Thus Saith the Lord and LDS "Prophets"

[soren1]

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 text from D&C that you use to support “united counsel” has very little to do with this topic, and you must provide warrant for at least two crucial premises if you are going to make a case from it. The two main presuppositions you need to justify are as follows:

1. The decision-making of the quorums embraces the truth-contents of revealed doctrine. It is quite obvious that the text is referring to matters of counsel, which Mormons typically, and rightly, distinguish from doctrine. This is most evident in the text from the use of the word “decision.” A decision is a deliberative judgment regarding how to attain a certain end. In short, it is a determination of counsel. For instance, one decides where the best place to build a Temple is. One does not, however, “decide” whether God has commanded that Temples should be built! That is a matter of discernment, which is a different type of judgment. Because of the heavy influence of voluntarist philosophy on modern American society, especially in the last century, the proper meaning of “decision” is lost to the understanding of many people, as in Fox News’s misuse of the word in its phrase “We report, you decide.” Yet in 1835, which is what matters for us here, the precise meaning of “decide” had not become obscure, and can be found in its correct usage throughout the literature of the period. Jefferson, for example, is very consistent in the way he uses it. One can claim to “decide” which of God’s revealed doctrines to proclaim at a given time, but not which doctrines are true.

2. The united counsel doctrine is comprehensive of all authoritative decisions. The text only says that non-unanimous decisions have less validity and bring fewer blessing than unanimous ones. This says nothing about such decisions being necessary for all authority as such. For instance, if a Catholic says, “The pope is only infallible when he speaks* ex cathedra*,” it would be silly to conclude from this that only ex cathedra statements are binding upon Catholics, to the exclusion of other sources like ecumenical counsels. It is a limitation *on *the pope’s authority, not a limitation to the pope’s authority. Likewise, the preference in D&C 107 for united counsel defines when quorums are speaking with maximal authority, not when prophets are doing so. It is one thing to say that “every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same” and another to say that “every decision made must be by unanimous voice of the quorums.” The former does not entail the latter.

It was an opinion that should have died with him, since all it was was an opinion, even if he had taught it using the word “doctrine”. It also should have died with him since it brings contention when discussed, and thus leads on a downward path instead of an upward path toward keeping the Spirit in one’s life and keeping the Spirit within a group discussion.

How do you know that the Adam-God doctrine, rather than the unbelief of the Mormon’s themselves is the source of contentiousness? Jesus himself claim his own words would bring set families against each other, incur persecution, and be a stumbling stone for many. Brigham Young said more or less that same:

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. Sermon on June 8, 1873

Can you read these words and really claim that “all it was was an opinion”?

 

[ParkerD]

Oops, I could kick myself. I’ve known the answer to this question all along, but it slipped my mind. I should have mentioned this off the bat. One well-attested standard for determining what is inspired for Mormonism is the confirmation of “two or three witnesses.” In a First Presidency message two years ago called Safety in Council, Elder Henry Eyring advised followers to heed inspired counsel and gave some guidelines for discerning when something is inspired. Among his words are:

*The Apostle Paul wrote, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established” (2 Corinthians 13:1). One of the ways we may know that the warning is from the Lord is that the law of witnesses, authorized witnesses, has been invoked. When the words of prophets seem repetitive, that should rivet our attention and fill our hearts with gratitude to live in such a blessed time. *

I don’t present this as the last word in LDS doctrine of course, but it is a principle that has been historically invoked by many LDS leaders, and therefore has the virtue, rare in LDS authority theories, of living up to its own standard.

Soren1,

I’ll start answering what you had posted by noting the following paragraphs from that Ensign article by President Eyring:

"Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety. Along the path, I have found that the way had been prepared for me and the rough places made smooth. God led me to safety along a path that was prepared with loving care, sometimes prepared long before.

The account at the beginning of the Book of Mormon is of a prophet of God, Lehi. He was also the leader of a family. He was warned by God to take those he loved to safety. Lehi’s experience is a type of what happens as God gives counsel through His servants. Of Lehi’s family, only those who had faith and who themselves received confirming revelation saw both the danger and the way to safety. For those without faith, the move into the wilderness seemed not only foolish but dangerous. Like all prophets, Lehi, to his dying day, tried to show his family where safety would lie for them."

President Eyring confirmed the law of authorized witnesses by saying that successive prophets had given warnings:

“For instance, more than once in general conferences, you have heard our prophet say that he would quote a preceding prophet and would therefore be a second witness and sometimes even a third.”

So there are two principles involved in President Eyring’s article that the BY situation did not comply with. One, the next succeeding LDS prophet did not bear a second witness of the teaching BY had given.

Two, anyone superimposing President Eyring’s words of counsel into the time period of BY would also note that each person was being told they should confirm any teaching “confirmed in prayer” or in other words, “received confirming revelation”.

I don’t have a link to the interview, but several years ago soon after President Eyring was sustained into the First Presidency, he participated in a news conference where he answered questions, and in one of his answers he talked about the very principle of counsel among the Twelve Apostles and how they differ in their opinions and discuss and finally come to agreement after prayerful consideration–and if they don’t come to agreement, an issue is not moved forward until such time as they do.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

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.

Soren1,
A person attributing the words “God revealed this to me” to someone who has the background of the Book of Mormon, needs to place those words within the context of how revelation occurs in most instances, as shown by experiences in the Book of Mormon.

In other words, when someone else reads those words and remarks “so that means that person is saying God talked personally with them and they had a conversation” then they have not understood the process of revelation as shown by experiences in the Book of Mormon.

That process of revelation includes studying a matter out by both experiences of life and by reading the scriptures as relates to the matter under consideration, praying, receiving a witness from the Holy Ghost that one is headed in the right direction with the impressions they are following, then reaching a decision and then confirming that decision through prayer and through receiving the confirming “burning in your bosom” or confirming witness of the Holy Ghost that the decision being made is the inspired, correct decision or that the teaching is the inspired, correct teaching.

As to Adam’s role, Adam is the same person as Michael the Archangel, and the same person as the Ancient of Days in the Book of Daniel, so he has a far greater role in the “salvation” (i.e. participative role as a leader) of the human family than is attributed to him by Catholics. But BY happens to have misunderstood the impressions he felt he was receiving, or expressed them in a way that could be easily misunderstood, and that is why it becomes so important for a person inside or outside of the LDS church looking at this situation to understand that Doctrine and Covenants 107 does apply with respect to the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve needing to come to agreement before a “new doctrine” can be considered “doctrine”.

BY was familiar of course with the sealing power and with the principle that everyone who becomes exalted will be “sealed” back through the generations all the way back to Adam and Eve. So the work of sealing that happens in temples, and the records that are going to be “opened” at the final judgment day when it comes time for all the temple work to have been completed such that those sealings are indeed in effect for all the generations, become an integral part of the need for LDS members to understand that Adam is a “father” with whom we very much have to do. He also loves his posterity like a father loves their children and grandchildren and so forth. So the feelings should run both ways for LDS members who understand these principles.

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation of post to Soren1:

Here is the context of the passage you quoted from Brigham Young about “prove their salvation or destruction”:

“I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming “great is the mystery of godliness,” and tell nothing.
It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!” What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.
I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.”

For LDS members who understand their doctrine, the above correlates with LDS doctrinal understanding that (1) Father in Heaven was with Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden before their fall, and conversed with them face to face. (2) Jesus Christ is indeed the Only Begotten of the Father, and those words mean what they say. They do not mean Jesus was “begotten by the Holy Ghost”. (3) A person who is LDS and intends to prepare themselves for exaltation, ought to study the gospel and learn to live by the Spirit of revelation in their lives, including understanding that Heavenly Father is not comprised of an “immaterial substance” and if they go off down a path where they believe the Father has “immaterial substance” then that means they are not going to believe they can become like God and like Christ, and are going to doubt, and are not going to learn to have perfect faith, and are therefore going to not progress toward the condition necessary for exaltation which really does require gaining perfect faith or the elements and matter are not going to be able to be “moved” ( as in “move mountains”).

 

[ParkerD]

Continuation of post to Soren1:

You attributed an “authorized witness” to the statement of Franklin Richards supporting what BY had taught regarding the Adam-god theory. Since united counsel and consent had not occurred, there was not a situation of any “authorized witness” because the Doctrine and Covenants sets the standard for what is able to be “authorized”, and the condition was not met for that standard.

As to “obfuscation” of words, I would say the shoe was on the other foot with regards to the particular quote you brought forward and attributed it to “acceptance of Adam-God”. I have posted the context. I have explained that Heavenly Father was in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, and thus BY was referring to Heavenly Father when he said the words I underlined: “who is our Father in Heaven”.

 

[ParkerD]

Soren1,

Here is another quote from Brigham Young that provides context for his repeated teachings about the relationship of human beings to Heavenly Father, Elohim:

"I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim. You are all well acquainted with Him, for there is not a soul of you but what has lived in His house and dwelt with Him year after year; and yet you are seeking to become acquainted with Him, when the fact is, you have merely forgotten what you did know. I told you a little last Sabbath about forgetting things.
There is not a person here today but what is a son or a daughter of that Being. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here. This, perhaps, is hard for many to believe, but it is the greatest nonsense in the world not to believe it. If you do not believe it, cease to call Him Father; and when you pray, pray to some other character.

It would be inconsistent in you to disbelieve what I think you know, and then to go home and ask the Father to do so and so for you. The Scriptures which we believe have taught us from the beginning to call Him our Father, and we have been taught to pray to Him as our Father, in the name of our eldest brother [p. 216b] whom we call Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world; and that Savior, while here on earth, was so explicit on this point, that he taught his disciples to call no man on earth father, for we have one which is in heaven. He is the Savior, because it is his right to redeem the remainder of the family pertaining to the flesh on this earth, if any of you do not believe this, tell us how and what we should believe. If I am not telling you the truth, please do tell me the truth on this subject, and let me know more than I do know. If it is hard for you to believe, if you wish to be Latter-day Saints, admit the fact as I state it, and do not contend against it. Try to believe it, because you will never become acquainted with our Father, never enjoy the blessings of His Spirit, never be prepared to enter into His presence, until you most assuredly believe it; therefore you had better try to believe this great mystery about God.

I do not marvel that the world is clad in mystery, to them He is an unknown God; they cannot tell where He dwells nor how He lives, nor what kind of a being He is in appearance or character. They want to become acquainted with His character and attributes, but they know nothing of them. This is in consequence of the apostasy that is now in the world. They have departed from the knowledge of God, transgressed His laws, changed His ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, so that the whole earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof. Consequently it is no mystery to us that the world knoweth not God, but it would be a mystery to me, with what I now know, to say that we cannot know anything of Him. We are His children." (Source: Journal of Discourses V. 4)

Whatever BY said about Adam needs to be understood within the broad and full context of the entire set of teachings of Brigham Young, including the above wherein the statement is easily understood that humankind are the children (in the spirit world) of Eloheim, and that we should pray to Heavenly Father.

 

[ParkerD]

The text from D&C that you use to support “united counsel” has very little to do with this topic, and you must provide warrant for at least two crucial premises if you are going to make a case from it. The two main presuppositions you need to justify are as follows:

1. The decision-making of the quorums embraces the truth-contents of revealed doctrine. It is quite obvious that the text is referring to matters of counsel, which Mormons typically, and rightly, distinguish from doctrine. This is most evident in the text from the use of the word “decision.” A decision is a deliberative judgment regarding how to attain a certain end. In short, it is a determination of counsel. For instance, one decides where the best place to build a Temple is. One does not, however, “decide” whether God has commanded that Temples should be built! That is a matter of discernment, which is a different type of judgment. Because of the heavy influence of voluntarist philosophy on modern American society, especially in the last century, the proper meaning of “decision” is lost to the understanding of many people, as in Fox News’s misuse of the word in its phrase “We report, you decide.” Yet in 1835, which is what matters for us here, the precise meaning of “decide” had not become obscure, and can be found in its correct usage throughout the literature of the period. Jefferson, for example, is very consistent in the way he uses it. One can claim to “decide” which of God’s revealed doctrines to proclaim at a given time, but not which doctrines are true.

2. The united counsel doctrine is comprehensive of all authoritative decisions. The text only says that non-unanimous decisions have less validity and bring fewer blessing than unanimous ones. This says nothing about such decisions being necessary for all authority as such. For instance, if a Catholic says, “The pope is only infallible when he speaks* ex cathedra*,” it would be silly to conclude from this that only ex cathedra statements are binding upon Catholics, to the exclusion of other sources like ecumenical counsels. It is a limitation *on *the pope’s authority, not a limitation to the pope’s authority. Likewise, the preference in D&C 107 for united counsel defines when quorums are speaking with maximal authority, not when prophets are doing so. It is one thing to say that “every decision made by either of these quorums must be by the unanimous voice of the same” and another to say that “every decision made must be by unanimous voice of the quorums.” The former does not entail the latter.

How do you know that the Adam-God doctrine, rather than the unbelief of the Mormon’s themselves is the source of contentiousness? Jesus himself claim his own words would bring set families against each other, incur persecution, and be a stumbling stone for many. Brigham Young said more or less that same:

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. Sermon on June 8, 1873

Can you read these words and really claim that “all it was was an opinion”?

Soren1,
Anyone who has done as much research as you seem to have done about the LDS church, surely will have come across the situation of the change that occurred in June 1978 with respect to all worthy men being enabled to hold the priesthood (for which I shouted “hooray”), and will have come across the very principle of united counsel as being a very important part of the timing of that change. Until the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency were united about that change, it was not considered “ready” to be brought forward to the members of the LDS church, whether considered years earlier by those same quorums. So this is an established principle, and it is very familiar to the Twelve Apostles and is repeatedly and openly discussed by them in various settings which I have seen, read, and otherwise been party to. I assure you I have experience that backs up that principle of united counsel and consent, and it is very much practiced by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

Was it practiced well by BY in his day? I would say it appears not. Is that a “mistake”? I would say it appears so. But that was then, and this is now, and I am very comfortable that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve of my day and time are practicing the principle and that is for the benefit and blessing of all the members of the LDS church. But it may be of no consequence to you.

 

[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…

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.”

But the whole point is the LDS ask people to lean their ladder on the LDS church. And Adam-God theory is something that leads one to feel that not only are they on the wrong wall but that both the ground the ladder rests on and the wall it leans on are on unsure footing. How can something so far out in left field not leave people saying there is no surety here, and it is in fact an example of the very thing spoken of in Ephesians? And, I’m sorry, but nothing you’ve said in your last few posts inspires any confidence that your prophet is really God’s mouthpiece on earth. Quite frankly your description of how doctrine is promulgated shows that your church is not “lead by a prophet” but lead by a group of 15 men.

 

[twopekinguys]

I have come to the conclusion that most of it is very subjective, and open to (name removed by moderator)terpretation when looked at from the member in the pew point of view.

What I am hearing is, We’re going to put this stuff out there, if you want to think it’s doctrine and follow it, fine go ahead. We’ll go with it until we have to defend it, then it was just opinion.

But I will give Parker credit. He did say it isn’t necessary for “Thus saith the Lord”, as we have been led to believe by other posters.

 

[SirThomasMore]

all Parker did was leave an out. If it turns out that what was said was way out there and wacky, then it was not doctrine. But if what was said turns out to be good, then it was doctrine. And it does not matter what the alleged prophet says. BY says it is doctrine, but it turns out to be silly, then it was not doctrine and the “prophet”, (in the example, it was BY) was wrong and/or lied to us. Either way, it means he was not a prophet. If he was wrong about God, you hav e to wonder how a guy who talks to god would be wrong about him. IIf he just lied, then no prophet would lie about such things as doctrine.

Either way, you have it that the LDS Church is not led by prophets, but by people who want to lead you away from the true God

 

[Anna_Scott]

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.

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. . . . .

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.” . . . .

ParkerD,

I have read all your responses. I will say that despite our differences; I always appreciate the time and effort you put into your responses–and your respectful tone.

I can’t say that your responses answered all the issues of LDS revelation; but you did clarify many questions regarding the way “revelation” is handled in the Mormon Church.

Your view is far from the orthodox Christian view of prophecy; but then there are many differences between Mormonism and Christian orthodoxy.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions.

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

But the whole point is the LDS ask people to lean their ladder on the LDS church. And Adam-God theory is something that leads one to feel that not only are they on the wrong wall but that both the ground the ladder rests on and the wall it leans on are on unsure footing. How can something so far out in left field not leave people saying there is no surety here, and it is in fact an example of the very thing spoken of in Ephesians? And, I’m sorry, but nothing you’ve said in your last few posts inspires any confidence that your prophet is really God’s mouthpiece on earth. Quite frankly your description of how doctrine is promulgated shows that your church is not “lead by a prophet” but lead by a group of 15 men.

Zaffiroborant,
I think it is a mistaken assumption that “LDS ask people to lean their ladder on the LDS church.” What I have tried to reiterate several times on this forum is that people should, in so many words, lean their ladder on the rock of Christ and the rock of revelation (seeking the Holy Spirit in doing that), which are essentially the same rock. You (and/or anyone) can get that as it comes to that person in their particular circumstances and within the context of their particular upbringing and particular needs–it would be mistaken to think those needs are going to be met for everyone within the LDS church. Being true to oneself is of utmost importance within the realm of deeply personal spirituality at its inner core.

I don’t think a non-LDS has any need to think the LDS are thinking that the LDS prophet is “God’s mouthpiece on earth” for everyone everywhere. He is “God’s mouthpiece on earth” within a context, which is the context of the LDS church and missionary work to those desiring to listen to a particular message, and within the context that there are fifteen “men” who are indeed sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators” and thus their united counsel becomes the prophetic guidance to sustain the secure pattern of purity of the doctrines of the gospel (for those who see that doctrinal purity within the LDS scriptures including the KJV Bible–not saying others are going to agree) as the mores within society change and some people say “go this way” or “go that way”.

 

[SirThomasMore]

how awful to be in a church where prophets can;t be trusted until it is determined what society thinks of their prophesies

 

[soren1]

As to “obfuscation” of words, I would say the shoe was on the other foot with regards to the particular quote you brought forward and attributed it to “acceptance of Adam-God”. I have posted the context. I have explained that Heavenly Father was in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, and thus BY was referring to Heavenly Father when he said the words I underlined: “who is our Father in Heaven”.

ParkerD,

Before pointing to the specifics of how I used the text that you claim I misrepresented, let me first point out why I have no motive to obfuscate on this point: As I have already explain on this thread, I do not believe that the case against Adam-God needs to rely at all on any definition of official doctrine. My central argument (which I began to make before you joined this conversation, so you might have missed some of the relevant posts) depends on two different theses only one of which have I mentioned briefly in our direct correspondence:

1. Adam-God is necessitated by LDS Scripture. Young invented nothing, but pointed out what was already there. (See post # 35)
2. For Brigham Young to have taught false doctrine about the identity of God in any context at all is contrary to the nature of a prophet as taught in Deuteronomy 13:1-3. (See post #4)

Apart from these two theses, everything else is a sideshow. By centering my response to you on the unnecessary question of whether Young taught Adam-God officially, I have actually cut you slack, giving you more ground at the outset than your position warrants. On that basis alone, it should be clear that I have no motive to obfuscate. It would be like a crooked policeman suborning a false witness when he already has DNA evidence, risking the credibility of a stronger argument for the sake of a weaker one.

Let us imagine that new evidence came to light confirming the “theory” interpretation promoted by revisionist defenses of Young. Suppose an archivist in Salt Lake City discovered a handwritten note sent to the publisher of *The Millenial Star,*in which Young complains that the printed versions of his speeches always omit the clarification that Adam-God is just his personal theory, asking the publisher to kindly include that qualification in future printed sermons. That single discovery would turn topsy-turvy much of what is known about the teachings of Brigham Young and would demand much revision to his biographies. If that happened, I would have to concede you the whole point. But if that happened, how much ground would my concession gain for you towards seriously vindicating Young? None. For the inspired status of his sermons is only marginally relevant in the first place. I am arguing for it because it happens to be true, and because it matters to a lot of Mormons who emphasize it to the neglect of more serious matters involving the two theses above. In fact, that archival discovery might even be helpful to me, and I might wish such a thing would happen, for if I could conscientiously concede the revealed/theoretical point, I could avoid the distraction of discussing it at all and focus on the more essential issues.

 

[soren1]

ParkerD,

Thus I have no motive to obfuscate consciously. I will now show that I have not obfuscated even accidentally, by demonstrating my correct use of the text you claim I pulled out of context. I quoted Young as teaching with reference to Adam-God, “Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” Yet you point to the sentence immediately preceding, which reads, “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.” Since Elohim was also in Eden, this is actually an orthodox statement.

I once thought as you do. Before the first time I ever quoted this passage, I hesitated on the basis of just this objection. Because both Michael and Elohim are called “father” in the sermon, both are in heaven, and since both were in fact in Eden, it is not at once obvious whether the Father in Heaven “that was in the garden of Eden” is Michael or Elohim. But further research revealed significant reasons to favor reading it in reference to Adam.

The first, weakest argument I hit upon is that Young says, “doctrines” in the plural, which means he refers to more than just the sentence immediately preceding. It embraces all that Young has been saying, including the statement that Michael “is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.” This argument is good but indecisive, because Wilford Woodruff records the same text in his journal without the word “doctrines.”

A second reason adds a little more to the case: the context gives more weight to reading it as Michael, because he is the only male person spoken of as being in Eden elsewhere in the sermon: “When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.” Again, this is a good reason, but not compelling.

The more powerful reason, the one the really persuades me, is that external witnesses support understanding it in reference to Adam. Other prominent Mormons, including Apostles, understood it in reference to Adam and Young did not attempt to correct them. Hosea’s Stout’s Journal that evening records, “Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body, etc. More hereafter.” The same view can be found in a number of diaries written that night, including Woodruff’s, who quotes Heber C. Kimball reporting Young’s teaching as “Jesus Christ was his [Peter’s] God and the God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam.” Samuel H. Rogers recorded that Young “said that Adam was the onley God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Gost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ, was our elder brother.” No minority report exists to effect that it was Elohim, as distinct from Adam, who begat Jesus in the flesh. They all understood Young to mean that Adam begat Jesus.

As this point, I could hardly be charged for obfuscation for maintaining a view that agrees with all of Young’s firsthand hearers whose impressions of the sermon have been passed down to us. Of course, it is a seriously possibility that they all got it wrong, since Young just didn’t make it clear enough. If he spoke vaguely, they could have misheard him then in just the same way that I misread him today. The problem with that idea is that Young did not seek to correct anyone’s misunderstandings, even when the opponents of Adam-God repeated and then criticized the same interpretation of his words. Young’s persistence can be confirmed by another journal entry in Feb 1854, which shows that almost two full years later, Young had not disabused him of the mistake, but was continuing to reinforce that same understanding: “He (B.Y.) said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ—Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Archangel.” I find this kind of report more persuasive than any transcript of a sermon, because it comes from someone’s conversations with Young, someone who knew him over the course of years, during which Young could have clarified such basic misunderstandings. Points of legitimate uncertainty that arise from the JOD transcript alone are firmed up in light of such evidence.

That is a taste of the kind of evidence that underlies my reading of the text from Young’s Address which you deem obfuscatory (Is that a real word?). Compared to your analogy about the stock market, I would say my reading has been rigorous.

 

[soren1]

ParkerD,

The best argument you have is the long passage where Young talks about the paternity of Elohim. Your position here seems to be that since Young gave such importance to Elohim as Father, then Elohim, not Adam, is the Father in Heaven in the sentence preceding the one I quoted. I have no trouble reconciling Young’s teachings on Elohim with his teachings on Adam, because he treats both as father in different respects, Elohim as the father of spirits, and Adam as the Father of the human race and of Christ according to the flesh. My best understanding of the Adam-God doctrine is as follows: While Elohim is the Spirit-Father of Michael, Jehovah, and all humanity, nevertheless Adam is the Father of Jesus and first progenitor of mankind according to the flesh, and so their relationship in that respect is Grandfather, Father, and Son. In the Creation, Elohim gave the presidency over the world into Michael’s hands as the first holder of the priesthood, so that he has rule over all Creation. As a result, it is from Adam’s hands, not from Elohim’s that Christ receives dominion and glory, and it is Adam whom Christ in turn glorifies by delivering to him the kingdom. None of this constitutes a denial of Elohim’s spiritual paternity, but it justifies Adam “as the only God with whom we have to do,” since he is the ultimate judge of all to whom Christ’s sacrifice for us is offered. When we stand before the judgment seat, Michael will be sitting in it, and we will be judged on the basis of whether we have truly served him. Michael’s exaltation is possible because he already had a resurrected body when he came to earth. In my judgment, to treat Michael as the ultimate object of human service constitutes worship of him, and Young has instructed his followers to worship a different God, whom they had not known. The song I quoted from the 1848 hymnal shows no less.

You have to do a lot of reading in Young to put all these pieces together, but this is best synthesis I have yet arrived at. It resolves the most glaring contradictions into harmony and it has the special virtue of being warranted from the teachings of Joseph Smith, to whom Young was fiercely loyal. Consider the following First Presidency Message of July 1839:

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. [Context here.]

This doesn’t say quite as much as Young does, but the basic pieces are already in place right here. What Young has done is radicalize Smith’s teaching, not by adding to it materially, but by drawing out its logical implications, contained in it already. The idea that forms the bridge from Smith to Young is that if Christ gets his dominion and glory from Adam, and if it is divine dominion and glory the he gets, then Adam is divine too. In ruling over us as priest, he also rules as God. “With whom we have to do” comes from a bad translation in the KJV of a phrase better rendered as “to whom we have to give an account.” Young quotes this verse according to the KJV text, but he uses it in ways that reflect a correct understanding of its true exegesis. It is therefore to Adam and not to Elohim, that we are to understand the following verse:

And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. (Heb 4:13, NRSV)

 

[soren1]

ParkerD,

With respect to my points about the contents of D&C 107, you have asserted that it is “important for a person inside or outside of the LDS church looking at this situation to understand that Doctrine and Covenants 107 does apply with respect to the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve needing to come to agreement before a ‘new doctrine’ can be considered ‘doctrine,’” yet I have demonstrated from text that it says no such thing. For D&C 107 pertains to governance only; moreover, it contains no exclusivity clause restricting all authority to these bodies. Either point alone is fatal to you position, yet you have responded to neither. Moreover, you have repeated the same kind of error by subjecting Elder Eyring to the same type of hermeneutic. Throughout his message, he counsels Mormons to be as open as possible to the words of prophets. Yet look what you make of his words! He says:

Every time in my life when I have chosen to delay following inspired counsel or decided that I was an exception, I came to know that I had put myself in harm’s way. Every time that I have listened to the counsel of prophets, felt it confirmed in prayer, and then followed it, I have found that I moved toward safety.

You underline one phrase that sounds like it supports you, but the point his is making is not that the validity of prophetic counsel depends upon us receiving prayerful confirmation, but that unless we receive such confirmation prophetic counsel has no salutary power for us. That is why he says he came to grief whenever he decided against following such counsel. He makes the same point in the following paragraph about Lehi’s family, where you again underline just the one part that seems helpful. The point is that Lehi’s counsel was a matter of Laman and Lemuel’s responsibility to follow, but they sought no testimony of it so it failed to help them. If, however, the actual prophetic content of Lehi’s words was dependent upon people getting a witness of them for themselves, this would not be the case.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
Anyone who has done as much research as you seem to have done about the LDS church, surely will have come across the situation of the change that occurred in June 1978 with respect to all worthy men being enabled to hold the priesthood (for which I shouted “hooray”), and will have come across the very principle of united counsel as being a very important part of the timing of that change. Until the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency were united about that change, it was not considered “ready” to be brought forward to the members of the LDS church, whether considered years earlier by those same quorums. So this is an established principle, and it is very familiar to the Twelve Apostles and is repeatedly and openly discussed by them in various settings which I have seen, read, and otherwise been party to. I assure you I have experience that backs up that principle of united counsel and consent, and it is very much practiced by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency.

Was it practiced well by BY in his day? I would say it appears not. Is that a “mistake”? I would say it appears so. But that was then, and this is now, and I am very comfortable that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve of my day and time are practicing the principle and that is for the benefit and blessing of all the members of the LDS church. But it may be of no consequence to you.

Parker D,

This response is a new argument, different from the one you made earlier. Your main line of reasoning before was scriptural, using a text from D&C 107. I answered that text because your argument was from the text. Now you are going a different route and arguing from your own experience of how the modern church does things. This is an appeal to tradition rather than to the actual sources of revelation. Yet this ignores the nature of my original objection.

One of my points about D&C 107 is that it is a practical document pertaining to decisions about how to attain good ends, not the discernment of what is or is not revealed. An appeal to modern church governance hardly begins to address that. As for the revelation of 1978, it would only be relevant it it showed that the unanimous consent of the quorums was necessary to constitute the Declaration as inspired. But that cannot be the case. Consider another addition to Mormon Scripture, Joseph’s Smith’s Civil War prophecy in D&C 87. That text sat around in Brigham Young’s back pocket until the Civil War started, since he didn’t know what to make of it. When it seemed to him that Joseph’s prophecy was going to be fulfilled, he met with the quorums and added it to D&C. Do you think that means that D&C 87 was not inspired until the 1860s? No, of course, not. Their decision was to include it in D&C, a decision that falls within the provenance of D&C 107, but as to whether it was inspired, that determination comes from the intrinsic nature of the text itself, and is not a matter of human decision.

Your view of LDS authority is anachronistic, and was not seen as true in the early LDS Church, since after all, it has no support in revelation itself. Why is modern LDS tradition superior to the old tradition? What is there, beside chronological snobbery and unsupportable assertions about one text in D&C to reject the view represented in the following journal entry by Wilford Woodruff about Orson Pratt’s rejection of the Adam-God doctrine:

. . . met with the Regency in the evening. The time was occupied till 10 o’clock writing lessons upon the black board. Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth, and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness & unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways. For when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel & tries to lead the prophet–he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling. (March 11, 1856)

 

[soren1]

(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.”

ParkerD,

I grant that I argue aggressively, but not into dead ends. The integrity of the way a person pursues apologetic, proceeds from their moral character and reflects on the integrity of their testimony. The primary virtue that an apologist must have is justice. This is because when you argue about truth, you are doing something like putting ideas on trial. You are exposing them to scrutiny in confidence that they shall survive. One way this confidence expresses itself is in the fact that we are willing to be fair, adopting consistent standards in the use of evidence. One of my most constant criticism of LDS apologetics in general is that it emphasizes positive evidences for the BOM (itself not a bad thing), but does so by applying a standard of maximal credulity to the point of elevating broad speculative theories about the translation methods of the BOM to the status of “evidence” while then applying alternate, opposed methodologies to explain problematic passages.

People who believe that the Holy Spirit changes hearts have no business using inconsistent argumentation; fair-mindedness alone is a conduit for grace. Inconsistent standards and cheap argumentation reveal despair in the convincing power truth and a will to take the Holy Spirit’s work into one’s own hands. Revealing to someone that they are using inconsistent standards in their treatment of evidence, and challenging them on that basis, is not just about pushing them into a logical wall, but of holding them accountable to the principles of honesty that proceed from a Christian worldview. When that happens, I am not backing anyone into a corner, but showing them the corner they are already in. It is not a dead end, but the exact opposite: an opportunity to change.