Thus Saith the Lord and LDS "Prophets"

[soren1]

ParkerD,

Of course, the real point I’m making is not that Smith or Young said out and out that the Ancient of Days is God – though Young certainly understood it that way - but rather that in point of fact that is who the Ancient of Days is. You challenged by use of Aramiac literature on the grounds that it could have been written by apostates. This not only misconstrues my argument (which in no way depends on the doctrinal authority of the Aramaic tradition), but it is symptomatic of one of the most common double-standards, which I spoke of before, that saturate LDS apologetics.

I have always been struck by just how much Mormon apologetics depends upon impeaching historical sources. The first time I ever spoke to any missionaries, I documented evidence of Catholic sacramental theology from the Didache, a first century text that likely predates some books of the New Testament. One of the missionaries promptly responded, “Well, that text must have been written by an apostate!” The first time I ever spoke to an educated adult Mormon, I documented belief in Apostolic succession from 1 Clement, to the effect that the Roman presbyters believed themselves and the Corinthian elders to possess valid authority from the Apostles around 80-90 a.d.; he responded that the Roman presbyters were mistaken, and that they in fact encouraged the apostasy by falsely claiming that authority had been passed down, so that people were led to obey the apostate Church. These claims may be logically consistent in themselves, but it boggles the mind that the same people, including scholars who should know better, will look through early Church documents and, upon finding anything that superficially resembled LDS teaching, claim it as a vestige of original Christianity, dismissing any context that does not fit with that claim as an apostate accretion. Thus, the basis for judging which evidence is valid and which is not depends entirely upon whether it looks favorable to Mormonism. By reading history with such speculative filtering, it is little wonder that they find nothing but favorable “evidence.”

Yet even apart from this, you missed my point. I wasn’t referring to the Aramaic tradition as a revealed or otherwise authoritative source. (The fact that I also mentioned pagan myths from Ugarit might have tipped you off to that.) I was using it as historical context to substantiate the lexical meaning of “Ancient of Days.” Daniel 7 was written in the context of a certain culture, one of Aramaic-speaking Israelites, and the language of that culture is directly relevant to understanding him. Because “Ancient of Days” means God in all known Aramiac literature and other Semitic traditions, then if it means something else in Daniel 7, it is because he is appropriating the term in a counter-cultural manner. It would hence be necessary for Daniel to give some indication that his idea of the Ancient of Days is something other than what is accepted in his Aramaic-speaking milieu.

The type of reasoning I am using here is common, even pervasive, in LDS apologetics as well, especially in FARMS scholarship. It is even utilized, perhaps unknowingly, by Joseph Smith. The main basis for reading “bara” in Genesis 1:1 as “organize” comes from the fact that other, non-Hebrew Semitic languages contain cognates words with the same triliteral root, “BRA”; in these languages it always means something like “to separate,” “to carve,” or “to widdle.” This argument was accepted by Joseph Seixas, incorporated into his grammar, and in turn presupposed by Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse. That this argument draws from cultures that are not merely apostate but outright pagan does not prejudice me against it: in and of itself, it is a fine argument, for which I have complete respect. It is good enough, in fact, to place the burden of proof on non-Mormons to show that “BRA” differs in Biblical usage from its many Semitic cognates. For the same reason, the commonplace Ancient Near Eastern understanding of “Ancient of Days” as a reference to God, places on you the burden of proof show it means something else in Daniel.

 

[soren1]

ParkerD,

Yet even without granting it authority per se, 1 Enoch is a better source than you seem to give it credit for, because it is quoted with approval in the New Testament. Jude cites it explicitly in v.13-14, and alludes to it throughout, borrowing many words and phrases directly. (The part you reference about Michael, Satan, and the body of Moses in v.7 is also derived from a pseudepigraphal work, The Apocryphon of Moses,.) That does not make 1 Enoch Scripture: it is at best a collection of profound mystical texts, which might record real revelations, but it is not verbally inspired as Scripture is. Yet we should at least treat it as edifying reading in accordance with the obvious respect that Jude has for it. Speaking of Jude, you mention that he shows Michael as subordinate to God. I agree. That is no problem, because Michael is always subordinate to Elohim in both Smith and Young’s theology; I have not contested that. My objection is that Young, knowing Michael to be less than Elohim, failed to see the blasphemy in ascribing to Michael divine honors in his rule over man. Yet Jude does provide one problem for you. We have seen that Jude takes a favorable view of 1 Enoch, and that he teaches about Michael’s subordination to God. In this, Jude concurs with 1 Enoch, which also teaches of Michael’s subordination … to the Ancient of Days:

And I saw countless angels - a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million – encircling that house. Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and numerous (other) holy angels that are in heaven above, go in and out of the house - Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and numerous (other) holy angels that are countless. With them is the Antecedent of Time: his head is white and pure, like wool and his garment is indescribable. I fell on my face, my whole body mollified and my spirit transformed. Then I cried with a great voice by the spirit of the power, blessing, glorifying, and extolling. And those are the blessings which went forth out of my mouth, being well-pleasing in the presence of that Antecedent of Time. Then the Antecedent of Time came with Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, Phanuel, and a hundred thousand and ten million time a hundred thousand angels that are countless. (1 Enoch 71:8-14)

Although this isn’t scripture, does it not seem incongruous that Jude, a real Scriptural writer, whose teaching on Michael is central to the argument of his epistle, should in that very epistle make repeated allusions to and explicitly quote an apostate book, which teaches a significant error on the very topic about which Jude is writing?

 

[soren1]

ParkerD,

But the most important thing to notice is that Scripture itself contains internal evidence for understanding “Ancient of Days” as God. This is because of the way that Revelation utilizes and interprets Daniel’s vision in its presentation of the enthroned heavenly figure, which the Lamb approaches to be glorified just as the Son of Man approaches the Ancient in Days in Daniel 7. The footnotes in the LDS edition of the KJV cross-reference most of the relevant passages in Revelation. For instance, Dan 7:10, so similar to 1 Enoch, reads:

A fiery stream issued and came forth before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.

The LDS KJV compares this to Rev 5:11:

And I beheld and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.

Once you see that the guy on the throne is the Ancient of Days (He is even white as wool in v. 1:14.), you can see that it is the Ancient of Days that the heavenly chorus praises along with Jesus in this manner:

*Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever. *(Rev 5:12-13)

You mention in some of your responses that Adam does get honor for presiding as priest and fathering the human race. Heaven has room for men to have that kind of honor, and God’s own throne is surrounded by those of the elders of Israel, but the problem here is that the Ancient of Days is on the Big Throne. This ascribes to him not merely divine priesthood, but divine glory. If he is anyone other than God, then that ascription of glory constitutes his worship as formally idolatrous.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
The text of Deuteronomy 13:2-3 applies more readily to the kinds of “miracles” I have seen people talk about on this website than it does to an erroneous teaching of Brigham Young. A “sign” or a “wonder” are specific words with specific meanings, having to do with something attributed to be miraculous and using that supposed “miracle” as “proof” that the person was a spiritual person or a “saint”. If you want to talk about Deuteronomy 13:2-3, then that is the discussion that should ensue. (But I really don’t want to go there, as that would enter into terrain that becomes so emotional that no sensible discussion can be held.)

ParkerD,

I don’t have terribly powerful emotions about that text, I don’t know what you mean.

And I fear I misunderstand your argument. You are not saying, are you, that only prophets who perform wonders are subject to this law? For the Hebrews, signs and wonders were part and parcel with prophesy; the idea of a non-miracle-working prophet would never have occurred to them. Moreover the reason such prophets are executed is because they have taught rebellion against God (13:5), a verdict that applies equally to any prophet who teaches the worship of a false God. It is true that the point of this passage is to relativize the importance of miracles, but it does so by *absolutizing *the importance of true doctrine in matters of worship. Miracles are not the ultimate test of a prophet because true worship is.

You emphasize what this text denies to the point of overlooking what it affirms.What the verse is saying is that the true worship of God is such an absolute principle that it tests a prophet absolutely. The fact that it can overpower miracles shows how absolute this test of a prophet is.

Besides, Brigham Young did make prophesies - in D&C 136, which includes telling the future at v. 35. He also performed the minor marvel of speaking in tongues. Some report that he spoke with the voice of Joseph, and took that as a sign of his prophetic calling.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
With all that clarification, I can see why you have formed the opinion you formed, but the text of the talk in question did not have the contradictions in terms that those journal entries had.

What contradictions exist among the journal entries?

I have agreed that Brigham Young had a concept in his mind that was either taught very poorly or was outright wrong. I don’t need to defend it, at all. It was not brought forward through the proper channel as to being authoritative and binding upon anyone, even though BY seems to have thought he had that authority. This is called being stubborn and not caring that Doctrine and Covenants 107 taught him to seek the united counsel and agreement of the Twelve and the First Presidency before taking a decision forward as authoritatively binding, and even then it would need to be voted upon by the members in order for it to become an accepted doctrinal change, after those principles were established by Joseph Smith by revelation.

and

Soren1,
On the contrary, the application of the principles detailed in D & C 107 with respect to “united counsel and consent” (my term to describe the principle) has become better understood and better practiced since the days of BY, but that is completely logical since BY had had only the precedence of how the LDS church was led by the president during the days of Joseph Smith. In other words, BY did not have a sufficient basis to have understood the principle, but that does not make the principle non-applicable. It means BY thought he had the same “single prevailing authority” as Joseph Smith (perhaps, I can assume from how he did things)–but that was incorrect based on D & C 107. It was something the Twelve and the First Presidency needed to learn, and some things are learned by going through a process that is an imperfect and bumpy process.

Again, the Twelve and the First Presidency of today teach this principle on an ongoing basis. I have heard it as late as last week in a personal setting which I don’t need to disclose, nor should I.

ParkerD,

My whole point has been that the modern LDS Church dos not understand D&C 107 better than Young did, because the modern interpretation has no textual warrant. Rather it was first invented during Wilford Woodruff’s Presidency as grounds to retire the Adam-God doctrine. It is not properly an interpretation at all, but an extraneous claim superimposed upon D&C 107 for other motives. It is an eisegetical rather than an exegetical reading of the section. Continuing to assert that the text simply means what you say does not begin to answer that; it is a mere counter-assertion. That you are joined in making this assertion by the vast majority of today’s Mormons, including high leadership, is an argument from authority, not from the text. It shows only that your view has often been repeated, not that it is right. I submit that it is only the frequent repetition of this view, as you report it, that leads people to think it has a factual basis.

For the third time, I will point out what it is you have not replied to: First, D&C 107 contains no assertion that quorum approval is necessary for all binding authority, only that unanimous quorum decisions are better than non-unanimous quorum decisions. No restriction to the prophet’s individual authority is implied here. That is not even a subject of the part of the section you cite, which treats only of the conditions wherein quorums will receive the greatest blessings. Second, D&C 107 is about decisions pertaining to policy; it relates properly to counsel, not to doctrine.

To these I can add a third reason, namely the D&C 107:91-92 gives a super-authoritative doctrine of prophethoood: “And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.” If the prophet has “all the gifts of God” to act in his capacity as revelator, what power is possessed by the quorums that would require to prophet to have his words ratifed by them? Would not “all the gifts of God” in that context entail the power to make his words binding?

Maybe you are so used to reading this text from a certain perspective that you don’t even see why I am saying these things or realize that you even have something to respond to. Up to a point, I can sympathize with that: how many Protestants think Paul teaches faith alone? It’s not because they are stubborn. It is just that when you are used to reading a text in a certain way, it can be hard to look at it with fresh eyes. One way to acquire fresh eyes is to consider the grounds presented for an alternate interpretation and try to figure out why someone else might hold that. If you are right, your response to my argument should help to establish the correctness of your position and improve your own understanding of Scripture.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,
If Adam is “the father of Christ according to the flesh” then that means there was a literal ancestry from Adam through David and through Mary, which I agree with and have recently reiterated in another thread.

ParkerD,

Young ascribed to Adam the direct begetting of Jesus by Adam. No one disputes Adam’s paternity as father of humanity, but Young, through the whole preceding context, is talking about how Christ was “begotten in the flesh” by God rather than the Holy Spirit. What is the point of that discussion if it is talking about the generation of the whole human species? Is he correcting people who think we are all descending from the Holy Spirit, or is he not obviously responding to what he thinks the creedal view of Luke 1:35 is? Why did Young bother to contrast his own view with the traditional theology of the dual nature of Christ? How would that even be relevant?

The only change I would make to the above is to insert the word “thus” as the first word of the last sentence, to clarify that the preceding sentence was talking about Christ receiving His rightful glory and dominion by the act of being given the keys from Adam, so that Christ could begin the triumphant winding up scenes with all of the keys having been centralized into His hands. It is symbolic that the sealing ordinances that need to be completed through the designated holders of the keys ultimately are tied to the power Christ holds as the Redeemer and Deliverer.

The problem isn’t just that Christ gets the keys from Adam, but that he gives to, receives from, and shares his glory with Adam, which is what occurs in the Ancient of Days texts and is affirmed by Smith and Young.

 

[Anna_Scott]

ParkerD, Young ascribed to Adam the direct begetting of Jesus by Adam. . . . .

soren1,

Seven (7) consecutive posts to ParkerD? ParkerD is the only LDS member still posting on this thread. At least give the guy a chance to answer.

Anna

 

[PaulDupre]

Throughout the literature on Adam-God that you find from the period, the “Ancient of Days” title is frequently applied to Adam in the same breath as “God.” For instance, this song from the 1856 hymnal:

WE BELIEVE IN OUR GOD
We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,
The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days
Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord as is plain,
Who’ll counsel and fight for His children again.
We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ who in love
To His brothers and sisters came down from above,
To die, to redeem them from death, and to teach
To mortals and spirits the gospel we preach.

But the LDS will tell you that the hymnal is not scripture and that the 1st Presidency is completely clueless as to what beliefs are contained in the hymnal, so it cannot be construed to be LDS belief. Another LDS belief changed and thrown onto the rubbish-heap of LDS history.

 

[soren1]

But the LDS will tell you that the hymnal is not scripture and that the 1st Presidency is completely clueless as to what beliefs are contained in the hymnal, so it cannot be construed to be LDS belief. Another LDS belief changed and thrown onto the rubbish-heap of LDS history.

That is not the purpose of the quote. It is to show that Young successfully communicated his understanding of “Ancient of Days.” Moreover, the hymnal was edited by Franklin Richards who was an Apostle during Young’s tenure, even if not a member of the First Presidency. Most importantly, it shows that Young’s teachings had the real, concrete effect of promoting idolatry in the very liturgy of the LDS Church; this makes God’s condemnations of prophets who corrupt worship more plainly applicable to Young.

 

[PaulDupre]

That is not the purpose of the quote. It is to show that Young successfully communicated his understanding of “Ancient of Days.” Moreover, the hymnal was edited by Franklin Richards who was an Apostle during Young’s tenure, even if not a member of the First Presidency. Most importantly, it shows that Young’s teachings had the real, concrete effect of promoting idolatry in the very liturgy of the LDS Church; this makes God’s condemnations of prophets who corrupt worship more plainly applicable to Young.

Understood…

 

[MelanieAnne]

I have always been struck by just how much Mormon apologetics depends upon impeaching historical sources. The first time I ever spoke to any missionaries, I documented evidence of Catholic sacramental theology from the Didache, a first century text that likely predates some books of the New Testament. One of the missionaries promptly responded, “Well, that text must have been written by an apostate!” The first time I ever spoke to an educated adult Mormon, I documented belief in Apostolic succession from 1 Clement, to the effect that the Roman presbyters believed themselves and the Corinthian elders to possess valid authority from the Apostles around 80-90 a.d.; he responded that the Roman presbyters were mistaken, and that they in fact encouraged the apostasy by falsely claiming that authority had been passed down, so that people were led to obey the apostate Church. These claims may be logically consistent in themselves, but it boggles the mind that the same people, including scholars who should know better, will look through early Church documents and, upon finding anything that superficially resembled LDS teaching, claim it as a vestige of original Christianity, dismissing any context that does not fit with that claim as an apostate accretion. Thus, the basis for judging which evidence is valid and which is not depends entirely upon whether it looks favorable to Mormonism. By reading history with such speculative filtering, it is little wonder that they find nothing but favorable “evidence.”

Please excuse me for “butting in”. I have enjoyed reading the posts of a scholar (that would be YOU!) and (truth be told) I have saved many of your posts to refer to later. I actually have a “Soren” file on my hard drive and it does NOT pertain to Spock’s Vulcan father! (Hope I got that right! And I mean about Spock’s father, not you!)

One of the things that has always bothered me about Mormon apologetics is their reliance on the fact that anything that does not comport with Mormon theology (whatever it might be at any given moment) is “apostate” from early Christian practice and yet NO ONE has apparently undertaken the task to shed even ONE SCINTILLA of evidence to establish that fact actually occurred, and of course there is no historical record that supports it.

So Mormons have often (on this forum) resorted to the excuse that “all evidence was destroyed” of the early “Mormon” church, which has always reminded me of the fact that they have also claimed that “all genealogical evidence to support the Book of Mormon MUST HAVE BEEN destroyed” since there is no scientific evidence to support the Book of Mormon story in the New World.

I have heard some claims (from Mormons of course) about facts “yet to be revealed”, but they are sparse. For example, I have heard Mormons state that the reason the full extent of the Dead Sea Scrolls has not been released because of the fear that it will prove the Mormon faith true. And so it is being withheld. THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. And yet, nearly everything has already been released in one way or another, and that has not been the result. Hard to know what the claim will be when a full report is released.

And then there are those that claim that every last vestige of the “original” church was systematically destroyed throughout the Roman Empire. That’s a lot of real estate to cover and systematically obliterate evidence from, and, even so, really faithful adherents of some (at this point imaginary) faith would seek to hide the evidence from the Roman destroyers if history is any guide. So if it once existed, someone would have saved it, so WHERE IS IT?

The bottom line is this ~ the closer you get to original sources, the more “originalist” you become. When it comes to the Christian faith, the “originalist” faith is the Catholic faith. It’s definitely NOT the Mormon faith, which is the product of a very imaginative 19th century American man.

Soren, I appreciate everything that you communicate to us here. Not just what I respond to, but what I read, which is much more vast. Thank you, for as long as you stay.

 

[ParkerD]

Answer to ParkerD: Part 1 of 2

1. None of the passages of Scripture you cited say that Adam was to “raise up a righteous posterity” or that he was to “do this without destroying or reducing free will choice among his posterity.” You are attributing God’s power and authority to Adam. God does the raising up. God created free will. Adam has no authority to destroy or reduce free will. These arguments are not helping your claim that LDS do not believe Adam is god.
2. Where does the Bible say, Adam received the priesthood? or After Adam fell, he was baptized and received the Holy Spirit? or Adam lived righteously in the mortal period of his life?
3. There are no passages in the Bible to support your claim that Adam was given the Priesthood.

The Old Testament speaks of Melchizedek, who prefigured the Priesthood of Christ; and the Levitical Priesthood.

continued—next post

Anna,
Thanks for asking more probing questions, but the answers I provide will still undoubtedly not satisfy what you asked–but here you go:

1. If you read Genesis 4, you find that Abel and Cain were familiar with making “offerings” “unto the Lord”. This was not just happenstance–they were taught by Adam and by the Lord to do so in righteousness. Cain made a false offering, so when his offering was not “respected” and he was told, “if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door” (v. 7) then Cain was “very wroth”. (v. 5)

These things weren’t just happening out of the blue. Adam had taught his sons, but they had free will choice in what they did and Cain chose to make an insincere and impure offering to the Lord (a fake offering).

The wording of Genesis 4:25 shows that Eve is familiar with being “appointed another seed” by God, which shows that Eve and Adam were not strangers to God and of course they had the desire to teach their children to live righteously.

I certainly agree that God “created free will”–but Adam could have chosen to constrain and try and control his sons into forced behavior. However, he didn’t do that. (He used his authority as a father to his sons in a righteous way.)

By the way, any father does indeed make a choice whether to try and “destroy or reduce free will” among his children, and faces that decision over and over again while they are children. Any leader faces that same choice among the people they lead. The evidence shows that Adam did not force Cain nor Abel nor Seth in their behavior and choices.

1. Making animal offerings would require priesthood to be done in righteousness. So Abel had the priesthood (Genesis 4:4), and Seth did, and Enoch did, and they received it originally from Adam who received it from God. Before receiving the priesthood, they would have been baptized, but you are correct that those baptisms weren’t documented in the Bible of today.
2. Melchizedek wasn’t the first holder of the priesthood on earth. Some logic is required to understand that. Once again, it wasn’t an “out of the blue” thing that he held the priesthood. He received it through the lineage blessings and ordination by his righteous paternal ancestors.

 

[ParkerD]

Answer to ParkerD: Part 2 of 2

All I’m asking is that you provide Biblical proof that Adam was ever given the “keys.”

With the lack of Biblical proof that Adam is the Ancient of Days; this is one of very few response options.

I’ll defer to Catholic forum members to speak to this issue.

Actually, tedious would be a better word. The more you write, the more you reveal about LDS beliefs that have no Biblical support.

There is nothing that God doesn’t know.

You are saying that Adam, the first human man, had been Michael the archangel, and is the Ancient of Days. Even setting the “Ancient of Days” issue aside; did Adam change back into the Archangel Michael to contend with the devil in the dispute about the body of Moses?

What is Adam now: angel, mortal, spirit, exalted/god, or something else?

Anna

Anna,
That Adam held keys can be inferred based on offerings being done as I cited in Genesis 4, and based on how God operates among humankind with priesthood as a blessing to them, to be used in righteousness in the name of God.

Yes, Adam would still be known as Michael the archangel when he died and went to the spirit world.

You would be familiar that graves were opened at the time of the resurrection of Christ, and that righteous people were resurrected (Matthew 27:52-53). I assume that Adam would have been one of those righteous people who was resurrected at that time–but names weren’t given out about who was among those who were resurrected. Since Adam still has an important role to play on this earth among his posterity at about the time of the Second Coming of Christ, and also later at the end of the Millenium, then I assume he is resurrected and busy teaching his posterity and can move about among spirits as well as among others of his resurrected posterity. I think his focus is on this earth and what is happening here, not on being a “son of God” and a “king” somewhere else.

It is important to understand that Adam had the opportunity to repent, just like everyone else who lives on earth who hears about repentance. So “grace abounds” for him just like for everyone who repents, through Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

I did not say that Brigham Young uttered the precise words “The Ancient of Days is God.” He did not say this explicitly for the same reason that Shakespeare never says that the witches in Macbeth are there to tempt him: it is too obvious to bear mentioning. Rather than state who the Ancient of Days is, Young presupposes it at every point. He reveals what his understanding is in the way he emphasizes “Ancient of Days” in his teachings on Adam. I think it is a reasonable inference that “Ancient of Days” is in all caps with an exclamation point in the JOD text of Young’s famous 1852 sermon because Young emphasized it by intonation. In declaring that Adam is God, he made a point to call our attention to Adam as Ancient of Days, for that is the revealed point of departure for both Young and Smith. The argument is like this: “Adam is the Ancient of Days … get it? … Adam is God … get it? … Joseph taught this principle … get it?” Young’s argument is inferential, but by no means unclear.

Throughout the literature on Adam-God that you find from the period, the “Ancient of Days” title is frequently applied to Adam in the same breath as “God.” For instance, this song from the 1856 hymnal:

WE BELIEVE IN OUR GOD
We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,
The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days
Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord as is plain,
Who’ll counsel and fight for His children again.
We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ who in love
To His brothers and sisters came down from above,
To die, to redeem them from death, and to teach
To mortals and spirits the gospel we preach.

Soren1,
The words “earth’s Lord” would mean that Adam had a stewardship over the earth and over his posterity. He was a prince as Michael the archangel, a sort of “warrior prince” and “first governor”. One of his posterity was the Son of David, as prophesied in the Old Testament.

I find that I disagree with some of that particular hymn, since it does have misleading language.

As to “getting it”, I do not infer the point that you infer, but I can see how one could make such an inference if they wanted to.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,
Thanks for asking more probing questions, but the answers I provide will still undoubtedly not satisfy what you asked–but here you go:

1. If you read Genesis 4, you find that Abel and Cain were familiar with making “offerings” “unto the Lord”. This was not just happenstance–they were taught by Adam and by the Lord to do so in righteousness. Cain made a false offering, so when his offering was not “respected” and he was told, “if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door” (v. 7) then Cain was “very wroth”. (v. 5)

These things weren’t just happening out of the blue. Adam had taught his sons, but they had free will choice in what they did and Cain chose to make an insincere and impure offering to the Lord (a fake offering).

The wording of Genesis 4:25 shows that Eve is familiar with being “appointed another seed” by God, which shows that Eve and Adam were not strangers to God and of course they had the desire to teach their children to live righteously.

I certainly agree that God “created free will”–but Adam could have chosen to constrain and try and control his sons into forced behavior. However, he didn’t do that. (He used his authority as a father to his sons in a righteous way.)

By the way, any father does indeed make a choice whether to try and “destroy or reduce free will” among his children, and faces that decision over and over again while they are children. Any leader faces that same choice among the people they lead. The evidence shows that Adam did not force Cain nor Abel nor Seth in their behavior and choices.

1. Making animal offerings would require priesthood to be done in righteousness. So Abel had the priesthood (Genesis 4:4), and Seth did, and Enoch did, and they received it originally from Adam who received it from God. Before receiving the priesthood, they would have been baptized, but you are correct that those baptisms weren’t documented in the Bible of today.
2. Melchizedek wasn’t the first holder of the priesthood on earth. Some logic is required to understand that. Once again, it wasn’t an “out of the blue” thing that he held the priesthood. He received it through the lineage blessings and ordination by his righteous paternal ancestors.

Anna,
That Adam held keys can be inferred based on offerings being done as I cited in Genesis 4, and based on how God operates among humankind with priesthood as a blessing to them, to be used in righteousness in the name of God.

Yes, Adam would still be known as Michael the archangel when he died and went to the spirit world.

You would be familiar that graves were opened at the time of the resurrection of Christ, and that righteous people were resurrected (Matthew 27:52-53). I assume that Adam would have been one of those righteous people who was resurrected at that time–but names weren’t given out about who was among those who were resurrected. Since Adam still has an important role to play on this earth among his posterity at about the time of the Second Coming of Christ, and also later at the end of the Millenium, then I assume he is resurrected and busy teaching his posterity and can move about among spirits as well as among others of his resurrected posterity. I think his focus is on this earth and what is happening here, not on being a “son of God” and a “king” somewhere else.

It is important to understand that Adam had the opportunity to repent, just like everyone else who lives on earth who hears about repentance. So “grace abounds” for him just like for everyone who repents, through Christ.

ParkerD,

I’ve got to give you credit for perseverance, especially since you are the only LDS member still posting on this thread.

I think we both have very different understandings of Christ, and Adam, and their relationship. You attribute powers to Adam, that I believe belong with the Holy Trinity.

We have both expressed our views; and we both remain committed to our views. I don’t think we will accomplish anything by continuing.

Besides, you have your hands full with soren1’s many posts addressed to you.

May God’s peace and truth surround you,
Anna

 

[Returning_Home]

I have seen on this thread numerous times:

1. If the “Prophet” doesn’t say “Thus Saith the Lord”, then it isn’t considered a doctrinal statement.

Can someone point to scripture, one of the standard works, church handbook, or official church document that says this is the way things are decided?

They’ll say that as a way to wriggle out of the embarrassing things that Brigham Young said in Journal of Discourses. It’s just another loophole, a back door to not address certain ugly things from their past by assigning them to so-and-so’s opinion.

In reality, there’s nothing I can find that gives any circumstances under which the prophet can be wrong. Quite the opposite; he can’t ever be wrong unless he’s been proven wrong, and even then, apologists will find a way to try to get around it.

 

[twopekinguys]

They’ll say that as a way to wriggle out of the embarrassing things that Brigham Young said in Journal of Discourses. It’s just another loophole, a back door to not address certain ugly things from their past by assigning them to so-and-so’s opinion.

In reality, there’s nothing I can find that gives any circumstances under which the prophet can be wrong. Quite the opposite; he can’t ever be wrong unless he’s been proven wrong, and even then, apologists will find a way to try to get around it.

Yeah, unfortunately, that is very true.

It is doctrine until it becomes embarassing, then it is just opinion.

But with BY, I find it interesting that the whole Adam/God thing at the time was doctrine, then it was declared “false doctrine” then it is determined “opinion”.

If it was just “opinion”, why was it declared “false doctrine”?

Nobody has ever been able to answer that question.

Many of the people try to explain it away as “opinion”, but they can’t explain away the fact that it was declared “false doctine”.

Not to mention that half of the D&C doesn’t even say “thus saith the Lord”.

There is one poster on here that swears up and down that “thus saith the Lord” must be stated in order for it to be doctrine…

 

[Returning_Home]

Yeah, unfortunately, that is very true.

It is doctrine until it becomes embarassing, then it is just opinion.

But with BY, I find it interesting that the whole Adam/God thing at the time was doctrine, then it was declared “false doctrine” then it is determined “opinion”.

If it was just “opinion”, why was it declared “false doctrine”?

Nobody has ever been able to answer that question.

Many of the people try to explain it away as “opinion”, but they can’t explain away the fact that it was declared “false doctine”.

Not to mention that half of the D&C doesn’t even say “thus saith the Lord”.

There is one poster on here that swears up and down that “thus saith the Lord” must be stated in order for it to be doctrine…

Okay, on your first point, it’s a matter of who you talk to. Most modern garden-variety Mormons know nothing about the Adam/God Doctrine and will usually just chalk it up to his own opinion.

More practiced apologists, however, those who know what a danger it poses to their faith, will have to assign it ‘false doctrine’ status in order to keep the lies working for them.

In short, both terms are simply different ways of denying what the prophet of the church taught as fact for almost 20 years. Since there’s really no way of the prophet being wrong, they have to separate the parts they like from the parts they don’t.

On your second point, yes, there are those who say that and it’s wrong because there are a lot of instances where the BOM prophets are giving prophecy or revelations and don’t use that way of making something doctrine.

It’s just a way to side track the argument and confuse us. Don’t buy into it. Instead, ask them to show that it’s the church’s stand on prophecy and ask for scriptural citations. Since they won’t be able to do it, you can then simply tell them that it’s just their opinion. Not only have you then gutted their argument, you’ve used one of their own weapons against them.

You can take charge of the conversation and guide it to the two simple commandments that Jesus gave to his followers and how they play into the plan of salvation.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

Young ascribed to Adam the direct begetting of Jesus by Adam. No one disputes Adam’s paternity as father of humanity, but Young, through the whole preceding context, is talking about how Christ was “begotten in the flesh” by God rather than the Holy Spirit. What is the point of that discussion if it is talking about the generation of the whole human species? Is he correcting people who think we are all descending from the Holy Spirit, or is he not obviously responding to what he thinks the creedal view of Luke 1:35 is? Why did Young bother to contrast his own view with the traditional theology of the dual nature of Christ? How would that even be relevant?

The problem isn’t just that Christ gets the keys from Adam, but that he gives to, receives from, and shares his glory with Adam, which is what occurs in the Ancient of Days texts and is affirmed by Smith and Young.

Soren1,
I see no evidence that BY thought Adam was the actual father of the Savior. I see evidence that he was teaching that God the Father, and not the Holy Ghost, was physically the father of the Savior. I see evidence that he was also teaching that Mary, a descendant of Adam and of David, was the literal physical mother of the Savior. You will also find that the LDS belief is consistently that Mary was a virgin both when she conceived all the way until after Jesus was born, so God the Father being the physical Father would be by His knowledge of how to do that while preserving her being a virgin.

As to joint heirship of “glory” as a shared glory, that is certainly taught by the apostle John several times, as I’m sure you are aware.

 

[ParkerD]

What contradictions exist among the journal entries?

The journal entries contradict LDS scriptures.

ParkerD,

My whole point has been that the modern LDS Church dos not understand D&C 107 better than Young did, because the modern interpretation has no textual warrant. Rather it was first invented during Wilford Woodruff’s Presidency as grounds to retire the Adam-God doctrine. It is not properly an interpretation at all, but an extraneous claim superimposed upon D&C 107 for other motives. It is an eisegetical rather than an exegetical reading of the section. … That you are joined in making this assertion by the vast majority of today’s Mormons, including high leadership, is an argument from authority, not from the text.

That sounds kind of like the tail of a dog who is watching another dog, trying to wag the tail of the dog he is watching.

The words “till we all come in the unity of the faith” may mean to you that the members become united, but I have not the slightest question that those words also mean the leaders become united. Of course that is what Christ taught when He prayed for the apostles to “be one.” This is not a new doctrine. It is a consistent doctrine.

For the third time, I will point out what it is you have not replied to: First, D&C 107 contains no assertion that quorum approval is necessary for all binding authority, only that unanimous quorum decisions are better than non-unanimous quorum decisions.

Since you evidently don’t understand what verse 30 means by the words “in all righteousness” and verse 31 “if these things abound in them they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord”, then I guess I need to explain that “in all righteousness” means that those quorums need to come to unanimous agreement or they have not reached the point of being “in all righteousness” in their decision if it wasn’t unanimous. Thus there is not a promise for such a decision being “fruitful in the knowledge of the Lord.” That is precisely why the words are there with a deliberate meaning–not “an extraneous claim.” It is what those verses say, for those who understand the meaning of “in all righteousness” and “abound in them”. For those who don’t understand the meaning of those words, they can hold up the “majority decision” clause just as you have done.

Verse 27 says “every decision made by either of these quorums”–“every decision”.

No restriction to the prophet’s individual authority is implied here. That is not even a subject of the part of the section you cite, which treats only of the conditions wherein quorums will receive the greatest blessings. Second, D&C 107 is about decisions pertaining to policy; it relates properly to counsel, not to doctrine.

Here again is the dog watching another dog and trying to wag the tail of the other dog. “Every decision” means “every decision,” whether a policy decision or a doctrinal decision. The words of verses 29, 30, and 31 contain doctrinal implications about such decisions.

So a restriction of the prophet’s individual authority is indeed implied. The idea of a leader getting counsel is not a non-Biblical idea–my goodness. It is a Biblically sound practice.

To these I can add a third reason, namely the D&C 107:91-92 gives a super-authoritative doctrine: “And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.” If the prophet has “all the gifts of God” to act in his capacity as revelator, what power is possessed by the quorums that would require the prophet to have his words ratified by them? Would not “all the gifts of God” in that context entail the power to make his words binding?

No, it wouldn’t. He has the duty to preside, but to do so in council as noted in the other verses. He is to set the example as the presiding authority–not show precisely how not to preside “in righteousness” by resolving disputes through merely saying he has the final say. He has the responsibility to be the example in every way of how to lead in righteousness, and that would be setting exactly the wrong precedence for any level of leadership, including for fathers in their own home. (You will remember that the LDS church places strong emphasis on councils and counseling together, and such counseling is to take place in the homes as the first level of leadership among the members. The father is not to brow-beat everyone in the home (including his wife) into submission that what he decides is best.