The Confounding World of LDS Doctrinal Pronouncements...

[_truth dancer]

I remember a time several years ago where I pleaded...

"Tell me what the church believes, then I will tell you if I believe it or not."

As I stated on another thread...

So long as one claims the church is true, seems one can literally believe anything.

~dancer~

[_Bond...James Bond]

Did Coggins abandon this thread? Is that a concession?

Probably not....it's just that his posting is sporadic. I'm sure if you remember to bring it up in a few days when he returns to posting (assuming it's dropped from the top threads of course) he'll give a response. Perhap's you can PM him asking for a response with a link to this thread....just to make sure he sees it and you've done your utmost to continue the discussion.

I'd do it myself....but I'm not really involved. Just passing along the word that Coggins will return to posting sometime.

[_Runtu]

I personally find it odd that Brigham Young taught both the correct doctrine and the "Adam-God" doctrine. I can't be sure yet but from the timetable I've worked out so far the teachings were intermingled chronologically. Either he couldn't make up his mind or he didn't see any conflict. Still working on this.

I think it's the latter: he didn't see any conflict. If you read his "correct" teachings with Adam-God in mind, there isn't a lot where it conflicts. Remember, this wasn't just some off-the-cuff, peripheral teaching: Brigham insisted that it was from God and that the people needed to accept it, hence its inclusion in the lecture at the veil. Orson Pratt nearly lost his position in the quorum of twelve because he would not accept Adam-God. 100 years later it became a deadly heresy believed only by crackpot fundamentalists.

[_The Nehor]

I remember a time several years ago where I pleaded...

"Tell me what the church believes, then I will tell you if I believe it or not."

As I stated on another thread...

So long as one claims the church is true, seems one can literally believe anything.
[/color]

I would replace church with gospel but yes. The Church is not dogmatic about what you choose to believe. I've been told on this board that I'm a crackpot. I know people far more on the fringe than I am that are still members in good standing.

[_The Nehor]

I personally find it odd that Brigham Young taught both the correct doctrine and the "Adam-God" doctrine. I can't be sure yet but from the timetable I've worked out so far the teachings were intermingled chronologically. Either he couldn't make up his mind or he didn't see any conflict. Still working on this.

I think it's the latter: he didn't see any conflict. If you read his "correct" teachings with Adam-God in mind, there isn't a lot where it conflicts. Remember, this wasn't just some off-the-cuff, peripheral teaching: Brigham insisted that it was from God and that the people needed to accept it, hence its inclusion in the lecture at the veil. Orson Pratt nearly lost his position in the quorum of twelve because he would not accept Adam-God. 100 years later it became a deadly heresy believed only by crackpot fundamentalists.

I agree with you but at the same time Brigham Young was also teaching that God created Adam in the Garden. The most common explanations I've heard:

1. Adam is the name of God. Considering what Adam means this might have some merit.
2. Adam is the Holy Ghost and 'the only God with which we have to do' because we live in a Telestial state.
3. (rare) Adam is God the Father in some sense we don't understand.

I use 1 as a placeholder for right now while delving into 3 some more. It seems like there might be something there.

[_Runtu]

I agree with you but at the same time Brigham Young was also teaching that God created Adam in the Garden. The most common explanations I've heard:

1. Adam is the name of God. Considering what Adam means this might have some merit.
2. Adam is the Holy Ghost and 'the only God with which we have to do' because we live in a Telestial state.
3. (rare) Adam is God the Father in some sense we don't understand.

I use 1 as a placeholder for right now while delving into 3 some more. It seems like there might be something there.

From my readings, it seems that this teaching fits in with the "one eternal round" idea, that Adam is both first and last, origin and destiny. I've never heard explanations 1 or 2; rather, I've heard that "Adam" is a title meaning the first man, and in that sense God the Father is our Adam and our God because we are his children. But then that doesn't make any sense when you consider that Adam is said to have brought one of his celestial wives to the garden with him. The simplest explanation is that Brigham Young may have believed in multiple mortalities, that a celestial being could and did "fall" in setting up the probationary period for his spirit children. Just about all of Brigham's teachings regarding Adam make sense in that regard.

Of course, the most likely explanation is that Brigham didn't know what he was talking about because he was not a prophet, after all.

[_The Nehor]

I agree with you but at the same time Brigham Young was also teaching that God created Adam in the Garden. The most common explanations I've heard:

1. Adam is the name of God. Considering what Adam means this might have some merit.
2. Adam is the Holy Ghost and 'the only God with which we have to do' because we live in a Telestial state.
3. (rare) Adam is God the Father in some sense we don't understand.

I use 1 as a placeholder for right now while delving into 3 some more. It seems like there might be something there.

From my readings, it seems that this teaching fits in with the "one eternal round" idea, that Adam is both first and last, origin and destiny. I've never heard explanations 1 or 2; rather, I've heard that "Adam" is a title meaning the first man, and in that sense God the Father is our Adam and our God because we are his children. But then that doesn't make any sense when you consider that Adam is said to have brought one of his celestial wives to the garden with him. The simplest explanation is that Brigham Young may have believed in multiple mortalities, that a celestial being could and did "fall" in setting up the probationary period for his spirit children. Just about all of Brigham's teachings regarding Adam make sense in that regard.

Of course, the most likely explanation is that Brigham didn't know what he was talking about because he was not a prophet, after all.

It's possible he didn't know what he was talking about but I still believe he was a Prophet.

[_Jason Bourne]

I remember a time several years ago where I pleaded...

"Tell me what the church believes, then I will tell you if I believe it or not."

As I stated on another thread...

So long as one claims the church is true, seems one can literally believe anything.
[/color]

I would replace church with gospel but yes. The Church is not dogmatic about what you choose to believe. I've been told on this board that I'm a crackpot. I know people far more on the fringe than I am that are still members in good standing.

Well as long as you are not vocal about it. Try publicly teaching that you think polygamy was a mistake and Joseph Smith was wrong about Sec 132 for example and see here that gets you. And ask Margaret Tuscano about teaching about a heavenly mother.....

[_Runtu]

It's possible he didn't know what he was talking about but I still believe he was a Prophet.

That came out snarkier than I intended it. Sorry about that. I know you believe he was a prophet. I used to believe that, too. I suppose one of us is wrong.

[_Sethbag]

It's Nehor. He's wrong. :-) Brigham Young was no more a prophet than my big toe is.

Questions: Is Russel M. Nelson a prophet? He's sustained as a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. What does that mean anymore? Is it really just a meaningless courtesy title? If not, what has he prophecied? What has he "seen"? What has he revealed?

Joseph Smith at least acted as if he were a prophet, giving out revelations and pretending to know all sorts of great things that (naturally) his followers could never verify. He played the role of prophet very well. What of his successors? Does Gordon B. Hinckley really act like a prophet? Or does he act more like a combination of corporate CEO and stand-up comic?