Thus Saith the Lord and LDS "Prophets"

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
That topic has indeed been recently discussed. Here is part of my response previously:

BY was stating his own opinion in that entire instance, including his opinion you have cited at the end of his sermon that referred to the subject.

The president of the LDS church is not “greater” than the principle laid down by Joseph Smith through revelation, that united council leadership will participate in decisions that include the doctrinal teachings of the church. He is not authorized by his authority to differ from that principle. So since BY presented a teaching that was not authorized by that process, it is his own opinion and has no bearing on needing to be followed by anyone at all. Here is the applicable united council leadership principle presented in Doctrine and Covenants Section 107: . . . . .

So, we’re back to the same old answer. It is doctrine until someone down the line says it was just opinion.

Now, to the original question. Does a “prophet” have to say, “Thus saith The Lord.” in order for it to become official church teaching, or a doctrinal statement?

ParkerD,

I appreciate the information. However, I agree with twopekinguys: I don’t see how your post clears up the issue of whether or not “Thus Saith the Lord,” preceding a prophets words, make the words binding as a true revelation from God.

I brought up the Adam/God theory to soren1; because he seems to be conducting a seminar on how to present controversial Mormon writings to Mormons.

Would you be willing to address soren1’s proposed techniques? He claims it is impossible for Mormons to “wiggle out,” when presented with the Adam-God issue in the form of a “question” such as: “Is the Adam-God doctrine better attested than the Gold Plates?” etc. I give you and our other Mormon brethren more credit than that.

Thanks,
Anna

Yeah, I know. I suspect that, in reality, it is easy to convince a Mormons that 100% of the available evidence supports Adam-God as stone-cold doctrine. Anyone can see that. What is not so easy is to convince them that they should care about that fact. That is why I emphasize the point about consistent standards. If the question is just “Is the evidence for Adam-God as compelling as a mathematical proof?” that can always find a reason to say, “No.” But if the question is something like “Is the Adam-God doctrine better attested than the Gold Plates?” it is impossible to wiggle out, because this question entails some moral accountability: one of the ethical responsibilities a person takes on him or herself when doing apologetics is a obey justice by having consistent standards. If a person has one standard for the way they treat evidence against Mormonism and another standard for favorable evidence, then they really are not doing evidential apologetics at all - and evidential argumentation constitutes probably over 90% of LDS apologetic work. If something as secure as the Adam-God evidence can be dismissed, then justice and consistency demands that any evidence favorable to Mormonism can be dismissed by the same standard. Thus the entire rational case for Mormonism must be sacrificed in order to avoid Adam-God without falling into hypocrisy.

When a person uses irrational argumentation, it does not show that they have been intellectual duped. More often, it demonstrates a moral flaw: a willingness to abandon reason reveals that the person has been deceived not intellectually but spiritually. So finding a way to move the argument into moral territory can help to reveal that fact more clearly, as the conversation leads to a challenge to accountability and repentance.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Soren did bring up a very good point that I never really thought about: many Mormons will reflexively respond to citation of the Journal of Discourses with “oh, that’s not scripture”. The problem with this is that many of the statements made in the JoD come from, for example, General Conference. Were these statements from General Conference not the inspired words of living prophets? Do these words become “uninspired” when these prophets die? Is everything said at General Conference inspired? If not, then how do you know what is and isn’t, and where is this standard delineated?

 

[ParkerD]

So, we’re back to the same old answer. It is doctrine until someone down the line says it was just opinion.

Now, to the original question. Does a “prophet” have to say, “Thus saith The Lord.” in order for it to become official church teaching, or a doctrinal statement?

Twopekinguys,
No–in order for something said by an LDS prophet or an LDS apostle to “become official church teaching, or a doctrinal statement,” then after the death of Joseph Smith the principle that was in effect was the principle of united consent through united counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and until that united consent through united counsel was in effect, anything said that was not in complete accordance with scriptures already accepted through the established pattern of that united counsel and consent, was a personal opinion if it dealt with a doctrinal issue.

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
No–in order for something said by an LDS prophet or an LDS apostle to “become official church teaching, or a doctrinal statement,” then after the death of Joseph Smith the principle that was in effect was the principle of united consent through united counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and until that united consent through united counsel was in effect, anything said that was not in complete accordance with scriptures already accepted through the established pattern of that united counsel and consent, was a personal opinion if it dealt with a doctrinal issue.

Ok, do you have an official Church document or something that says this is the way things are supposed to be? I really would like to see something official that establishes this.

Also, in the case of all 3 of them have to agree in order for something to be doctrinal. Let’s look at the case of BY and his Adam/God statement;

Wouldn’t the public silence from others in the church hierarchy be considered consent? Why wait til he’s dead to declare him wrong?

Also, it appears that at least one mormon poster on here is wrong about the “Thus saith the Lord” thing.

 

[Anna_Scott]

So, we’re back to the same old answer. It is doctrine until someone down the line says it was just opinion.

Now, to the original question. Does a “prophet” have to say, “Thus saith The Lord.” in order for it to become official church teaching, or a doctrinal statement?

ParkerD,

I appreciate the information. However, I agree with twopekinguys: I don’t see how your post clears up the issue of whether or not “Thus Saith the Lord,” preceding a prophets words, make the words binding as a true revelation from God. . . . .

Twopekinguys,
No–in order for something said by an LDS prophet or an LDS apostle to “become official church teaching, or a doctrinal statement,” then after the death of Joseph Smith the principle that was in effect was the principle of united consent through united counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and until that united consent through united counsel was in effect, anything said that was not in complete accordance with scriptures already accepted through the established pattern of that united counsel and consent, was a personal opinion if it dealt with a doctrinal issue.

ParkerD,

If a Mormon Prophet attaches “Thus Saith the Lord” to his words; and his words do not pass the “principle of united consent through united counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve”; then the prophet is bearing false witness against God. How does the Mormon Church deal with such a grievous sin against God?

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I appreciate the information. However, I agree with twopekinguys: I don’t see how your post clears up the issue of whether or not “Thus Saith the Lord,” preceding a prophets words, make the words binding as a true revelation from God.

I brought up the Adam/God theory to soren1; because he seems to be conducting a seminar on how to present controversial Mormon writings to Mormons.

Would you be willing to address soren1’s proposed techniques? He claims it is impossible for Mormons to “wiggle out,” when presented with the Adam-God issue in the form of a “question” such as: “Is the Adam-God doctrine better attested than the Gold Plates?” etc. I give you and our other Mormon brethren more credit than that.

Thanks,
Anna

Anna,
Thanks for asking for clarification.

An LDS member can glean that the president of the LDS church is conveying “revelation” from God that they should really, really listen to and heed, when he uses words such as “the impression has weighed heavily on my mind and heart that …” or when he repeats the same or a similar message several times during successive occasions of the gathering of the LDS members or in the Ensign magazine.

One of the things a non-LDS observer ought to keep in mind is that the LDS do not view our relationship with God as one of Him being a “do-this-or-else” kind of Leader. He is viewed as a “do-this-if-you-want-the-greatest-happiness, but it’s your choice” kind of a Leader. So the LDS prophet is usually going to follow that kind of pattern, including that he may give some strong hints that some members may miss if they weren’t really paying attention, such as when President Hinckley warned members to get out of debt and be conservative in their investments, but didn’t say “the stock market is going to have a major correction.”

As to the Adam-god theory as a teaching of Brigham Young, it seems to have been fairly well documented that he said something close to or exactly as he is quoted.

Whether there were “Gold Plates” has been attested through a first-hand experience as “saw them with my eyes” by fewer people than the number who could attest that BY taught the Adam-god theory, but that is beside the point when dealing with spiritual matters and spiritual knowledge and the incontrovertible witness of the Holy Ghost. A person may tell me all day that they think the “Gold Plates” weren’t seen by enough people to be believable, and I will say that the Holy Ghost trumps anything they have to say on the subject, and there were indeed witnesses and historical experiences during the time period of 1827-1830 that demonstrated that there were indeed plates with the appearance of gold which had engravings from ancient prophets on them, which Joseph Smith had custody of and which he “translated” by the gift and power of God, for the benefit of those people who are willing to take the time and effort to read and ponder the translation for their benefit.

So the one case is “did BY present an opinion and try and get others to believe him?” and I suppose the answer would be “yes”. Was it doctrine? NO (see my prior post). Were the LDS members safe from being “doctrinally duped”? YES–if they understood the principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. If they didn’t understand that principle, then it was something they needed to learn and that has become more strongly taught in the ensuing years since that time of BY.

The other case is “does the Holy Ghost confirm that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, and helpful to read for gaining and keeping the Spirit in one’s life if they seek His guidance sincerely?” The spiritual witness is what counts–because that is what is going to enable a person to live by their covenants, with unshakable conviction and full determination in their heart. For Joseph Smith to have shown the “gold plates” (appearance of gold, not pure gold) to 10,000 people or 100 people would not change the fact that we, today, need a spiritual witness and that is what will provide unshakable conviction.

 

[ParkerD]

Ok, do you have an official Church document or something that says this is the way things are supposed to be? I really would like to see something official that establishes this.

Also, in the case of all 3 of them have to agree in order for something to be doctrinal. Let’s look at the case of BY and his Adam/God statement;

Wouldn’t the public silence from others in the church hierarchy be considered consent? Why wait til he’s dead to declare him wrong?

Also, it appears that at least one mormon poster on here is wrong about the “Thus saith the Lord” thing.

Twopekinguys,
Please look again at my post on this thread that is number 39, and read the passage from the Doctrine and Covenants which is “an official Church document”. That is where the principle of united counsel and consent is described in detail for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, also the Seventy.

If you have researched the Adam-god theory, you would find that Orson Pratt, an LDS apostle at the time, was continuously opposed to the teaching, enough publicly so that BY reprimanded him. “Public silence” would not mean consent–it would mean deference to the leader in charge. It would also mean those brethren were more interested in not fomenting contention and disharmony among the members of the church, than they were in assuring in their own mind that anything BY happened to say they agreed with perfectly. It was not a case of “this teaching will lead everyone astray”–it was a case of “this is an opinion that should die a natural death with BY and we can be patient while the Lord allows him to live as long as the Lord allows him to live. The Lord knows what He is doing in every kind of situation such as this.”

 

[twopekinguys]

Twopekinguys,
Please look again at my post on this thread that is number 39, and read the passage from the Doctrine and Covenants which is “an official Church document”. That is where the principle of united counsel and consent is described in detail for the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, also the Seventy.

If you have researched the Adam-god theory, you would find that Orson Pratt, an LDS apostle at the time, was continuously opposed to the teaching, enough publicly so that BY reprimanded him. “Public silence” would not mean consent–it would mean deference to the leader in charge. It would also mean those brethren were more interested in not fomenting contention and disharmony among the members of the church, than they were in assuring in their own mind that anything BY happened to say they agreed with perfectly. It was not a case of “this teaching will lead everyone astray”–it was a case of “this is an opinion that should die a natural death with BY and we can be patient while the Lord allows him to live as long as the Lord allows him to live. The Lord knows what He is doing in every kind of situation such as this.”

So then everything before D7C 107 is up for grabs then. This D&C is dated 3-28-1835.

If BY’s “opinion” should die away, why wasn’t it squashed by the first presidency?

Also, where does the Bible say that there are 3 people to run the visible church on Earth? Peter was the only one mentioned in my Bible.

The quorum of the 12 is iffy, because there were only 12 Apostles in the Bible, and that is counting Peter.

Also, I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the Bible that there has to be a consensus on anything revealed.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

If a Mormon Prophet attaches “Thus Saith the Lord” to his words; and his words do not pass the “principle of united consent through united counsel of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve”; then the prophet is bearing false witness against God. How does the Mormon Church deal with such a grievous sin against God?

Anna

Anna,
You would need to show me a specific case, since I am not familiar that that has happened.

I will mention that every person is entitled to a personal relationship with God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost such that as they study the gospel through studying the scriptures, as they live by the teachings, as they pray, and as they listen to a leader or teacher, then if they have those things in place in their life those attributes are going to be an anchor for their soul, and they are not going to be blown about by “every wind of doctrine”.

 

[ParkerD]

1. So then everything before D7C 107 is up for grabs then. This D&C is dated 3-28-1835.
2. If BY’s “opinion” should die away, why wasn’t it squashed by the first presidency?
3. Also, where does the Bible say that there are 3 people to run the visible church on Earth? Peter was the only one mentioned in my Bible.

The quorum of the 12 is iffy, because there were only 12 Apostles in the Bible, and that is counting Peter.

1. Also, I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the Bible that there has to be a consensus on anything revealed.

Twopekinguys,

1. The difference between the case of Joseph Smith and the case of Brigham Young is that JS was called as a “foundation prophet” (my words) to set in order the doctrines and principles that were being established to guide the latter-day church on earth. BY came after, and at the point in time he became the “leader” of the church by virtue of being the president of the Quorum of the Twelve, then Doctrine and Covenants 107 was the binding revelation to guide in the principle of “united counsel and consent”. JS didn’t have that kind of a case because the doctrines and principles were not yet fully established and in place. Doctrine and Covenants 107 became the binding principle for preserving doctrinal purity, after it was voted on by the Quorum of the Twelve and the members of the church, which would be after March 28, 1835.
2. It was eventually “squashed by the First Presidency” under Joseph F Smith.
3. Peter, James and John had experiences including on the Mount of Transfiguration that the other apostles did not have. Christ, of course, was the “President” of the church while He was on the earth, and didn’t need counselors other than God the Father and the Holy Ghost (who are pretty impressive “Counselors”).
4. The pattern of united counsel and consent is actually demonstrated reasonably well by the pattern shown in Acts 15 with respect to circumcision of the Gentile converts, or not. Peter gives counsel to the assembly, and James and Simeon are involved in giving their views, and finally in Acts 15:25 we see the words “being assembled with one accord” meaning the assembly had come to agreement on the doctrinal question, and the apostles sent out the teaching to the members who had not been present in the assembly and needed the clarification about the pure and true and accepted doctrine.

 

[SirThomasMore]

you have a big problem…either the lack of “Thus sayeth the Lord” rules out Adam-God Doctrine and other silly doctrines (along with most of the D&C) or you don’t need it…and you get to keep the D&C, but then you are stuck with Adam-God and the other silly doctrines…

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .An LDS member can glean that the president of the LDS church is conveying “revelation” from God that they should really, really listen to and heed, when he uses words such as “the impression has weighed heavily on my mind and heart that …” or when he repeats the same or a similar message several times during successive occasions of the gathering of the LDS members or in the Ensign magazine.

So, the following are 3 ways an LDS member can know if the words of a prophet are a true revelation of God?:

**1. **When the prophet says, “the impression has weighed heavily on my mind and heart that …”

2. When the prophet “repeats the same or a similar message several times during successive occasions of the gathering of the LDS members or in the Ensign magazine.”
**
3.** When the prophet says, “Thus Saith the Lord.”

One of the things a non-LDS observer ought to keep in mind is that the LDS do not view our relationship with God as one of Him being a “do-this-or-else” kind of Leader. He is viewed as a “do-this-if-you-want-the-greatest-happiness, but it’s your choice” kind of a Leader.

Uncertain re your point. If you view your relationship with God as “do-this-if-you-want-the-greatest-happiness, but it’s your choice”; doesn’t the definition of sin become open to interpretation?

What does this comment on the LDS relationship with God have to do with the “Thus Saith the Lord” issue?

So the LDS prophet is usually going to follow that kind of pattern, including that he may give some strong hints that some members may miss if they weren’t really paying attention, such as when President Hinckley warned members to get out of debt and be conservative in their investments, but didn’t say “the stock market is going to have a major correction.”

Why would your prophets only give “strong hints” about what God expects of us?

As to the Adam-god theory as a teaching of Brigham Young, it seems to have been fairly well documented that he said something close to or exactly as he is quoted.

I agree.

. . . . .by fewer people than the number who could attest that BY taught the Adam-god theory, but that is beside the point when dealing with spiritual matters and spiritual knowledge and the incontrovertible witness of the Holy Ghost. . . . .

Gold Plates aside; please clarify your statement:
“BY taught the Adam-god theory, but that is beside the point when dealing with spiritual matters and spiritual knowledge and the incontrovertible witness of the Holy Ghost.”

So the one case is “did BY present an opinion and try and get others to believe him?” and I suppose the answer would be “yes”. Was it doctrine? NO (see my prior post).

Were the LDS members safe from being “doctrinally duped”? YES–if they understood the principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles. If they didn’t understand that principle, then it was something they needed to learn and that has become more strongly taught in the ensuing years since that time of BY. . . . .

So, if the LDS members believed the Mormon Prophet’s false claim that Adam is God; it was because they didn’t understand the “principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles”; and they needed to learn from this?

This would mean LDS members could not trust the words of their prophets & would have to be constantly on guard, never knowing if the prophets are speaking truth or lies.

BY taught “Adam is God” for 21 years. Was that just a 21-year test for the LDS members to see if they were paying attention to “the principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles”?

You said, “The spiritual witness is what counts–because that is what is going to enable a person to live by their covenants, with unshakable conviction and full determination in their heart.” How would you apply the “spiritual witness” issue to BY’s 21-year teaching that “Adam is God”?

Did all BY’s faithful followers fail the test, because they believed their prophet? Did they fail the test by believing BY when he said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve?”

BY did issue a warning to the LDS members: “Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them.” Was that a test too?

Journal of Discourses 13:95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870
Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy.

The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire. . . . .

 

[Anna_Scott]

Soren did bring up a very good point that I never really thought about: many Mormons will reflexively respond to citation of the Journal of Discourses with “oh, that’s not scripture”. The problem with this is that many of the statements made in the JoD come from, for example, General Conference. Were these statements from General Conference not the inspired words of living prophets? Do these words become “uninspired” when these prophets die? Is everything said at General Conference inspired? If not, then how do you know what is and isn’t, and where is this standard delineated?

CatholicGuyNY,

You are right. Soren did bring up a good point in quoting Mormon sources that are considered inspired.

My point is there are certain things, such as BY’s Adam-God proclamation, that LDS members will never acknowledge as a Mormon Church teaching–no matter how many sources I cite.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Soren did bring up a very good point that I never really thought about: many Mormons will reflexively respond to citation of the Journal of Discourses with “oh, that’s not scripture”. The problem with this is that many of the statements made in the JoD come from, for example, General Conference. Were these statements from General Conference not the inspired words of living prophets? Do these words become “uninspired” when these prophets die? Is everything said at General Conference inspired? If not, then how do you know what is and isn’t, and where is this standard delineated?

CatholicGuyNY, thanks for keeping me on the “straight and narrow.”

CatholicGuyNY,

You are right. Soren did bring up a good point in quoting Mormon sources that are considered inspired.

My point is there are certain things, such as BY’s Adam-God proclamation, that LDS members will never acknowledge as a Mormon Church teaching–no matter how many sources I cite.

Ah, but speeches are not the only source for the Adam-God doctrine: Brigham Young wrote it down too, criticizing the unbelief of Latter-day Saints who rejected it in a Millenial Star article in the mid-1850’s. (Millenial Star articles written between 1855-57 are actually a much better source for Adam-God teaching that the JOD.) There used to be a facsimile of that article at mrm.org, but somehow my computer has failed to connect to it for the last half-hour.

At any rate, there is at least one vestige of the Adam-God Doctrine still to be found in an official LDS publication, namely the current hymnal (current as of 2001, the printing date of my copy), which has the following song entitled “Sons of Michael He Approaches”:

*Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise, the ancient father greet.
Bow, ye thousands, low before him; Minister before his feet.
Hail the patriarch’s glad reign, Spreading over sea and main.

Sons of Michael, ’tis his chariot Rolls its burning wheels along!
Raise aloft your voices million In a torrent pow’r of song.
Hail our head with music soft! Raise sweet melodies aloft!

Mother of our generations, Glorious by great Michael’s side,
Take thy children’s adoration; Endless with they seed abide.
Lo! to greet thee now advance Thousands in the glorious dance!

Raise a chorus, sons of Michael, Like old ocean’s roaring swell,
Till the mighty acclamation Thru rebounding space doth tell
That the ancient one doth reign In his Father’s house again!*

This song is modified from its original form in the 1848 hymnal in which the last two verses divinize Michael more clearly:

*Mother of our generations, Glorious by Great Michael’s side,
Take thy children’s adoration; Endless with thy Lord preside;
Lo, lo, to greet thee now advance, Lo, lo, to greet thee now advance
Thousands in the glorious dance!

Raise a chorus, sons of Michael, Like old Ocean’s roaring swell,
Till the mighty acclamation Through rebounding space doth tell
That, that the Ancient One doth reign, That, that the Ancient One may reign
In his Paradise again!
*
Notice how the original text, also from and official publication of the Church, refers to Adam as “thy Lord.” I also has him reigning in Paradise rather than in his Father’s house: the modern version changes this to emphasize Michael’s subordination to Elihom. While the author if this hymn, Elias L.T. Harrison, is not as important as Brigham Young, his hymn has been endorsed by the Church officially, to the extent that it is published in an official text used in actual worship.

soren1,

I do want to apologize for being “dismissive” in regards to your posts. You do make very good points. Though you got the brunt of it; my less than charitable tone was not related to you at all. I’ve been down the Mormon road so many times; and I really don’t know why I came back to these threads. We seem to have the same arguments over and over, and it seems pointless after awhile.

So, I am sorry. I’m really not so bad, once you get to know me.

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

So, the following are 3 ways an LDS member can know if the words of a prophet are a true revelation of God?:

**1. **When the prophet says, “the impression has weighed heavily on my mind and heart that …”

2. When the prophet “repeats the same or a similar message several times during successive occasions of the gathering of the LDS members or in the Ensign magazine.”
**
3.** When the prophet says, “Thus Saith the Lord.”

Uncertain re your point. If you view your relationship with God as “do-this-if-you-want-the-greatest-happiness, but it’s your choice”; doesn’t the definition of sin become open to interpretation?

What does this comment on the LDS relationship with God have to do with the “Thus Saith the Lord” issue?

Why would your prophets only give “strong hints” about what God expects of us?

I agree.

Gold Plates aside; please clarify your statement:
“BY taught the Adam-god theory, but that is beside the point when dealing with spiritual matters and spiritual knowledge and the incontrovertible witness of the Holy Ghost.”

So, if the LDS members believed the Mormon Prophet’s false claim that Adam is God; it was because they didn’t understand the “principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles”; and they needed to learn from this?

This would mean LDS members could not trust the words of their prophets & would have to be constantly on guard, never knowing if the prophets are speaking truth or lies.

BY taught “Adam is God” for 21 years. Was that just a 21-year test for the LDS members to see if they were paying attention to “the principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles”?

You said, “The spiritual witness is what counts–because that is what is going to enable a person to live by their covenants, with unshakable conviction and full determination in their heart.” How would you apply the “spiritual witness” issue to BY’s 21-year teaching that “Adam is God”?

Did all BY’s faithful followers fail the test, because they believed their prophet? Did they fail the test by believing BY when he said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve?”

BY did issue a warning to the LDS members: “Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them.” Was that a test too?

Anna,
To begin to answer your questions, I will re-quote the BY statement he made at the end of a talk to some members of the church on January 2, 1870 as recorded in the Journal of Discourses as you noted:

"The nations of the earth are in the Lord’s hands; and if we serve Him we shall reap the reward of so doing. If we neglect to obey His laws and ordinances, we shall have to suffer the consequences.

“Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know [p. 95b] the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire.
Let us, then, you and me and all who profess to be Latter-day Saints, try to be Saints indeed. God bless you, Amen.”

The word “this” where I added the underline, refers back to the preceding sentence, and the preceding sentence talked about the revelation given to Joseph Smith and written down. That is the context of the statement about “Thus saith the Lord”–the written scriptures that the saints already had among them.

So that is saying that the “chastening hand of the Lord” will be upon those who do not obey the scriptures given by revelation to the members of the LDS church (not to others outside of the church–to the members who don’t live by the teachings of the scriptures they had been given). That was the connotation and context of his words about “thus saith the Lord”.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
To begin to answer your questions, I will re-quote the BY statement he made at the end of a talk to some members of the church on January 2, 1870 as recorded in the Journal of Discourses as you noted:

"The nations of the earth are in the Lord’s hands; and if we serve Him we shall reap the reward of so doing. If we neglect to obey His laws and ordinances, we shall have to suffer the consequences.

“Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know [p. 95b] the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire.
Let us, then, you and me and all who profess to be Latter-day Saints, try to be Saints indeed. God bless you, Amen.”

The word “this” where I added the underline, refers back to the preceding sentence, and the preceding sentence talked about the revelation given to Joseph Smith and written down. That is the context of the statement about “Thus saith the Lord”–the written scriptures that the saints already had among them.

So that is saying that the “chastening hand of the Lord” will be upon those who do not obey the scriptures given by revelation to the members of the LDS church (not to others outside of the church–to the members who don’t live by the teachings of the scriptures they had been given). That was the connotation and context of his words about “thus saith the Lord”.

ParkerD,

I realize that referred to JS; but wouldn’t BY’s warning also apply to himself? He had just said he had never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call it Scripture. Isn’t “my sermons may be called Scripture” equivalent to “Thus Saith the Lord?”

(Emphasis is mine.)

Journal of Discourses 13:95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870
Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy.

The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

The people have the oracles of God continually. In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire. . . . .

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I realize that referred to JS; but wouldn’t BY’s warning also apply to himself? He had just said he had never preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call it Scripture. Isn’t “my sermons may be called Scripture” equivalent to “Thus Saith the Lord?”

(Emphasis is mine.)

Anna

Anna,
No–it would not be “equivalent” within the context and connotation of his use of the words “thus saith the Lord”. He had a particular meaning in mind, and gave a particular warning to the members, and that warning had to do with the written revelations that came through Joseph Smith.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) So, the following are 3 ways an LDS member can know if the words of a prophet are a true revelation of God?:

**1. **When the prophet says, “the impression has weighed heavily on my mind and heart that …”

2. When the prophet “repeats the same or a similar message several times during successive occasions of the gathering of the LDS members or in the Ensign magazine.”
**
3.** When the prophet says, “Thus Saith the Lord.”

(2) Uncertain re your point. If you view your relationship with God as “do-this-if-you-want-the-greatest-happiness, but it’s your choice”; doesn’t the definition of sin become open to interpretation?

What does this comment on the LDS relationship with God have to do with the “Thus Saith the Lord” issue?

(3) Why would your prophets only give “strong hints” about what God expects of us?

I agree.

(4) Gold Plates aside; please clarify your statement:
“BY taught the Adam-god theory, but that is beside the point when dealing with spiritual matters and spiritual knowledge and the incontrovertible witness of the Holy Ghost.”

(5) So, if the LDS members believed the Mormon Prophet’s false claim that Adam is God; it was because they didn’t understand the “principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles”; and they needed to learn from this?

This would mean LDS members could not trust the words of their prophets & would have to be constantly on guard, never knowing if the prophets are speaking truth or lies.

(6) BY taught “Adam is God” for 21 years. Was that just a 21-year test for the LDS members to see if they were paying attention to “the principle of united counsel of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles”?

You said, “The spiritual witness is what counts–because that is what is going to enable a person to live by their covenants, with unshakable conviction and full determination in their heart.” How would you apply the “spiritual witness” issue to BY’s 21-year teaching that “Adam is God”?

(7) Did all BY’s faithful followers fail the test, because they believed their prophet? Did they fail the test by believing BY when he said, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve?”

(8) BY did issue a warning to the LDS members: “Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them.” Was that a test too?

Anna,
To continue answering your questions:

(1) As I have already explained, the words “thus saith the Lord” were stated by BY referring to the revelations that came through the Prophet Joseph Smith and were written down and placed into the standard works of the LDS church as scripture. I don’t think you are going to find those words (“thus saith the Lord”) in very many places within LDS leaders’ talks–perhaps some others of BY.

(2) Everything an LDS prophet teaches about is not related to keeping from being sinful. Much of what they teach is related to gaining greater happiness and wisdom in life and sharing the blessings of living the gospel with others, particularly in families. Yet I guess one could say that “sins of omission” include anything not done that should have been done if the person were perfectly following the Holy Spirit in their lives. The LDS teachings don’t dwell on warnings about “sin”. They dwell on gaining the blessings from both keeping the commandments and from living by light and knowledge communicated from God through personal revelation by means of studying the scriptures, pondering their meaning, and praying personally with sincerity and faith.

I sensed with the “thus saith the Lord” repetition, that those words contain some “fear factor” for some people, and my point was that God does not provide commandments and counsel out of wanting us to have a “fear factor”. He wants us to live by the higher laws of love and the wisdom available through the Holy Spirit, not by constraint or force but by a welcoming invitation. So I just don’t get hung up about whether something that was said contained the words “thus saith the Lord.” The Spirit communicates personally, frequently, and thus a person can just as well say to themselves, “thus saith the Spirit to me” and then do what the Spirit has told them to do. That is how they will gain greater blessings and greater wisdom in their lives.

(3) To not take away from the opportunity of exercising unconstrained choice. Also, so that the members can learn to follow the Holy Spirit themselves by heeding the impressions they themselves receive as they listen or read the messages and apply them to their individual circumstances. (By the way, I don’t think I used the words “God expects of us.” It was a case of being able to glean from a message without being “beaten over the head” with it. God expects LDS members to use their own experience and wisdom as they also listen and heed the messages of LDS leaders, so the listening needs to be accompanied by having learned from their own experiences and seeing the correlation between what is said and their own everyday circumstances.)

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation to Anna Scott:

(4) I wrote that because Soren1 seemed to be writing that placing the Adam-god theory into a discussion sort of “backed someone into a corner”–yet the whole point I was making is that that particular corner is a corner that is a dead end, and serves no purpose for one seeking spirituality in their lives. Boyd K Packer would say it is “leaning the ladder against the wrong wall.”

(5) BY was stating his opinion as a teaching. Because that particular teaching was not coming from the scriptures and was contrary to the scriptures, a member with a concern about that teaching could understand, if they were familiar with Doctrine and Covenants 107, that because the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had not unitedly agreed upon such a teaching they need not do anything differently in their own lives with respect to believing it.

Your use of a word that I don’t use to describe this issue since it involves an opinion, points in the direction of a “fear factor” as I had noted earlier. It is a one-issue situation, and has had the long-term effect of weeding out a few members (who weeded themselves out) but I have not read of any short-term effect among the immediate members of that day. Being “constantly on guard” again gets into the “fear factor” approach to gleaning messages that contain wisdom from God. That may be the way teachers teach to try and get people to do things out of fear, but it is not the way God works among people trying to be His covenant people.

(6) I would say that the members could take that teaching and disregard it, through having the Holy Spirit with them by virtue of having studied the scriptures themselves and learned to understand the promptings of the Spirit in their own lives. They could just say to themselves “I don’t really understand what he’s talking about” and leave the thing alone–or they could do some serious reading and thinking and side with Orson Pratt. But the Holy Spirit is not going to force them to believe that particular teaching of BY.

(7) In the first place, he didn’t edit the sermons that contained the Adam-god statements.

In the second place, those who accepted his teaching on the subject were still going to be praying to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, and were going to be seeking a personal, ongoing relationship with Them. There is plenty of time in eternity for them to get a doctrinal clarification if they had accepted BY’s opinion at the time.

(8) I hope I have answered that particular issue sufficiently for you to understand.

 

[soren1]

Anna,
Thanks for asking for clarification.

An LDS member can glean that the president of the LDS church is conveying “revelation” from God that they should really, really listen to and heed, when he uses words such as “the impression has weighed heavily on my mind and heart that …” or when he repeats the same or a similar message several times during successive occasions of the gathering of the LDS members or in the Ensign magazine.

Young claimed that God had revealed the Adam-God doctrine to him. That is a stronger claim, I think, than “It has weighed on my mind and heart.” As for teaching the doctrine on successive occasions (which I documented myself in post #20 on this thread) then let it suffice that Brigham Young taught Adam-God in 40 sermons known sermons of which transcripts exists. It was moreover repeated by other Apostles, including Franklin Richards, who referred to it as “The word of the Lord.” It has thus been attested by two or three authorized witnesses.

One of the things a non-LDS observer ought to keep in mind is that the LDS do not view our relationship with God as one of Him being a “do-this-or-else” kind of Leader. He is viewed as a “do-this-if-you-want-the-greatest-happiness, but it’s your choice” kind of a Leader. So the LDS prophet is usually going to follow that kind of pattern, including that he may give some strong hints that some members may miss if they weren’t really paying attention, such as when President Hinckley warned members to get out of debt and be conservative in their investments, but didn’t say “the stock market is going to have a major correction.”

President Hinckley might not have been a do-this-or-else kind of leader, but Brigham Young said that people would be saved or damned based on their acceptance of Adam-God: “Now, let any 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.” (JOD 1:47) In light of such statements, your analogy to the stock market could not be less apropos. It obfuscates very clear evidence and removes Young’s teaching from its original context, placing it within a new, fictitious context.

As to the Adam-god theory as a teaching of Brigham Young, it seems to have been fairly well documented that he said something close to or exactly as he is quoted.

As I said above, 100% of a large body of historical evidence, from a wide range of sources in a wide range of types, supports it unequivocally in every point.

Whether there were “Gold Plates” has been attested through a first-hand experience as “saw them with my eyes” by fewer people than the number who could attest that BY taught the Adam-god theory, but that is beside the point when dealing with spiritual matters and spiritual knowledge and the incontrovertible witness of the Holy Ghost. A person may tell me all day that they think the “Gold Plates” weren’t seen by enough people to be believable, and I will say that the Holy Ghost trumps anything they have to say on the subject, and there were indeed witnesses and historical experiences during the time period of 1827-1830 that demonstrated that there were indeed plates with the appearance of gold which had engravings from ancient prophets on them, which Joseph Smith had custody of and which he “translated” by the gift and power of God, for the benefit of those people who are willing to take the time and effort to read and ponder the translation for their benefit.

I am not sure how thoroughly Anna understood my point about the witnesses to the plates, which I would hardly have made in answer to what you have been saying. I raised it in the specific context of discussing Mormons who try to cast uncertainty on the historical fact of Young teaching the Adam-God doctrine by saying things like, “Well, we don’t know if the scribes got it right.” In that instance, because they doubt the credibility of a large body of historical witness, it is fair to question their self-consistency in the way they handle evidence in other areas. This is especially important in response to the many Mormons who, as an apologetic defense, challenge objectors to explain the witnesses or any number of other alleged evidences of the BOM. (Because the objectors are not assumed to possess testimonies, this is not an argument from spiritual witness, but from evidence. For that reason, your points about spiritual witness, while important in themselves, do not matter for that specific argument.) Hence, my point is that no one who thinks so little of evidence as to blissfully deny the historicity of the Adam-God doctrine has any credibility arguing from evidence for the BOM. In any case, because you are granting the historicity of Brigham Young’s teaching, this would not be a relevant critique of your position even if you were making such an evidential argument. The fact that you do the right thing by moving away from using the witnesses as evidence does not refute my point, but suggests to me that you possibly agree with it in principle.

A more relevant question for you would be: “Is the evidence to establish Adam-God as a revealed teaching qualitatively better than many other LDS teachings that no one doubts as doctrinal?” For instance, has the basic, minimal definition of the unity of godhead as “one in purpose” been more clearly presented as doctrine than Adam-God?” Surprising as this may sound, I think it would be very hard to make a case that it has been. The scriptural case for “one-in-purpose” is largely inferential, while the case for Adam-God is demonstrative (see post #35); no prophet has said that God personally revealed “one in purpose” to him, whereas that is just what Young claimed.