Circular Reasoning

Bonnie

Super Member
When someone’s “prophecies” have time limits, like most of Smith’s did, and people see that he was wrong, that means he wasn’t a prophet. It means he was a false prophet. Like the ones God warned us about.

You can’t just overlook all the false prophecies in favor of maybe two that haven’t come true “yet,” and call him a real prophet. That’s just nuts.
...and making excuses for Smith, so they can maintain their "testimony" of him, as a supposed "prophet" sent by God.
 

dcforrey

Member
I suppose that's possible. What do you think one should do in that case?

In a way I suppose that's true. Once you know something you can't unknow it.
Don’t stop testing him. My way of testing is to compare what he says with the Bible. Remember that for many years Brigham Young taught that Adam was God. He said that it was a doctrine that God had revealed to him: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God.” "Discourse by President Brigham Young", June 8, 1873, Salt Lake City Tabernacle. The Deseret News (1873, June 18), Vol. 22, No. 20, p. 5

Remember: “Thou shalt give heed unto all his [the prophet’s] words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; “For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5).

Many other leaders in the church, such as Wilford Woodruff, George Q Cannon, Heber C Kimball, John Taylor and Franklin D Richards expressed agreement with that doctrine. They and others gave heed to his words as if they came from the mouth of God. The doctrine even made it into a couple of hymns.

I do think that you can “unknow it” if the person whom you concluded was a prophet teaches something that is false, or if that prophet exhibits character inconsistent with what you believe the prophet should have. In Matthew 24 Jesus warned that“many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many”. Did Brigham “deceive many” by his teaching that Adam was God?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Remember that for many years Brigham Young taught that Adam was God.
No. He never taught that Adam was God. You're relying on junk information provided by the propaganda engine of anti-Mormon organizations.

His teaching on that subject, if understood by our critics was that God is a resurrected being who once dwelt on an earth like this one. He just gave that being a name and it just happens to be the same name as our father Adam. They never were the same person.

The point is, if you all don't understand our beliefs, it makes little sense to argue about them because you all are usually barking up the wrong tree.

Since you brought it up, we believe that this process of creating earths for man to dwell on has been going on throughout the universe for eons. Worlds without number have come into existence and passed away all under the watchful eye of the same God and father of us all. Each world has their own Adam and Eve. They all came into existence in the same way ours did, each with a garden, a fall, mortality, a Savior, and the ongoing work of redeeming those who will follow God's teachings. Each of those worlds that have finished their work have become exalted spheres kingdoms where the resurrected righteous dwell and in those kingdoms, the family continues and their children become the Adam and Eve of new worlds, worlds without end.

So, a resurrected man has a child with his resurrected wife and they produce a child that is not born under the curse and therefore will not die unless they choose to do so. So if the resurrected man's name is Adam and his child is named Adam, then it should be easy to see that these two Adams are not the same person. It was Brigham Young's opinion that the resurrected Adam who produced Adam our father, is also the same being who is the father of Jesus.

The idea that we will be like God and continue the family into the eternities is a core doctrine of our church. Brigham Young did not deviate from that doctrine in his teaching. Our critics just didn't and still don't understand what we actually believe and teach.

You might have a problem with that. One member of our church on this board has a problem with it, but we really do believe that as many now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become.

Our critics seem to think they God controls everything and always will. He'll never let anyone else handle the wheel, so-to-speak. We believe that God wants us to be like Him and to participate with him in His glorious work. In order to do that it would behoove God to enable us to do so.

If Jesus said that with the faith of a grain of mustered, we could say to this tree, be thou plucked up and planted in the sea and it would be so, or move mountains by the spoken word, then ought we not also by the same faith call worlds into existence given that it might be considerably larger than a mustard seed after eons of living with God and being taught by Him. That seems easy to me. What I think is more difficult is creating life and we already know how to do that (we don't understand the mechanics, but we are all experts in the process).

The point of life then is to learn to get it right. All that we do in righteousness now will continue in the life hereafter. The difference is between our limited vision now and our expanded vision then.

If you want to debate those doctrines then we might get somewhere, but if you want to insist that Brigham Young taught that our father Adam was the Father of Jesus, you'd just be wasting every one's time.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
I see a perfect example of circular reasoning. It starts by saying that we know that Joseph was a prophet because he told us new things that are true, and then completes the circle by claiming that the very reason we know those new things are true is that Joseph was a prophet and told us they were true.
No,we believe Joseph Smith because we received a witness by the Holy Ghost, and what is taught is backed by the Standard Works.

To believe something by the "virtue" of the priesthood alone, is actually spoken against in D&C 121.
 

dcforrey

Member
No. He never taught that Adam was God. You're relying on junk information provided by the propaganda engine of anti-Mormon organizations.
Brigham young, April 9, 1852: "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, and 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;
"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.

Brigham Young, April 20, 1856: “
Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation.
He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth.”


Bruce R McConkie: Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.

 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Brigham young, April 9, 1852: "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, and 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;
"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.

Brigham Young, April 20, 1856: “
Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation.
He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth.”


Bruce R McConkie: Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.
So tell me, what makes you think any other this is other than what I've said?
 

dcforrey

Member
So tell me, what makes you think any other this is other than what I've said?
Thanks for responding.

Did you read all of what I posted? Maybe you missed the last section where I quoted LDS apostle Bruce R McConkie (emphasis mine): “Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

“I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.”
 

Janice Bower

Well-known member
I don't think that was his argument. He is arguing that it is important to know whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet, because the principles he listed tell us who we are, where we come from, and what God has in store for us.
As Christians, we already know more than J. S. ever did. He hated Christian teachings.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Did you read all of what I posted?
Yes. I did. Nothing that you posted refused anything I said. In fact it supports what I said. Now I spelled it out to you so that would be difficult to not understand and still you choose to not understand. That is your choice. You're welcome to it but that doesn't mean that it's correct.
 

dcforrey

Member
Yes. I did. Nothing that you posted refused anything I said. In fact it supports what I said. Now I spelled it out to you so that would be difficult to not understand and still you choose to not understand. That is your choice. You're welcome to it but that doesn't mean that it's correct.
Just to be clear, do you agree with Bruce R McConkie that Brigham Young expressed views that are “not true”, and that are “out of harmony with the gospel”? Do you agree that “Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue become one of which Brigham Young we believe”?

If so, then in at least that respect we are in agreement.
 

organgrinder

Super Member
No. He never taught that Adam was God. You're relying on junk information provided by the propaganda engine of anti-Mormon organizations.
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God."Discourse by President Brigham Young", June 8, 1873, Salt Lake City Tabernacle. The Deseret News (1873, June 18), Vol. 22, No. 20, p. 5

So... who is right? BOJ or what is quoted above spoken by Brigham? Can't have it both ways.
 

Janice Bower

Well-known member
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our father and God."Discourse by President Brigham Young", June 8, 1873, Salt Lake City Tabernacle. The Deseret News (1873, June 18), Vol. 22, No. 20, p. 5

So... who is right? BOJ or what is quoted above spoken by Brigham? Can't have it both ways.
In 1873?!
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Maybe you missed the last section where I quoted LDS apostle Bruce R McConkie (emphasis mine)
No. I didn't miss it.

Personally, I believe it's easier to ignore the teaching than it is to explain it. It seems to me that is the route McConkie is taking. If you'll note, none of the leaders believe Brigham Young is teaching a different doctrine. It's not changing any church doctrine. Most of them have said, even in the sources you provided, that Brigham Young is contradicting Brigham Young.

Nothing in any of the quotes you've provided refutes my explanation. I've explained it to you. You chose to believe what you wanted as I expected you would.

Here are the facts: Our doctrine is that we have a path through Jesus Christ to become like God the Father. IOW, we will one day sit on a throne and be worshiped as the God and father of spirits. God's name could be John, or Jerry, or James, or Peter. However, whatever his earthly name was, he will be known as Elohim. Brigham Young chose to call that being, who we call Elohim, by one of many possible earthly names. In this case, it was Adam.

The explanation, as far as I can tell, is hard to misconstrue and yet you still misconstrue it. I can only assume that you are doing it on purpose and in so doing, are attempting to tell me that I don't know what we believe.

I am telling you want we believe and that Brigham Young wasn't describing the Adam God theory you all want to believe. I've explained what he taught. It is in perfect alignment with our doctrine. Brigham Young was not contradicting Brigham Young. He taught doctrine.

Adam is not his own Father. Adam, the ancient of days (the first mortal man), did not sire himself. His father once walked on an earth much like this one. That earth had it's own savior. It was formed from the void that existed with their God and Father directing their Savior to form the world of his spiritual offspring to endure mortality just as we are not enduring mortality. That earth has passed away and a new earth (our earth) and a new Heaven came into existence. Those who kept the commandments on that earth are now celestialized beings and one of them, (quite possibly many of them) according to Brigham Young, was named Adam and That Adam formed his Son Adam in the womb of His wife. Brigham Young goes into some detail about how the, as-yet-unborn Adam, was formed from the dust of the ground. He, the unborn Adam, was born just as any child is born into mortality. That child was raised to maturity and found a wife among the other children born to Celestial beings. Her name was Eve. They were married and then placed in the Garden of Eden with a simple choice to make, to each the fruit or not. And if they choose to eat the fruit, the process will start again.

That has always been the crux of Brigham Young's teaching on the topic. Now, I've explained it to you again. You are wrong about it. I've corrected you. But none of that matters to you, does it?
 

dcforrey

Member
No. I didn't miss it.

Personally, I believe it's easier to ignore the teaching than it is to explain it. It seems to me that is the route McConkie is taking. If you'll note, none of the leaders believe Brigham Young is teaching a different doctrine. It's not changing any church doctrine. Most of them have said, even in the sources you provided, that Brigham Young is contradicting Brigham Young.

Nothing in any of the quotes you've provided refutes my explanation. I've explained it to you. You chose to believe what you wanted as I expected you would.

Here are the facts: Our doctrine is that we have a path through Jesus Christ to become like God the Father. IOW, we will one day sit on a throne and be worshiped as the God and father of spirits. God's name could be John, or Jerry, or James, or Peter. However, whatever his earthly name was, he will be known as Elohim. Brigham Young chose to call that being, who we call Elohim, by one of many possible earthly names. In this case, it was Adam.

The explanation, as far as I can tell, is hard to misconstrue and yet you still misconstrue it. I can only assume that you are doing it on purpose and in so doing, are attempting to tell me that I don't know what we believe.

I am telling you want we believe and that Brigham Young wasn't describing the Adam God theory you all want to believe. I've explained what he taught. It is in perfect alignment with our doctrine. Brigham Young was not contradicting Brigham Young. He taught doctrine.

Adam is not his own Father. Adam, the ancient of days (the first mortal man), did not sire himself. His father once walked on an earth much like this one. That earth had it's own savior. It was formed from the void that existed with their God and Father directing their Savior to form the world of his spiritual offspring to endure mortality just as we are not enduring mortality. That earth has passed away and a new earth (our earth) and a new Heaven came into existence. Those who kept the commandments on that earth are now celestialized beings and one of them, (quite possibly many of them) according to Brigham Young, was named Adam and That Adam formed his Son Adam in the womb of His wife. Brigham Young goes into some detail about how the, as-yet-unborn Adam, was formed from the dust of the ground. He, the unborn Adam, was born just as any child is born into mortality. That child was raised to maturity and found a wife among the other children born to Celestial beings. Her name was Eve. They were married and then placed in the Garden of Eden with a simple choice to make, to each the fruit or not. And if they choose to eat the fruit, the process will start again.

That has always been the crux of Brigham Young's teaching on the topic. Now, I've explained it to you again. You are wrong about it. I've corrected you. But none of that matters to you, does it?
I didn’t see where you answered this: “Just to be clear, do you agree with apostle Bruce R McConkie that Brigham Young expressed views that are “not true”, and that are “out of harmony with the gospel”?”

I’m not asking about what the Church believes today. Bruce R McConkie wrote that Brigham Young expressed views that were “not true”, and “out of harmony with the gospel”.

Was Bruce R McConkie correct?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
I didn’t see where you answered this: “Just to be clear, do you agree with apostle Bruce R McConkie that Brigham Young expressed views that are “not true”, and that are “out of harmony with the gospel”?”
Right here,
Personally, I believe it's easier to ignore the teaching than it is to explain it. It seems to me that is the route McConkie is taking.
Anymore questions? There are more details. Maybe if you read it again you see it this time.

I repeat, I know what we believe. I explained it. You don't. You are repeating anti-Mormon propaganda without understanding. I gave you the cure. It's up to you to apply it. I can lead you to water but that's about it.

Brigham Young taught our doctrine on this subject. Adam, the son of Adam, is not our God. Brigham Young never said he was. It's not even possible that he was nor is it possible that Brigham Young ever said he was.
I’m not asking about what the Church believes today
That's fine. The church never taught or believed the Adam God theory (some members did. I believe they were the victims of anti-Mormon propaganda) as presented by our critics. That is classic disinformation.
Bruce R McConkie wrote that Brigham Young expressed views that were “not true”, and “out of harmony with the gospel"
What you believe Brigham Young said is not true and is out of harmony with the gospel. That's not what Brigham Young said. I refer you back to my previous post. I don't believe McConkie invested any time to connect the dots on the subject. It was easier to discount your version of it.

The dots are now connected. You have the cure. McConkie didn't. I think it's about time for you to move the goal posts. My guess is that the argument will be that I don't know what my church teaches or some other laughable complaint.
 
Last edited:

Created

Member
This is why I don't believe the "prophet test" in the Bible is biblical. It makes no sense. We see, time and time again, of prophets making statements that there's no way that normal moral people could see it come to pass. The virgin both occurred centuries after Isaiah made his famous statement, unto us a child is born. Who was alive when Isaiah said it when it actually occurred? No one.

So, yes, once you draw the conclusion that this is a prophet sent from God. He's got that calling for life. There is no testing anymore.
It's makes no sense? To test if a prophet is true? I guess if LDS dismiss' everything that is legitimate, then all that's left is Mormonism.
 

dcforrey

Member
Right here,

Anymore questions? There are more details. Maybe if you read it again you see it this time.

I repeat, I know what we believe. I explained it. You don't. You are repeating anti-Mormon propaganda without understanding. I gave you the cure. It's up to you to apply it. I can lead you to water but that's about it.

Brigham Young taught our doctrine on this subject. Adam, the son of Adam, is not our God. Brigham Young never said he was. It's not even possible that he was nor is it possible that Brigham Young ever said he was.

That's fine. The church never taught or believed the Adam God theory (some members did. I believe they were the victims of anti-Mormon propaganda) as presented by our critics. That is classic disinformation.

What you believe Brigham Young said is not true and is out of harmony with the gospel. That's not what Brigham Young said. I refer you back to my previous post. I don't believe McConkie invested any time to connect the dots on the subject. It was easier to discount your version of it.

The dots are now connected. You have the cure. McConkie didn't. I think it's about time for you to move the goal posts. My guess is that the argument will be that I don't know what my church teaches or some other laughable complaint.
This is not really an answer to what I asked. I’m not asking what you believe about Adam-God. Your current views about Adam-God are not important to me. All of your explanations about what you currently believe are not relevant to what I’m asking. I am aware that Adam-God is not currently the teaching of the Church. Instead I’m asking only about your opinion on what McConkie wrote. Rather than discuss whether or not he might be ignoring it rather than explaining it, I want to know what you believe about what he actually wrote.

I ask again: “Just to be clear, do you agree with apostle Bruce R McConkie that Brigham Young expressed views that are “not true”, and that are “out of harmony with the gospel”?”
 

organgrinder

Super Member
This is not really an answer to what I asked. I’m not asking what you believe about Adam-God. Your current views about Adam-God are not important to me. All of your explanations about what you currently believe are not relevant to what I’m asking. I am aware that Adam-God is not currently the teaching of the Church. Instead I’m asking only about your opinion on what McConkie wrote. Rather than discuss whether or not he might be ignoring it rather than explaining it, I want to know what you believe about what he actually wrote.

I ask again: “Just to be clear, do you agree with apostle Bruce R McConkie that Brigham Young expressed views that are “not true”, and that are “out of harmony with the gospel”?”
Good luck getting a straight answer. He can't even give an answer as to whether what he himself stated on Adam god agrees or disagrees with what Brigham said.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Sometimes getting straight answers out of some Mormons on here is like trying to pull out an impacted wisdom tooth with a pair of tweezers.
 
Top