Conversion to Mormonism?

[TexanKnight]

Interesting that you can be so certain and so wrong. I have the first set of seven volumes and several other, later versions. The first attempt at bound copies was printed in Lichtenstein in 1955 by Gastera Trust, Schaan. That is not the LDS Church. The next edition printed in 1966 was done by R. James in Liverpool, England. That’s not the LDS Church either–even if you were once a missionary or a member of the bishopri, that doesn’t grant you any special power against being fooled–for heaven’s sake, you thought the JoD was published by the Church!

The Journal of Discourses (often abbreviated J.D.) is a 26-volume collection of public sermons by early leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). The first editions of the Journal were published in England by George D. Watt, the stenographer of Brigham Young. Publication began in 1854, with the endorsement of the church’s First Presidency,[1]

contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/1913

Hmmmmm

You gave a quote that Adam was God from the JoD. Here’s one that says Adam and Eve are the children of “our Heavenly Father:”

So? You just made my point. The teachings of the LDS Church are all over the chart. And I did not just give ONE quote from BY on Adam being God, I gave several

Who are we? But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, “We are the children of Adam and Eve.” So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (BY JD 13:311)

“Adam is our God and the ONLY one we have to deal with” Brigham Young

Remember, Paul the apostle said God was Adam as well. Don’t get wrapped around the axle too far relying on quotes that may not be accurate.

I don’t. My quotes showing the LDS Church is fake are all accurate.

Alma

 

[TexanKnight]

Who you trying to fool? Here is what he claimed: "I will make a statement here that has been brought against me as a crime, perhaps, or as a fault in my life. Not here, I do not allude to anything of the kind in this place, but in the councils of the nations—that Brigham Young has said “when he sends forth his discourses to the world they may call them Scripture.” I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible,

He needed to have the opportunity to copy and approve it himself before equating it with doctrine. I personally know that he corrected some of his discourses and the uncorrected version appears in the JoD.

You claim to have been a knowledgeable Mormon; yet you fail to recognize a very basic premise taught consistently from Joseph Smith onward: That a prophet isn’t always a prophet but only when acting as such. “This morning I read German and visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that “a prophet is always a prophet;” but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.—DHC 5:265.”

Alma

lol. I do not blame you at all for distancing yourself from BY and trying, unsuccessfully, to minimize what BY said. but it will not work.
"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible . . . " (Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, p. 264; see also p. 95)

 

[Alma147]

Please, provide a reference (chapter & verse) where I can read that in the Bible, because my memory might be seriously slipping if that’s true. I don’t recall ever reading anything even remotely like that.

1 Corinthians 15:45-47
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam **was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Alma

 

[TexanKnight]

1 Corinthians 15:45-47
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam **was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Alma

Thank you for admitting that Paul never said Adam was our God. Brigham was the ONLY person to teach that…at least the only “prophet”

 

[taylorf]

1 Corinthians 15:45-47
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam **was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Alma

This was a really poor attempt at deflecting attention away from Brigham Young’s claims. I have to believe (hope) you don’t really interpret this as Paul equating God to Adam. Or do you?

EDITED: Just to add - if you do, then ironically this is a clear example of “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.”

 

[Telstar]

1 Corinthians 15:45-47
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam **was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Alma

This is clearly a lesson that Paul gave on the contrast between the earthly life of the flesh and the eternal spiritual life, culminating with the resurrection of the body which is a combination of the two. He says as an example that the ‘first Adam’, the one that was **made ** of flesh (created) by God, brought sin (death) into the world, but the ‘second Adam’ (Jesus), who came down from Heaven (the spiritual/eternal) brought us the promise of eternal life (resurrection). He was referring to Jesus as the ‘second Adam’ because He brought eternal life into the world through His obedience to the Father, in contrast to the ‘first Adam’ who brought the death of the flesh, through his sin of disobedience of God. Paul was not saying that Jesus was actually Adam. It was a method of teaching by comparison. Each of Paul’s examples were the “firsts” of their line. One began the line of the flesh, sin and death, while the other began the spiritual line of eternal life.

Paul certainly didn’t say that Adam was God. I have no clue how you can come to that conclusion by reading that whole chapter, except that it’s yet another example of LDS taking phrases out of context to try to prove an outlandish point. It’s ironic that a simple phrase taken out of context will be used by them to prove or dismiss a point, depending on which side of their point it sits.

 

[FCEGM]

Do you think Christ was mistaken then?

“Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? John 10:34-36

The Jews understood God’s reference to them as “gods” as being those to whom God’s word was given (and not to any other nation), not as being “gods” a la the pagan understanding. The Lord Jesus in this passage is questioning their right to determine that He, God’s Word Made Flesh, is blaspheming when He calls Himself God’s Son, since they themselves consider themselves “gods” as recipients of God’s word through the Law and the Prophets.

 

[iepuras]

This is clearly a lesson that Paul gave on the contrast between the earthly life of the flesh and the eternal spiritual life, culminating with the resurrection of the body which is a combination of the two. He says as an example that the ‘first Adam’, the one that was **made ** of flesh (created) by God, brought sin (death) into the world, but the ‘second Adam’ (Jesus), who came down from Heaven (the spiritual/eternal) brought us the promise of eternal life (resurrection). He was referring to Jesus as the ‘second Adam’ because He brought eternal life into the world through His obedience to the Father, in contrast to the ‘first Adam’ who brought the death of the flesh, through his sin of disobedience of God. Paul was not saying that Jesus was actually Adam. It was a method of teaching by comparison. Each of Paul’s examples were the “firsts” of their line. One began the line of the flesh, sin and death, while the other began the spiritual line of eternal life.

Paul certainly didn’t say that Adam was God. I have no clue how you can come to that conclusion by reading that whole chapter, except that it’s yet another example of LDS taking phrases out of context to try to prove an outlandish point. It’s ironic that a simple phrase taken out of context will be used by them to prove or dismiss a point, depending on which side of their point it sits.

If you really want to shock a Mormon, you can tell them that in addition to Jesus being the new Adam, Mary is the new Eve.

 

[Alma147]

If it was produced by dissidents and ex-Mormons, by the way I’d like some substantiation on that claim I have never ever see any Mormon make this claim, why did your so called apostle have this to say this about it?

I apologize if I haven’t made a couple of items clearer. From 1854-1886, discourses of LDS speakers–mostly general authorities–were printed in England as a periodical called the “Journal of Discourses.” There were several such publications–privately issued in the early days of the LDS Church: “The Juvenile Instructor” was published by George Q. Cannon from 1866 until he sold it to the LDS Church. “The Woman’s Exponent” was published by LDS women from 1872-1914–again, a private publication as opposed to official Church publications such as the Deseret News and the Millennial Star.

As I noted above, the Journal of Discourses ceased publication in 1886. Although some compilations were attempted privately, the first attempt to reproduce the entire publication as a bound, 26 volume set was instituted by a member of the FLDS sect in the 1950’s. The person responsible for this effort ran out of funds after producing 7 volumes–19 short of the full set. Nearly 10 years later, the FLDS sect produced the full 16 volume set.

While the serialized editions published in the 1800’s were produced privately by LDS people, the later, 26 volume hardbound set was produced by dissidents and ex-Mormons–not by the LDS Church.

BTW reading what your apostles have said in the JD I can totally understand why you want to through your previous leaders under the bus.

I don’t want to and haven’t tried to throw previous LDS leaders under the bus. I’ve read the whole set, enjoy much of it, and cite it often. However, it has elements that I wouldn’t recommend that are clearly in error. Mormons don’t believe that everything ever said by LDS leaders is inspired. That falls far short of throwing them under the bus, however.

I think it is reasonable that George Q. Cannon recommended that LDS people enjoy that publication. I think it had lots of useful and enlightening material. However, the term “standard works” has achieved a slightly different meaning now than was evident in 1861. It’s likely that using updated language, that the same can be said for today’s LDS Church News. I enjoy reading it and even look forward to it arriving at my home. Even though it contains teachings of LDS leaders, it is not doctrinal.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

So how do we determine when a prophet is acting like a prophet?

There are a couple of ways: When he says, “Thus saith the Lord,” when he submits his teaching to the Church to be canonized, and third, when his words are witnessed to us by the Holy Spirit.

Alma

 

[Stephen168]

There are a couple of ways: When he says, “Thus saith the Lord,” when he submits his teaching to the Church to be canonized, and third, when his words are witnessed to us by the Holy Spirit.

Alma

Ezra Taft Benson:

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet Joseph, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you” (D&C 21:4; italics added).

And speaking of taking counsel from the prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: “Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed” (italics added).

Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture” (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints’ Book Depot], 13:95).

 

[Alma147]

Thank you for admitting that Paul never said Adam was our God. Brigham was the ONLY person to teach that…at least the only “prophet”

Do you have problems with dyslexia? If you’ll read what I actually wrote, you’ll see that I said, that Paul said “God was Adam.” When asked to cite a chapter and verse I did so. That passage validates what I claimed–even though people want to disregard it. In that passage, does Paul refer to Jesus as Adam? In case you might really be struggling with dyslexia, I’ll help you: The last Adam = the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Is the Lord from heaven Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ God?

If your answer to those two questions is “Yes,” then Paul called God “the last Adam.”

Second Adam = Lord from heaven
Lord from heaven = Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ = God
God = Second Adam

Paul called Jesus Christ “the second Adam.” Therefore, Paul called God Adam. It’s really not that hard.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Stephen168:
If he says, “Thus saith the Lord” it qualifies. Is it really that difficult to follow along?

Alma

 

[twopekinguys]

Do you have problems with dyslexia?
Alma

That comment is insulting and uncalled for.

In all Christian charity, and if you want to remain here, I would refrain from such comments before a moderator gets involved.

Just a heads up.

 

[twopekinguys]

1 Corinthians 15:45-47
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; **the last Adam **was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Alma

Context is everything.

Let’s back up to 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 shall we? (emphasis mine)

“So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

That whole section of 1 Corinthians, is talking about the resurrection of the body, and not the individual nature of God.

 

[twopekinguys]

If he says, “Thus saith the Lord” it qualifies. Is it really that difficult to follow along?

Alma

So, the ban on blacks was evidently a “Thus saith the Lord” moment, and the reversal evidently was also.

Which prophet was right, and which one is under the bus?

God doesn’t change his mind, he is the same now as he was, and will be the same always. At least the Christian God.

 

[Telstar]

That’s an impressive bit of verbal gymnastics for anyone to come to that conclusion. But, it doesn’t change the fact that your (LDS) interpretation of that one small phrase, taken out of the context of the the rest of the passage, is 100% wrong and doesn’t prove your point. So, don’t pat yourself on the back too hard.

 

[NextElement]

Sidenote: ran down some Mormon missionaries tonight! I didn’t have the intention to argue or debate them on this stuff, I just wanted to talk because I’m very good friends with several Mormons that they knew as well. I will say they were very nice guys!

 

[Alma147]

Sidenote: ran down some Mormon missionaries tonight! I didn’t have the intention to argue or debate them on this stuff, I just wanted to talk because I’m very good friends with several Mormons that they knew as well. I will say they were very nice guys!

I found Catholics to be very nice to me when I was a missionary–very gracious and hospitable.

Alma

 

[Alma147]

Context is everything.

Let’s back up to 1 Corinthians 15:42-44 shall we? (emphasis mine)

“So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”

That whole section of 1 Corinthians, is talking about the resurrection of the body, and not the individual nature of God.

So let me see if I understand this. The context of the discussion being resurrection of the dead, means Paul didn’t say Jesus was the second Adam?

Alma