tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post8231407560074087188..comments2023-11-05T04:29:15.728-06:00Comments on The Seer Stone: The Seven Deadly Heresies - Part 6 (The Adam/God Theory)Evgeniihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05787950777870804904noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-18352675520729657572009-05-18T22:15:00.000-05:002009-05-18T22:15:00.000-05:00You should read Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1 whe...You should read Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1 where President Joseph Fielding Smith clearly goes into that statement. It has helped me truly understand it better, and even accept it.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03960519151863517265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-20254072239625796822009-04-16T14:07:00.000-05:002009-04-16T14:07:00.000-05:00In other places and times, BY taught that Adam and...In other places and times, BY taught that Adam and Eve were the chilren of immortal beings, ie, that "God did not make Adam like an adobe brick". I read that BY claimed that two immortal physical beings came to earth, and begat two immortal physical children: Adam and Eve. The preceding is in "Discourses of Brigham Young" so it would also likely be in Journal of Discourses. (Search on "adobe brick".)<br /><br />That alone contradicts BY's own Adam-God statements. So I wonder which teaching came first.<br /><br />But this question has often occurred to me: prior to the fall, Adam and Eve still had _physical_ bodies, so if they were not literally constructed out of the dust of the earth like adobe bricks, who were their physical/biological parents?<br /><br />But, such ponderings may qualify to be included under the header "looking beyond the mark."Bookslingerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15077778974473538408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-49475666847746959482009-04-16T08:13:00.000-05:002009-04-16T08:13:00.000-05:00your right Jer...I didn't read the cited article. ...your right Jer...I didn't read the cited article. Maybe I'll get to it someday.<br /><br />My problem is that I don't care enough about the doctrine itself, I only care about the issue in regard to what this occurrence of doctrinal conflict means in terms of the nature of revelation for the Church. <br /><br />Anti's try to use this as a tool to lead people to the conclusion of: false prophet=false church. <br /><br />The difference between me and someone that would look at this and apostatize, is that I can see numerous plausible explanations that don't lead to that conclusion, even if the past doctrine is completely false (or even if the current understanding is false...meaning that our current revelation is not entirely accurate).<br /><br />Maybe that is why i've never tried to reconcile the teachings.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363921061955320539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-58244872271515923922009-04-15T22:49:00.000-05:002009-04-15T22:49:00.000-05:00My feelings are mixed. I think it's fairly clear w...My feelings are mixed. I think it's fairly clear what President Young taught and I find his ideas quite appealing. On the other hand, I'm not so sure his ideas can be reconciled with scripture and Pres. Kimball and others have denounced them. I think it is conceivable that Pres. Young was wrong or that Pres. Kimball was wrong. For now, however, I am keeping an open mind and withholding judgment.Andrew I. Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13119240321588754796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-65793642594972594942009-04-15T18:05:00.000-05:002009-04-15T18:05:00.000-05:00Nate, with regards to the priesthood change in teh...Nate, with regards to the priesthood change in teh 70's, I like McConkie's statement that whatever was said before that time we can forget. Whatever McConkie said contrarywise to the new revelation is now completely moot. A new revelation has been received and that takes full precedence - prima facie evidence of truth, man.<br /><br />Regarding BY's statements, it sounds like you may not have taken the time to read that article that I cited above. You may change your stance after reading it.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268015210205721725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-5532051629594643872009-04-15T10:48:00.000-05:002009-04-15T10:48:00.000-05:00I'll add a little controversy:
The post asks,
(2)...I'll add a little controversy:<br /><br />The post asks,<br />(2) Does Spencer W. Kimball's use of priesthood keys take precedent?<br /><br />If we are to assume that BY got these teachings by revelation, can this really happen? The teachings are generally directed to what is the fundamental nature of God. As such, one can only be either right or wrong.<br /><br />I don't buy into any of the apologists attempts to reconcile these teachings with current understanding. BY was pretty much unambiguous.<br /><br />So the question is, what is right? If BY was right, what does that mean for us now (especially in light of later priesthood overruling)? <br /><br />If he was wrong, what does that mean for the church? Is SWK's later talk the equivalent of the Lord not allowing his people to be led astray? (that seems like it could be a more compelling of an argument for an apologist to make than the ones attempting to reconcile doctrine--except for the fact that some people were led astray in some fashion)Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13363921061955320539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-35051761204490811672009-04-13T16:27:00.000-05:002009-04-13T16:27:00.000-05:00Sorry. That next-to-last sentence should read ".....Sorry. That next-to-last sentence should read "...to what the historical record shows Joseph taught."Nathan Shumatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16193754712697037064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-86309740715938219602009-04-13T14:39:00.000-05:002009-04-13T14:39:00.000-05:00Brigham Young taught this doctrine for over 20 yea...<I>Brigham Young taught this doctrine for over 20 years. He was quite clear who taught it to him...Joseph Smith.</I><BR/><BR/>Retroactively. When Brigham first introduced the idea, he explained it as something he discovered for himself -- he "reckoned" or "figured" it. It was only as time went on that he attributed it either to direct revelation or to Joseph Smith.<BR/><BR/>Maybe he felt that the Adam-God doctrine was a necessary conclusion to what the historical record shows. But I don't see it and I don't believe it.Nathan Shumatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16193754712697037064noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-54015022669785240592009-04-12T10:47:00.000-05:002009-04-12T10:47:00.000-05:00Many of BY's statements have been quite perplexing...Many of BY's statements have been quite perplexing to me, but this one (and those related to it) cetainly take the cake. <BR/><BR/>I don't claim to understand it in its entirty, but I have read a significant amount on it and my views have evolved over the years. I suggest to anyone wanting to know more about this to read an interpretation by Elden Watson that can be found at:<BR/><BR/>http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm<BR/><BR/>Watson asserts that BY's statements, when understood properly, are indeed in line with scripture. One of the points made is that BY believed 'Adam' was another name for Heavenly Father, and was used interchangebly. This would explain many of his statements.<BR/><BR/>Although the article is around 30 pages long, it's fairly easy to read and very informative. I recommend seriously taking the time to read it. I would be interested to hear anyone's views on it after reading it.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13268015210205721725noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938111942632962223.post-19960509190880994832009-04-11T14:19:00.000-05:002009-04-11T14:19:00.000-05:00Brigham Young taught this doctrine for over 20 yea...Brigham Young taught this doctrine for over 20 years. He was quite clear who taught it to him...Joseph Smith.<BR/>The saints could not live up to it so it's importance was de-emphasized. <BR/>Eliza Snow said it was the most important doctrine that we can know. <BR/>Heresy indeed.Bruce in Montanahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08480425208723630243noreply@blogger.com