> and assume it is valid in general for all audiences, out of
> context, chopped up in little pieces, and worked over by
> madmen.
Worked over by what madmen? The only historians for most of this were
Mormons. Mormon madmen? Surely not!?!
So anything of doctrinal nature said to one group has no bearing on any
other? Or some does and some doesn't? Interesting. So the King Follet
sermon pertains to just that group? Or is that one that pertains to us
all? How bout the comments about Quaker-like men on the moon? That must
have been just for the few that heard it.
> President Young did not just get up in front of the crowd,
> and if he was feeling grumpy and didn't have the support of
> the Spirit, talk anyway. Just as McConkie spoke by the same
> power. The Holy Ghost does not contradict himself on
> different occasions. Where we percieve a contradiction, it
> is our understanding that is flawed. And we can't argue
> with that unless we claim to know everything.
As you are doing? You claim to know, at the very least, more than an
apostle.
> The point is, there is enough leeway in these questions,
> just in the questions alone, and in the answers, for anyone
> who wishes to stay faithful to the Gospel to do so, and for
> anyone who wishes to quit, even to allow themselves to be
> deceived away, to also do so. It's not a moral duty to
> truth or anything like that; there's WAY too many unknowns
> in these transcripts for anyone to say that President Young
> was in error and be certain of being right.
Or to say that Young was NOT in error. It's like instant replay in
football. You need indisputable evidence to overturn the call. Otherwise
the ref sides with the original call on the field. In this case, without
enough evidence to overturn the appearance the Young DID say these things,
the burden is on the LDS church to prove he did not. McConkie could not
find such, and therefore suggested the statement did in fact have
historical accuracy. You have not shown us anything, beyond your own
opinions, to counter that.
> Now, I realize that some of you are not going to understand
> the above. Your minds are darkened and corroded, and you
> don't have the knowledge to understand anymore, if you ever
> did.
Ahh.....back to that. Heh...when in doubt, end with a personal slam - 'tis
the Mormon way :)
Cheap Suit
(WB)
> > Now, I realize that some of you are not going to understand
> > the above. Your minds are darkened and corroded, and you
> > don't have the knowledge to understand anymore, if you ever
> > did.
>
> Ahh.....back to that. Heh...when in doubt, end with a personal slam - 'tis
> the Mormon way :)
Nobody can sling it around quite like woody.
dangerous
--------------------------------------------------------------
The sea is a dangerous lover. At the present time a person who is upright
in heart can travel on it.
Woody Brison
Cheap Suit
"worked over by madmen"
LOL.
Gee Woody, I hope you can keep convincing yourself. I hate to see a grown man cry.
Tommy
>
> LOL.
>
> Gee Woody, I hope you can keep convincing yourself. I hate to see a
> grown man cry.
>
Yeah - I'm still laughing about that one a day later myself!
TheJordan6
>Date: Sat, Feb 2, 2002 15:22 EST
>Message-id: <Xns91A995707DECAto...@64.154.60.171>
Well get ready for big laughs when Woody writes how "the sea is a dangeorous
lover, and only the righteous can handle it."
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
I think woody's "worked over by madmen" quote must of been in reference to what
the brethren did with BY's quotes in the BY lesson manual a few years ago.
Or maybe it was Guy's insertion of a fictitious "reporter" in the John Taylor
lying scandal.
Or maybe it was the rewriting of the revelations in the BOCommandments.
Or.......