Page 1 of 1

interesting gobbledygook about women from Brigham Young

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:02 pm
by _Sethbag
In this article on FAIRwiki about the "lecture at the veil" where Brigham Young was teaching the Adam/God doctrine, I found something interesting.

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Adam- ... he_Veil%22

Check this out:
It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father.

Apparently the Lord didn't see fit to reveal the true nature of conception via sperm and egg to Brigham Young, and he was left to flail about as a mere fallible man, and teach ignorant doctrines of the woman merely being the recepticle (it's our most modestly priced recepticle...) for the seed of life which the man injects into her.

Pardon me for being unimpressed by Brigham's little spiritual insight taught by Brigham Young in the St. George temple as spiritual truth, and how God didn't see fit to set him straight on it. Further evidence, if such is even still necessary, of just how uninspired this whole church is.

Re: interesting gobbledygook about women from Brigham Young

Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:59 pm
by _moksha
Sethbag wrote:In this article on FAIRwiki about the "lecture at the veil" where Brigham Young was teaching the Adam/God doctrine, I found something interesting.

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Adam- ... he_Veil%22

Check this out:
It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve—This should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father.

Apparently the Lord didn't see fit to reveal the true nature of conception via sperm and egg to Brigham Young, and he was left to flail about as a mere fallible man, and teach ignorant doctrines of the woman merely being the recepticle (it's our most modestly priced recepticle...) for the seed of life which the man injects into her.

Pardon me for being unimpressed by Brigham's little spiritual insight taught by Brigham Young in the St. George temple as spiritual truth, and how God didn't see fit to set him straight on it. Further evidence, if such is even still necessary, of just how uninspired this whole church is.

I can't answer about the God part, but I do know that many had little knowledge of the science of reproduction back then.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:21 am
by _Sethbag
This may be, but that just reinforces the idea that the Prophet of God was teaching spiritual principles as a normal guy, uninspired over what his fellows knew or believed. I mean seriously, in the end, isn't being Prophet of God supposed to mean one actually knows something more than the common ignoramuses they're teaching these spiritual teachings of God?

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:27 am
by _truth dancer
Ummm Sethbag...

I mean seriously, in the end, isn't being Prophet of God supposed to mean one actually knows something more than the common ignoramuses they're teaching these spiritual teachings of God?


Nope.

You are being ridiculous!

Why do you think a prophet of God means one actually knows something more than anyone else? Or that God speaks to him? Prophets are just regular guys... some good, some not so good. They share their opinions just like anyone else.

So what if Brigham got it wrong... doesn't mean he isn't a prophet. A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such and that very well may be never.

Because he was teaching and giving a sermon in the temple doesn't mean anything... give it a rest will you!

(wink)

~dancer~

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:48 am
by _Mephitus
And here i thought that the prophets will New Testament be allowed to lead the church astray until the 2nd comming. As such, teaching the secondary citizenship and subserviance to man would very much seem to me to be leading members to feel they should have dominion over their women. slavery if youl permit me the word.

Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:01 am
by _Pokatator
Sounds like BY really needed BKPs talk on "little factories".