Gazelam wrote:Also you seem to be implying that you follow the Adam God doctrine, which is false. This world is the Fathers, the families here were begun by Adam, and their redemption is brought about by the Savior. Joseph Smith never taught what you are implying.
I used to follow the Adam God doctrine, I was very dedicated to follow the doctrines of Joseph Smith (any living prophet be damned).
All of my tutoring/study/experience taught me that it was a Joseph Smith doctrine. No need to argue this however ... I really don't care. Great emphases/energy has been expended over many years by better than the two of us on both sides of this issue, and trust me, I've studied out both sides intently.
Do you happen to be familiar with BH Roberts life time summary work, which he wanted to leave for the Seventies instruction manual after his death (The truth, the way, the light)?
The thing that caught my eye with this whole thread, and why I now mention BH's book was shades use of the words Adams "Celestial" body, and hence my Adam-God based response.
The original cheribs wouldn't have looked like they do now. Man changed them I guess. They were highest angels below God, they were at the seat of his thrown or something like that. It is actually something to do with sexual acts being performed. I don't quite recall. But in the Lost Scriptures it is told that the true religion will come abou through or by sex. Interesting parralel me thinks.
I never see any mention of BHR's book mentioned above in apologetic discussions. Is it just not known or not considered credible?
I have never heard anything negative being said about B H Roberts work. All I have ever heard in regards to him was the highest respect and admiration. I think if you are failing to hear any comments from people in regards to his work it is because so many members fail to read and study as much as they should.
I have his History of the Church, and have only flipped it open once or twice. His writing style is very heavy and scholarly. I consider myself a pretty good reader, but find him a bit heavy for me. I think this is why he is not quoted more than he is. This is not a negative comment towards him, merely a statement of fault on others part, including myself.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
Imwashingmypirate wrote:Do you know the significance of cheribums?
Cheribums make me sad. It isn't nice. I doubt I could find what they really were about without serious searching, but it's not nice.
Pirate,
I don't know where you are getting your information, but there is nothing negative about Cherubim.
Cherub are Gods messengers, those individuals whom he sends to perform all things relative to his work. They are chosen from among God's offspring and are themselves in various stages of progression in their respective spheres.
Some such beings were assigned by God to guard the tree of life when Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden of Eden. "So he drove out the man; and placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24. See also Moses 4:31.) This kept them from partaking of the tree of life so they would live forever in their sins.
This is a classical example of persons being assigned an errand in the purposes of God. In this instance the persons must have come from the presence of God, inasmuch as there were only two of his children on the earth, Adam and Eve. Therefore a cherub is an angel.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
I was referring specifically to his book "The Truth, The Way, The Light". Based on your response I'll assume you are only familiar with his compilation of the History of the Church, and carry on here for a bit ... with a point which I hope you and Mr. Peterson might still address.
BH was the president of the Seventies. BH provided the instructions manuals for the Seventies quorum for many years (see Seventies Course in Theology series, which I would hope any modern day theologian would be very familiar with). In his later years, when he knew he was dieing, he desired to leave what he had learned in his life's study of the doctrine for the instruction of the quorum after his death. In my heyday, BH was considered the most knowledgeable theologian of Joseph Smith doctrine that ever lived. The Truth, The Way, The Light was his life time summary of that knowledge that he desired to leave behind.
The problem is, Joseph F. Smith was at the helm trying to steer the ship clear of some of the doctrines that just would never be accepted by society as a whole. JFS did not like BH (minor example, BH's peer, Talmage got a room in the temple to write his book .. Jesus the Christ). Anyway, the ship continued this adjusted course of the JFS influence right up through likely the next most influential theologian of the church, Bruce R. and of course his Mormon Doctrine (better known to some of us as "The Gospel according to Bruce"). Anyway, I digress
After BH finished his book, he desired the first presidency to sign it (like Talmage's JTC), the FP agreed to sign, but only if a handful of things were removed/changed. The type of body that Adam had in the Garden of Eden, and why, was one of those items. BH had such strong convictions and integrity (i.e. testimony) that he would not remove the items, but also refused to publish the book without the FP's approval.
He died, the book went unpublished and remained with the family until 1985 when the family allowed for a one time publishing (well actually two). They allowed BYU to publish and the UofU to publish.
Now an interesting little side note: While sitting in the Timpanogos temple one night, Hyrum Andrus told me this concerning his near excommunication from the church (he was fired from his BYU position). "I stood nose to nose with Bruce R., with him yelling at the top of his lungs, boiling with anger, over these same issues".
In my mind, HA is second only to BHR in knowing the teachings of Joseph Smith. Coincidental that two experts on the teachings of Joseph Smith are silenced?
To me, it is pretty clear that the church buried BHR and did not want the membership to study his works, not only for the reasons suggested here, but because of another incident over early scientific problems found in the Book of Mormon (might have actually been horses, don't remember), but BHR requested JFS to go to God and get a revealed answer to the question. I assume this did not help his standing with JFS any.
So back to my question ... Is any value placed on BHR's works, especially his last by modern apologetics?
Gazelam wrote:I have his History of the Church, and have only flipped it open once or twice. His writing style is very heavy and scholarly. I consider myself a pretty good reader, but find him a bit heavy for me.
for what it's worth: I was first introduced to BHR and HOTC via a D&C compendium. The stupid compendium was nothing more than a bunch of quotes/references from the HOTC. It thus seemed logical to can the compendium and go to the source, which I did.
Many might be surprised to find the D&C (i.e. all of the actual commandments) are mixed in among the given history. The scriptures are embedded into the sequence of experiences that were going on around them.
You may have not even gotten into the history, as BH's "introductions" were very long and match your description. However, don't let your eyes get heavy ... for example one of the best discourses I've ever seen on the various "Dispensations of Times" is given by him in one of these introductions.
There is a bunch of very boring history between some of the scripture, but others that will really move you. If you really want to study the D&C, read it once via the HOTC.
Cheribums weren't originally little babies with wings. I am talking about the things put on buildings. The way cheribums were supposed to look has changed.
Is any value placed on BHR's works, especially his last by modern apologetics?
I am no apologist, merely a faithful part of the "Rank and File", but I can say that I often hear BH Roberts quoted. I recall the esteemed Truman Madsen quoteing him many times in his talks.
As for right here and now, you'll have to ask Bro. Peterson.
Im going to read up on the Hyrum Andrus thing. I think hes the one that was behind the letter by McConkie that I have seen so much talk about.
I like what was said here, and I think it says alot about what is published by the Church in regards to matters like this:
"It is the duty of the General Authorities of the Church to safeguard and protect the membership of the Church from the introduction of controversial subjects and false doctrines which tend to create factions and otherwise disturb the faith of the Latter-Day Saints. There is so much of vital importance revealed and which we can present with clear and convincing presentation and which the world does not possess that we, the committee, see no reason for the introduction of questions which are speculative to say the least: more especially so when such teachings appear to be in conflict with the revelations of the Lord."
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato