Criticizing Mormon-ISM, vs. attacking Christians.

Magdalena

Well-known member
It's your assumption that I follow false prophets. Our discussion is here to determine that.
What's critical is evidence. I can provide evidence for my claims, you can't. That's the bottom line.
You’ve already admitted that Joseph Smith taught false doctrine when you said his polygamy didn’t come from God. You’ve already tried to wiggle around or excuse other things he taught. It’s pretty evident that you know he was a false prophet.
 

Aaron32

Active member
You already admitted that Joseph Smith taught false doctrine when you said his polygamy didn’t come from God. You’ve already tried to wiggle around or excuse other things he taught. It’s pretty evident that you know he was a false prophet.
You don't know what I know.
Yes, I have issues with polygamy.
That doesn't equate to "false prophet" in my book.
See my new post.
 

Aaron32

Active member
Yes it was false, but it was a false doctrine based on revelation. Not just a false teaching.
Claimed revelation...
Big difference. Young taught it as doctrine. When prophets reveal a word from God, and you folks use the OT method of only having a single prophet, it is what it is. People didn't vote or ratify what a prophet spoke because the prophet was accepted as a prophet of God. Your church changed the scenario, calling the revelation a theory. Therefore it was ok to call it false.
Ok. I think I see what you're saying. I believe you're saying we can't claim the Old Testament standard of a prophet. As if all prophets were equivalent to Moses or something. That's a fair point, and I agree.
Having said that, I think that's a very narrow definition of a prophet by Mormon standards, and even Christian standards.

IfIf Young was truly a revelator prophet that what he said he revealed from God and taught for 20 years shows it was accepted by church authorities and the common folk-- Orson Pratt excluded. Pratt did sign on to it but later recanted as far as I have been able to read.
This is where you lose me. Can you show me the sources your looking at of it's wide acceptance? Everything I'm looking at says the opposite.
False revelation equals false prophet. Your church didn't do anything to him because they BELIEVED what he said. It wasn't until later when the goofiness of the Adam-God revelation became so uncomfortable that Kimball dealt with it.
Yeah, I don't know where your getting this. A google search is pretty conclusive that Adam-God isn't a big controversy in Mormon thought.
Kimball's decision wasn't based on revelation unlike Young's. So there's that.
This is where your reasoning becomes inconsistent. Kimball was deemed as a prophet. You're saying Mormons should believe Brigham Young because he claimed revelation, while Kimball in the same calling should not be believed because he's rational??? Even the D&C says revelation should be at peace in your mind and heart.
If Young had a genuine revelation, it should be followed and anything Kimball said thrown out. If Young's revelation was indeed false (and how could Kimball make that decision except for political/religious reasons),
That's exactly what we're saying. Young did not have genuine revelation on this. We need more than just Young's word on it to be ratified by the Church.
It's your bias to declares Kimball's assumed motive. You can't prove your claim.
Young was a false prophet and anything he said or taught should be discarded. also calls into serious question the whole prophet and revelator business your church believes.
Well, given Brigham Young's doctrinal legacy, (polygamy, blood atonement, Adam God), I think it's safe to say any of his original doctrine has been discarded. The remnant belong in the cultural sphere.

I think the understanding of the societal discussion at the time regarding evolution also sheds some light on context of the teaching.

 

organgrinder

Active member
Claimed revelation...

Ok. I think I see what you're saying. I believe you're saying we can't claim the Old Testament standard of a prophet. As if all prophets were equivalent to Moses or something. That's a fair point, and I agree.
Having said that, I think that's a very narrow definition of a prophet by Mormon standards, and even Christian standards.


This is where you lose me. Can you show me the sources your looking at of it's wide acceptance? Everything I'm looking at says the opposite.

Yeah, I don't know where your getting this. A google search is pretty conclusive that Adam-God isn't a big controversy in Mormon thought.

This is where your reasoning becomes inconsistent. Kimball was deemed as a prophet. You're saying Mormons should believe Brigham Young because he claimed revelation, while Kimball in the same calling should not be believed because he's rational??? Even the D&C says revelation should be at peace in your mind and heart.

That's exactly what we're saying. Young did not have genuine revelation on this. We need more than just Young's word on it to be ratified by the Church.
It's your bias to declares Kimball's assumed motive. You can't prove your claim.

Well, given Brigham Young's doctrinal legacy, (polygamy, blood atonement, Adam God), I think it's safe to say any of his original doctrine has been discarded. The remnant belong in the cultural sphere.

I think the understanding of the societal discussion at the time regarding evolution also sheds some light on context of the teaching.

And herein lies the Mormon two-step, Aaron. Your "out" is that Young claimed it was revelation by Young. He certainly did say it was revelation and it was believed (Orson Pratt had difficulty with it) and subsequent prophets and revelators also thought it was so. The church faithful also believed it. My own LDS landlords before their deaths in the early 1980s were taught that doctrine and believed Adam-God. The doctrine gradually became uncomfortable in the 20th century with GAs so Kimball made a decision, calling it a false theory instead of a false doctrine.

A person can make a false teaching and not be a false prophet. However, when a prophet such as Young declares "X" is a revelation from God and then teaches it, that puts that teaching into a whole different class because it is a false doctrine based upon a "revelation". Young obviously had a false revelation and taught it was doctrine. It was believed. People were deceived for decades.

Since you only have one "prophet" speaking for God in your church, you have the OT standard to judge not only the prophecy but also the prophet. Your church didn't do that, downgrading the revelation to simply a theory. Very convenient.

Propjets in the New Testament are different, but there is still a standard when they claim to speak in the Lord's name. There are a number of "prophets" whose prophecies were false and they, too, are doing the "two-step". I disregard anything they say. People who are in those churches and those who may follow them via the internet have the same decision to make-- follow or reject.

Did your recent prophets ever officially reject Young's Adam-God doctrine-- calling it doctrine and not downgrading it to a "theory"-- at a General Conference? Again, big difference between doctrine and theory, especially when the doctrine was based upon "revelation from God" as Young said and taught for 20 years.

Thank Aaron.
 

Aaron32

Active member
And herein lies the Mormon two-step, Aaron. Your "out" is that Young claimed it was revelation by Young. He certainly did say it was revelation and it was believed (Orson Pratt had difficulty with it) and subsequent prophets and revelators also thought it was so. The church faithful also believed it.
I don't think this conversation can progress until we can get to hard evidence.
Again, you're claiming the Church widely accepted this doctrine up until the 1980's. What sources are you looking at to make this claim?
I'm looking at the original introduction of the topic. No where do I see Brigham Young claiming revelation.
He says salvation is conditional upon accepting or rejecting it, but in later statements he says it doesn't pertain to us. So, the necessity of the accepting his doctrine is really a question to Brigham Young, as he seems to contradict himself.

My own LDS landlords before their deaths in the early 1980s were taught that doctrine and believed Adam-God. The doctrine gradually became uncomfortable in the 20th century with GAs so Kimball made a decision, calling it a false theory instead of a false doctrine.
I've address this. This isn't useful evidence for anybody. What callings did your landlords have that I should revere what they believed? How do you know they understood correctly? How do you know you understood them correctly. They're dead. Now we just have your word to substantiate it. You could also claim to have family members practicing underground polygamy. There were people in my childhood that claimed Mormons got horns, and asked me if my parents crossed the plains. I mean, when are we willing to look past our presuppositions, and move to verifiable evidence?

Would you like me to take a poll on facebook of other faithful Mormons on who believe Adam God? Maybe you can do that yourself. If you do it on facebook, be sure to invite me.
A person can make a false teaching and not be a false prophet. However, when a prophet such as Young declares "X" is a revelation from God and then teaches it, that puts that teaching into a whole different class because it is a false doctrine based upon a "revelation". Young obviously had a false revelation and taught it was doctrine. It was believed. People were deceived for decades.
And then there's people that think they've had a revelation, and realized it was their ego on steroids. On my mission, we used to joke about people at BYU who claimed to receive revelation to a girl that they should marry them. We called that a revelation from the Holy Clown.
That's not how priesthood works. That's not the purpose of revelation. You can't receive revelation for someone else outside of your stewardship. If the revelation doesn't pertain to your salvation or temporal welfare, then you're exceeding your calling as a priesthood holder.

This is one of the lessons learned at the failure of the KSS, and why many people left the church.

Since you only have one "prophet" speaking for God in your church, you have the OT standard to judge not only the prophecy but also the prophet. Your church didn't do that, downgrading the revelation to simply a theory. Very convenient.
Doctrine is recognized when all can recognize it and be edified. D&C 38:27 "...if ye are not one ye are not mine"
Did your recent prophets ever officially reject Young's Adam-God doctrine-- calling it doctrine and not downgrading it to a "theory"-- at a General Conference? Again, big difference between doctrine and theory, especially when the doctrine was based upon "revelation from God" as Young said and taught for 20 years.

Thank Aaron.
Well, by definition, if it's rejected, it's not doctrine.
But here's McConkie speaking about Brigham Young regarding the Adam god theory:
"What [Brigham Young] did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.”

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." - Spencer W. Kimball

In both quotes, they state they believe it IS doctrine - man-made doctrine. Thus, not doctrine of the Church, but and individual's "theory".

This can help you better understand how Mormons view the role of prophets: go to Enrichment F “As If from Mine Own Mouth”: The Role of Prophets in the Church https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org...pdf/language-materials/32493_eng.pdf?lang=eng

This video was also very well done:
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Right! I mean, who would confess to participating in illegal activity? But here's the thing, if your a member of the ward (or the Stake), you can look in their ward directory and see who's married to whom. Its not difficult to get evidence of proving or disproving this claim.
Aaron, may I suggest that you stay far away from cities such as NYC. They'll take you so fast and smooth you'll never know it!

Haven't you heard of keeping a double set of books? I'm not arguing whether or not polygamy exists or not, I'm saying how it could be hidden from unfriendly eyes.
And if no records exist then it REALLY challenges the purpose of polygamy and temple sealings doctrinally.
OK, if you say so. Mormon theology is not too important on the East Coast, at least on Long Island and the Piedmont of NC :) Can I ask what may be a dumB question? Wouldn't God know who was married and/or sealed to whom? And so, some paperwork down here shouldn't matter, should it?

--Rich
 

Aaron32

Active member
Aaron, may I suggest that you stay far away from cities such as NYC. They'll take you so fast and smooth you'll never know it!
Wow! So I'm the gullible one for believing polygamy is continuing underground without a shred of evidence? Really?
Haven't you heard of keeping a double set of books? I'm not arguing whether or not polygamy exists or not, I'm saying how it could be hidden from unfriendly eyes.
A double set of books? For what purpose? Do tell.
And I'm guessing according to this theory, legal marriages needn't be proven to happen either, which would force the state to keep records. All that matters is that the chosen ones get these special privliedges?
What about the kids of these polygamist marriages? How do they get them to not talk about it FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES?
Mass resignation over Kate Kelly's feminist movement, and the issue of polygamy NEVER comes up?
Man that's pretty strong control when even the apostates want to keep polygamy in the dark.
Can I ask what may be a dumB question? Wouldn't God know who was married and/or sealed to whom? And so, some paperwork down here shouldn't matter, should it?

--Rich
Have you considered that maybe it's not about just God knowing, but that the work and society will continue after the Second Coming through the Millenium?
 

Aaron32

Active member
Unlike fundamentalist Mormon polygamy groups, they want to keep their Mormon church memberships. They still believe Joseph Smith.
Ah, ok. This is an important point. So you're saying if Church authorities knew about it, they'd lose their church memberships?
It sounds like, you're not really talking about a standard belief in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but possibly a break-off. That's an important clarification to make.
By the way, you said polygamy wasn’t practiced much before Utah. That’s not correct. If you want to know the truth about that, read “Nauvoo Polygamy: But We Called It Celestial Marriage,” by George D. Smith, and “In Sacred Loneliness,” by Todd Compton. Both books were well researched.
I'll take a look.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
Wow! So I'm the gullible one for believing polygamy is continuing underground without a shred of evidence? Really?
Nope. I'm saying it may be easier to hide than people expect. You know, kinda like The Purloined Letter.
A double set of books? For what purpose? Do tell.
Obviously, one to show "them". Again, this is hypothetical.
And I'm guessing according to this theory, legal marriages needn't be proven to happen either, which would force the state to keep records. All that matters is that the chosen ones get these special privliedges?
Nah, ya gotta have some appearance of legality! (This is fun! Wanna write a book? We'd probably make dollars off it! 😊)
What about the kids of these polygamist marriages? How do they get them to not talk about it FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES?
You're making it harder!
How about living off the beaten path, and home schooling, and Daddy, and Mommy, and "Aunt" Bessy?
"... and if you tell anyone, (sniff!) Mommy and Daddy will be put in jail, and you'll go live with strangers, and never see Mommy and Daddy again! 😪"
Mass resignation over Kate Kelly's feminist movement, and the issue of polygamy NEVER comes up?
Man that's pretty strong control when even the apostates want to keep polygamy in the dark.
Who? I stopped taking in the news - just too depressing!
Have you considered that maybe it's not about just God knowing, but that the work and society will continue after the Second Coming through the Millenium?
No. That's why I asked. 😊 I'm usually not afraid to ask dumB questions!

Honestly, Aaron, I really don't know if there is polygamy in Utah. This has been more of an intellectual exercise for me.

Thanks for your time!
--Rich
 

organgrinder

Active member
Aaron wrote:
I don't think this conversation can progress until we can get to hard evidence.
Again, you're claiming the Church widely accepted this doctrine up until the 1980's. What sources are you looking at to make this claim?
I'm looking at the original introduction of the topic. No where do I see Brigham Young claiming revelation.

Here is what I posted first and attributed to the Deseret News. The other link have the other information. Perhaps you didn't see them.

Let it also be noted that just four years before his death, Brigham Young declared it was God Himself who gave him the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently Young’s position on the matter was still an issue with some LDS members; otherwise he would not have had to ask, “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.)

http://www.irr.org/mit/wdist/adam-god.html



"Adam-God" – Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine? – Mormonism Research Ministry (mrm.org)
 

Aaron32

Active member
Here is what I posted first and attributed to the Deseret News. The other link have the other information. Perhaps you didn't see them.

Let it also be noted that just four years before his death, Brigham Young declared it was God Himself who gave him the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently Young’s position on the matter was still an issue with some LDS members; otherwise he would not have had to ask, “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.)

http://www.irr.org/mit/wdist/adam-god.html



"Adam-God" – Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine? – Mormonism Research Ministry (mrm.org)
Here is what I posted first and attributed to the Deseret News. The other link have the other information. Perhaps you didn't see them.

Let it also be noted that just four years before his death, Brigham Young declared it was God Himself who gave him the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently Young’s position on the matter was still an issue with some LDS members; otherwise he would not have had to ask, “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.)

http://www.irr.org/mit/wdist/adam-god.html



"Adam-God" – Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine? – Mormonism Research Ministry (mrm.org)
Ok. I don't mean to be difficult, but I said:
"you're claiming the Church widely accepted this doctrine up until the 1980's." and asked for evidence.
And you posted a quote that the Saints had unbelief regarding the doctrine.
I also see anything to that effect in the quotes in the link.

But I get what you're saying. Brigham Young believed he received it by revelation, and if a true prophet, it shouldn't be questioned.
But again, you have to trace back Brigham Young's claim to authority - the priesthood.
And the D&C states: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood..." Meaning, just because I hold the priesthood doesn't automatically mean everything I say goes. You have to operate BY the Spirit - which includes persuasion. Well, apparently, in the end, from what I can see, few we're persuaded based on it's merit. Any statement of acceptance I see is just on the basis that Brigham Young taught it.
 

organgrinder

Active member
Ok. I don't mean to be difficult, but I said:
"you're claiming the Church widely accepted this doctrine up until the 1980's." and asked for evidence.
And you posted a quote that the Saints had unbelief regarding the doctrine.
I also see anything to that effect in the quotes in the link.

But I get what you're saying. Brigham Young believed he received it by revelation, and if a true prophet, it shouldn't be questioned.
But again, you have to trace back Brigham Young's claim to authority - the priesthood.
And the D&C states: "No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood..." Meaning, just because I hold the priesthood doesn't automatically mean everything I say goes. You have to operate BY the Spirit - which includes persuasion. Well, apparently, in the end, from what I can see, few we're persuaded based on it's merit. Any statement of acceptance I see is just on the basis that Brigham Young taught it.
You aren't being difficult. Can I "prove" with data my statement? No. I can, however, tell you what folks in an 80% Mormon area in southeast Idaho generally believed by talking to church members. Most of those I talked to believed it.

Now some folks in the links had unbelief in Young's revelation. However, remember it was a revelation from God. That is what your Revelator, Prophet and President is supposed to do and give. Obviously it was foreign to many of them. Disturbingly so, yet Young was the prophet and revelator. What he said as a revelation coming directly from God should be believed as much as anything Joseph Smith said as a revelator and prophet. You don't get to pick and choose.

Your later prophets became uncomfortable with the doctrine and found an out by calling it a theory and thereby discrediting it as such. Young said it was doctrine based upon revelation by God. You either believe he had that revelation and taught accurately for over 20 years or you don't. If what he had was indeed a false revelation then he is a false prophet and apostle that led your church for many years. If what he taught was accurate on that doctrine, then subsequent prophets and revelators who rejected it-- Kimball in particular-- were false prophets and revelators leading the church into deception and error.

Can't have it both ways.
 

Aaron32

Active member
You aren't being difficult. Can I "prove" with data my statement? No. I can, however, tell you what folks in an 80% Mormon area in southeast Idaho generally believed by talking to church members. Most of those I talked to believed it.
And having served my mission in Boise Idaho, my experience was just the opposite. Nobody spoke of Adam God. So where does that leave us?
Authoritative beliefs isn't based on the belief of the masses. And, if we can agree on that, then it strengthens your next point:

Now some folks in the links had unbelief in Young's revelation. However, remember it was a revelation from God. That is what your Revelator, Prophet and President is supposed to do and give. Obviously it was foreign to many of them. Disturbingly so, yet Young was the prophet and revelator. What he said as a revelation coming directly from God should be believed as much as anything Joseph Smith said as a revelator and prophet. You don't get to pick and choose.
I've never really understood the Adam God doctrine/theory/whatever myself. So, as I researched this, I found this this paper to be the MOST thorough collaboration of history and explanation of Young's beliefs: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45225052.pdf
I highly recommend you read it.

It highlights a few points:
When it was first introduced, Brigham Young strongly taught it as revelation.
Members of the Church had a hard time with it.
Fellow leaders supported him unquestionably, respecting the mantle of his office.
After 4 years it was introduced, Brigham recanted the necessity of believing it for salvation, and attributed the belief mostly to his reckoning.

". . . Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true.
Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;" and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass" ("Discourse, October 7, 1857, reported in JD 5:331-32)

So, in Brigham Young's mind - Priesthood lineage goes: Adam, Jesus, Abraham, Peter, Joseph Smith
THEN, Brigham Young tried to attribute to Joseph Smith as the author, and Brigham Young was simply expounding on it.
The article gives a plentiful amount of evidence how this belief is historically and doctrinally contradictory in the theological framework already set forth by Joseph Smith.

Brigham confesses his "sin" of revealing truths not according to God's will:
"... if guilt before my God and my brethren rests upon me in the least, it is in this one thing, that I have revealed too much concerning God
and his kingdom, and the designs of our Father in heaven. If my skirts are stained in the least with wrong, it is because I have been too free
in telling what God is, how he lives, the nature of his providences and designs in creating the world, in bringing forth the human family on
the earth, his designs concerning them, etc. If I had, like Paul, said - "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant," perhaps it would
have been better for the people. (Discourse, May 20, 1860, reported in DN, June 27, 1860, pp. 129-30. )

And in 1861 he chooses to keep his personal understanding to himself:
". . . We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal children. We believe that he made Adam after his own image and likeness. . . ,(Discourse, July 8, 1863, reported in JD : 10:230-31)

So, we see the choice isn't between Kimball and Brigham. McConkie is right, it's Brigham vs. Brigham. No matter how much emphasis you want to put on Brigham's authority, Brigham decisions as a President of the Church essentially decided that his beliefs we're not for public consumption.

Not in the paper, but in my response to "the Prophet" yesterday, I became aware of the Official Declaration of 1865 - which basically says that no new teachings can have "doctrinal" status, unless approved by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, with a confession by Orson Pratt at the end. So, it seems, Brigham got his social payback.

In 1873, Brigham Young counseled his fellow apostles that "we should be cautious about preaching on doctrines unless we fully understand them by the power of the Spirit."

After Brigham's death the actual "support" of his fellow authorities came out: "Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed, and yet they dare not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such
quarters .... Some even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled. (George Q. Cannon Journal, entry for January 17, 1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon - Relations With Brigham Young," The Instructor, vol. 80 (June 1945), no. 6, p. 259;)

The paper then explains how even though his fellow authorities sustained Brigham in his belief, they never included it in their writings. All other discussion since 1900 is brought by critics of the Church.

This is actually a very entertaining story, especially when you lump in other beliefs shared by Brigham Young, that God had sex with Mary. One of the beliefs Brigham defends Adam God is that if Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost, Elders should be cautious by bestowing the gift of the Holy Ghost because it might get them pregnant. That's pretty hilarious. Of course, if Brigham Young could see our day and how IVF works, it may have influenced his judgment.
 

Aaron32

Active member
x
Your later prophets became uncomfortable with the doctrine and found an out by calling it a theory and thereby discrediting it as such. Young said it was doctrine based upon revelation by God. You either believe he had that revelation and taught accurately for over 20 years or you don't. If what he had was indeed a false revelation then he is a false prophet and apostle that led your church for many years. If what he taught was accurate on that doctrine, then subsequent prophets and revelators who rejected it-- Kimball in particular-- were false prophets and revelators leading the church into deception and error.

Can't have it both ways.
Yes, I understand your argument.

If we were actually a cult, and that Brigham Young was the highest authority there could be, then it would present a serious challenge.
Yet, reviewing the history of the Church and the drivers and formation of declarations on determining Doctrines, and if we acknowledge men are rational beings and light is truth, then we realize we need to add more to your simplistic explanation.
That our Church is led by Jesus Christ, and the Brigham Young is not/was not the only member, but the whole body of Latter-day Saints.
And over time, collectively, Brigham Young's teachings were ultimately rejected. Why? Because they make no logical sense in the framework of the gospel.

Again, this subject requires to understand WHERE Brigham Young draws his authority and understanding the purpose of Priesthood, the purpose of the Church in the role of salvation, understanding revelation, and the role of unanimity in the Church within their own personal witness to collectively gain a perfect understanding:
D&C 50:
13 Wherefore, I the Lord ask you this question—unto what were ye ordained?
14 To preach my gospel by the Spirit, even the Comforter which was sent forth to teach the truth.
15 And then received ye spirits which ye could not understand, and received them to be of God; and in this are ye justified?
16 Behold ye shall answer this question yourselves; nevertheless, I will be merciful unto you; he that is weak among you hereafter shall be made strong.
17 Verily I say unto you, he that is ordained of me and sent forth to preach the word of truth by the Comforter, in the Spirit of truth, doth he preach it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
18 And if it be by some other way it is not of God.
19 And again, he that receiveth the word of truth, doth he receive it by the Spirit of truth or some other way?
20 If it be some other way it is not of God.
21 Therefore, why is it that ye cannot understand and know, that he that receiveth the word by the Spirit of truth receiveth it as it is preached by the Spirit of truth?
22 Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together.
23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

Brigham Young himself recanted the necessity of believing him. He let members like me off the hook. He might have gained an understanding that has not been revealed to me. With Adam God linked to the KFD it makes for some very interesting possibilities, but otherwise useless in moving God's work forward.

Let's not forget the foundation on what makes Mormon beliefs "Mormon".
D&C 84:
54 And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—
55 Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation.
56 And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all.
57 And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—
58 That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion.

What MATTERS is the teachings of the Book of Mormon. Faith, repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost - salvation by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Any speculation past this is a mystery, and isn't pertinent to our salvation. It's Satan's strategy to get people to look past the "basics" and seek for things that can't be understood. (Jacob 4:14)

In my experience, it's the people I know that measure their gospel knowledge against the cultural "deep doctrines", that don't read scriptures, and only know what their Sunday School/Seminary/Institute Teacher/Priesthood Leader tell them (aka. "relying on the arm of the flesh") that generally end up leaving the Church. And if they come to know Christ through Christians like you, (because the Bible is true) they then tell you what Mormons "really" believe. And they talk to me, and claim I'm either whitewashing my beliefs, or that they know more about my religion than I do, when they themselves present Mormonism as a bunch of contradictory beliefs, and require me to tell them how doctrine is determined and makes logical sense. It truly is "anti-" (as in backward) "Mormonism". Meanwhile, General Conference addresses seem to completely contradict what they're saying - and therefore manuals, conferences, etc. is just a glorified ruse. It's really quite sad.

So, I doubt any NEW points can be brought to the table, but I'll be happy to continue answer questions. I'll give you the last word on this. If what I've presented above doesn't convince you, then I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, because it would extremely difficult for me to see it any other way.

I can't speak for Mormons collectively, but for this mormon ("me"), I can say God has not revealed to me the truthfulness of the Adam god "doctrine" as He did to Brigham Young. My priesthood leaders, and Brigham Young himself tells me that my salvation is not in jeopardy. God has revealed the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to me, and has shown me the power found in Temple Ordinances. There's very few mysteries, if any, that challenge my testimony. I know that as I sincerely ask God with an open heart and mind, eventually everything all "clicks". I defend Christianity when I come across mormons deeply entrench in cultural "deep doctrines", and I defend Mormonism against "Bible only" Christians.
There is a middle ground, and it's not very popular - let me tell you. But I appreciate you're continue cordiality in our discussion, and it has really forced me to learn a lot.
 

organgrinder

Active member
Aaron wrote:
I can't speak for Mormons collectively, but for this mormon ("me"), I can say God has not revealed to me the truthfulness of the Adam god "doctrine" as He did to Brigham Young. My priesthood leaders, and Brigham Young himself tells me that my salvation is not in jeopardy. God has revealed the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to me, and has shown me the power found in Temple Ordinances. There's very few mysteries, if any, that challenge my testimony. I know that as I sincerely ask God with an open heart and mind, eventually everything all "clicks". I defend Christianity when I come across mormons deeply entrench in cultural "deep doctrines", and I defend Mormonism against "Bible only" Christians.
There is a middle ground, and it's not very popular - let me tell you. But I appreciate you're continue cordiality in our discussion, and it has really forced me to learn a lot.
I have no reason to slam you, Aaron. We disagree on several things but we can dialogue as adults. Who knew?! I am one of those Bible only Christians. I used to be Roman Catholic that had the Bible, tradition and the church magisterium to reveal truth. I found that "sacred tradition" was not much more than man-made fables and stories with no real grounding in God's Word. The magisterium drifted into Greek philosophy and believed it alone could interpret God's word because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc., were the officials teachers and arbiters of truth.

That was all false. Scripture is what Jesus used to refute the religious leaders of the day and the only standard utilized to determine correct doctrine. That is why I stand with scripture alone. There are new testament prophets, etc. However, whatever they say is to be tested against the written word of God-- the Bible. The Berean church utilized this method when Paul came and preached. The searched the scriptures (the OT) to see if those things were so. They sought no outside revelation. Only the written word of God would do.

So I don't accept the BOM, D&C or POGP for those reasons. I don't believe Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, not Brigham Young and any successors to your institutional church. I also do not accept oral tradition from the Roman Catholic Church regarding Mary and all the practices that go with it or the development of a Mass that is regarded as the un-bloody sacrifice of Jesus re-presented on the RCC altars every day. The book of Hebrews in chapter 10 tells me differently. I saw enough wrong doctrine there and really bad un-biblical teaching that I had to leave and find a Bible-based church.

I continue to pray for you as do others. I think you are on a journey and trust God you will get you where He wants you regardless of your church affiliation. I do believe God does not want us in a church that has major doctrinal errors and idolatry. Both the RCC and LDS church have those same problems.

Watch out for the crazies on I-5 and I-405.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
I have no reason to slam you, Aaron. We disagree on several things but we can dialogue as adults. Who knew?! I am one of those Bible only Christians. I used to be Roman Catholic that had the Bible, tradition and the church magisterium to reveal truth. I found that "sacred tradition" was not much more than man-made fables and stories with no real grounding in God's Word. The magisterium drifted into Greek philosophy and believed it alone could interpret God's word because the pope, cardinals, bishops, etc., were the officials teachers and arbiters of truth.

That was all false. Scripture is what Jesus used to refute the religious leaders of the day and the only standard utilized to determine correct doctrine. That is why I stand with scripture alone. There are new testament prophets, etc. However, whatever they say is to be tested against the written word of God-- the Bible. The Berean church utilized this method when Paul came and preached. The searched the scriptures (the OT) to see if those things were so. They sought no outside revelation. Only the written word of God would do.

So I don't accept the BOM, D&C or POGP for those reasons. I don't believe Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, not Brigham Young and any successors to your institutional church. I also do not accept oral tradition from the Roman Catholic Church regarding Mary and all the practices that go with it or the development of a Mass that is regarded as the un-bloody sacrifice of Jesus re-presented on the RCC altars every day. The book of Hebrews in chapter 10 tells me differently. I saw enough wrong doctrine there and really bad un-biblical teaching that I had to leave and find a Bible-based church.

I continue to pray for you as do others. I think you are on a journey and trust God you will get you where He wants you regardless of your church affiliation. I do believe God does not want us in a church that has major doctrinal errors and idolatry. Both the RCC and LDS church have those same problems.

Watch out for the crazies on I-5 and I-405.
I didn't know you used to be Roman Catholic. I am glad you left. And your post here is extremely fair and you give a great reason for not accepting the LDS church, either.

I might add that when Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, all three times Jesus responded by quoting the Word of God, which ultimately defeated Satan. Another reason to learn God's word! :)
 
Top