See folks this is the deceitful tactics BC uses. He claims he never runs and simply ALWAYS wins the argument. So when I ask him to defend his position on BYs AG teaching he argue the two Adam theory he and other apologists have made. Brigham really meant Adam Senior, who would be Elohim and Adam Junior is the Adam of Genesis. But it is clear Young did not mean that nor that anyone who heard him understood it that way. So i have asked BC to provide contemporary evidence that people had the two Adam view. Not once has he answered till now and he says he has never claimed such.
bcspace wrote:[Jason Bourne's problem is that he never addresses the evidence given or the reality of the situation and so in effect it is Jason who runs away.
I certainly have addresses the AG theory and demonstrated what BY taught. You, as the proponent of an explanation the most credible LDS apologists have dismissed have the burden of proof. Proof would be someone who heard BY preach it, or even BY himself, define it the way you have. Other wise all you have is simple speculative twists of words. I assume you smart enough to understand this if too dishonest to admit it.
The facts of the Adam Sr/Jr theory were clearly laid out and never at any time have I seen JB address them. JB knows where to find the evidence as we've been over this a thousand times. Let me know when he address them.
BC, words mean something. If BY meant Adam Sr/Jr why did he not say so? This is simply Elden Watson’s poorly put together argument and your desperate attempt to dismiss the aberration that BY taught. I have no need to address them any more than I have. The sermons simply do not say what you attempt to make them say by editing in something that was never there.
If he ever does come out of his cycle of denial, it will come down to a fundamental disagreement on whether or not BY believed doctrines already extant in the Church. I am confident that most rational people (JB is not one of them) side with the notion that BY did believe the doctrines taught in the scriptures, say, the Book of Mormon for example, and so in that case there is nothing more to say on the issue. If BY believes those doctrines, then any notion that Adam-God is what he meant flies out the window. So yes indeed, I have won the debate. JB is left floundering, calling foul, and trying to change the subject to steer people away from the fact that he has lost this debate.
No BC you have lost. The historical record shows BY taught Adam was our God, the creator of this world and father of all the spirits who come here, that he came here as an exalted man with one of his wive’s, Eve, that they ate of this world’s food and become mortal and that he is Jesus father.
He did not teach this once, or just twice but he taught it over a 25 year period. He made it part of the temple endowment. A prominent apostle withstood him on it and that is perhaps why the doctrine never became long term doctrine and was swept under the rug when Brigham died.
The fact the Brigham also said things that are more mainstream about Adam shows that Brigham frankly did not know heads from tails on this or simple back peddled at times when people resisted his odd teachings. It also shows that BY was not really certain about who God was, or that he was certain and the main stream church is in rejection of his teachings.
Really none of it bodes well for the position that the LDS Church is led by prophets now and then who know who and what the nature of God really is.
If you think I am irrational because of this position so be it. At least I am intellectually honest. You sir, are far from it.
