Below is a scanned copy from the JoD talking about Adam God.
You can click on the link and read from 19 different prefaces of the JoD to see exactly how LDS of old viewed the JoD. It ranges from, Should be doctrine to it is doctrine. JoD
Now Wer62 on his blog, says about LDS doctrine
When Wilford Woodruff , as President of the Church, committed the Latter-day Saints to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, his official declaration was submitted to the Sixtieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church on October 6th 1890, which was accepted unaimmously as authoritative and binding. It was that vote that made the document "official". Now this document has been added to the Doctrine and Covenants.
B.H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS Church summarizes the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:
The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These world include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and that are the only sources of absolute apparel for our doctrine.
Anyone claiming that the LDS Church teaches doctrine or promotes doctrine outside of these sources no matter who spoke it is inaccurate.
Wer62 (Ed)
Here are some problems I have with what Wer62 (Ed) says.
Although many Mormons do not view other LDS writings as official Scripture (for example, The Seer or The Journal of Discourses), it should be remembered that many of these writings consist of the words of very prominent leaders in the Mormon Church. As such individuals commanded great respect they were certainly influential over the rank and file. Their statements must have carried some weight. Mormon leaders in prominent positions, like Brigham Young, Orson Pratt, and Bruce R. McConkie, influenced those who looked to them for leadership. The words of these early LDS leaders did not just go out into a vacuum, they went the hearts and minds of the Mormon people and were incorporated into their beliefs.
It would also seem that many Mormon leaders have tended to view their words as carrying a great deal of weight. For example, regarding the sermons of Brigham Young in the Journal of Discourses it is interesting to look at some of Young's words himself as to how he viewed what was contained in the Discourses:
"I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them to the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (Journal of Discourses, vol.13.p.95. Also see vol.13.p.264).
It can be pointed out that there are some doctrines of Mormonism that are simply not found in the official Standard Works. The LDS doctrine of their being a "Mother in Heaven" is one example. Nowhere is this doctrine found in any of the official Standard Works of the Church. However, such a doctrine is vital in the Mormon concept of eternal progression. If God was not married to His wife in Mormonism then He could never have become God in the first place.
Some Mormons will object that unless a statement by an LDS Church leader opens with the statement "Thus saith the Lord", then it can be set aside as the mere opinion of the speaker. However, not everyone would agree with this. In 1980 prominent Mormon leaders gave a speech which contained the following words:
14 fundamentals
"SIXTH: The Prophet Does Not Have to Say "Thus Saith the Lord" to Give Us Scripture. Sometimes there are those who haggle over words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obligated to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, "Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you." (D&C 21:4.) And speaking of taking counsel from the Prophet, in D&C 108:1, the Lord states: "Verily thus saith the Lord unto you, my servant Lyman: Your sins are forgiven you, because you have obeyed my voice in coming up hither this morning to receive counsel of him whom I have appointed."
Furthermore, the popular, and widely distributed, LDS Church manual Gospel Principles clearly states that the inspired words of the living prophet are supposed to be accepted as scripture by Latter-day Saints. (Gospel Principles, p. 55).
Apparently Young was confident with his message for on January 2, 1870, he said,
"I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture" (Journal of Discourses 13:95). Brigham would repeat this again in October of the same year (Journal of Discourses 13:264).
It may surprise some, but Brigham Young's Adam-God connection is in harmony with the teachings of Joseph Smith. It was Joseph Smith who declared that Adam was, in fact, the Ancient of Days. Doctrine and Covenants 27:11; 116:1; 138:38 all state that Adam is the Ancient of Days.
Joseph Smith even attempted to get the Bible to concur with this thought when he said, "Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days, he means the oldest man, our Father Adam..." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 157). Smith was referring to Daniel 7:13 which reads, "I saw the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days and they brought him near before him."
Brigham Young places the honest Latter-day Saint on the horns of a dilemma. If the Mormon wishes to claim Young as a true prophet, he must also accept his Adam-God teaching since a true prophet must have a correct theology concerning God (Deut. 13:1-3). If Young's teaching is not accepted, then the Mormon must conclude that Brigham Young was a false prophet. The Mormon can't have it both ways.
Remember you did read for your self that, B Young, in this sermon, clearly claims his teachings to be "doctrine." In one of his closing remarks, Young warns, "Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation."
Heber C. Kimball, declared on June 29, 1856,
"I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth--the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted. That Son called twelve men and ordained them to be Apostles, and when he departed the keys of the kingdom were deposited with three of those twelve, viz.: Peter, James, and John" (Journal of Discourses 4:1).
5 comments:
Rick,
A comment you left on my blog made me think that you had tried to engage Mormons in meaningful discussion but they simply failed to address the meatier issues you bring up here. That encouraged me to take a look at those weightier matters that you were bringing up and to give you some honest answers. I admit, I didn’t read all of your messages; and I didn’t even find the message dealing with how Alvin could get into the celestial kingdom without baptism. I’d like to reply to that and then make a comment about your other posts.
Section 137 is the account of a vision Joseph Smith received in 1836. In that vision Joseph Smith saw his brother Alvin, his mother and father and several other individuals in the celestial kingdom. Joseph Smith says that he “marveled” that his brother could obtain an inheritance in that kingdom since he had never been baptized. Apparently, you think this is a contradiction to LDS theology.
You need to remember a couple of things. In the first place, this was a vision of a future condition which does not yet exist. In LDS thought, the earth will become the celestial kingdom when it becomes a new earth. An additional indication that this was a vision of the future is that both Joseph Smith’s mother and father were present in this vision of celestial glory and they were still living in 1836. The future, vicarious ordinances yet to be performed in the temples would make provision for Alvin and all others who did not have the chance to accept the gospel and they wiil be judged according to men in the flesh.
When I came back here to look for the issues you allege have been avoided by LDS readers. I remembered a statement you wrote on July 10th, replying to my comment that standard anti-Mormon apologetic material was lacking in substance and logic. You wrote that you never said or implied that you read these things or agree with them. You then wrote: “But I only read the bible and books by mormons.” (sic) Indeed? Look at what I found:
I read your message “Who Am I Talking About?” As I read, I thought to myself, “I’ve seen this somewhere else." I googled a random sentence from "your" post and found you had simply plagiarized Mormonism Research Ministry. I did the same with today’s article on “Adam-God” and found you had taken it from helpingmormons.org or Mormonism Research Ministry (both have the same article.) I did the same with your post on “Will All Be Saved?” and found it already on evidenceministries.com. I realize that I may be going out on a limb here, and that this deception might really be the fault of those other ministries, but I rather think not.
I regularly decline to respond to a third party who posts other people’s work for a couple of reasons. The first is that the third party generally subscribes to the “avalanche theory” of discussion. As long as they can cut’n’paste from someone else, they never have to really participate in the discussion and the only real attempt is to bury the person with quotes.
The second reason not to engage such a person is because the third party never will stand behind the specifics of the thesis; and may not even understand it. If I demonstrate that a claim is manufactured, or a lie, or just ludicrous, the third party says, “I didn’t write that” and feels no obligation to correct the misinformation.
The third reason is because the behavior is rooted in dishonesty. It would be different if the third party were to honestly cite his source, but the incestuous nature of anti-Mormon propaganda quickly shows that very few ministries are doing any real thinking. That’s why there is such an epidemic of false academic credentials and fake research in the anti-cult ministries. You get people like Dr. Dr. Weldon and “Dr.” Walter Martin and even people with earned doctorates appropriating the work of others and re-packaging it.
Reason and logic is lost on people who refuse to use their own minds or do their own research because deception is part of their game plan.
Once people realize that you’re just parroting the party line, I would be surprised if you can find a Mormon who is stupid enough to engage you.
I am convinced that the truth is not in you. “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John 8:47)
I guess Alma you and other LDS can choose to believe what you want to be true, The article about "Who are the LDS talking about" I asked for permission to use it, and it was granted. You can click on the Link to Answeringlds.org, Contact Sharon and she will tell you she granted me permission, Her and bill from MRM work togther on projects and I understand it was hers to start with.
Does this mean because another wrote it and not me, means it still is not true. It is true despite someone else writting it. As to the Topic of will all be saved. That all is my own work, if someone else has something even close well I honestly dont know what to tell you But the LDS will still believe what they choose to believe. Truth is still truth no matter who tells it.
I never even heard of the minstry you claim I went to, Also as to the article on will all be saved, if you honestly read it over you will find most of it is either bible verses or LDS scripture, BoM D and C or the bible, Does this make it not true?
I can also show on my Blog where LDS have cut and pasted others work, Does this mean LDS are both Dectiful and the stuff posted cannot be trusted? Yes quotes on the Adam God are from MRM, But the fact remains, the Adam God Doctrine is posted for all to read and still remains something as being taught by your prophet. Rick b
Alma, first you said: Section 137 is the account of a vision Joseph Smith received in 1836. In that vision Joseph Smith saw his brother Alvin, his mother and father and several other individuals in the celestial kingdom. Joseph Smith says that he “marveled” that his brother could obtain an inheritance in that kingdom since he had never been baptized. Apparently, you think this is a contradiction to LDS theology. I dont think it is a contradction to LDS theology, I just find serious problems with it in general. Here is the verses in D and C you quoted.
5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;
6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.
7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;
8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;
9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.
10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.
Then you went on to say:
You need to remember a couple of things. In the first place, this was a vision of a future condition which does not yet exist. In LDS thought, the earth will become the celestial kingdom when it becomes a new earth. An additional indication that this was a vision of the future is that both Joseph Smith’s mother and father were present in this vision of celestial glory and they were still living in 1836. The future, vicarious ordinances yet to be performed in the temples would make provision for Alvin and all others who did not have the chance to accept the gospel and they wiil be judged according to men in the flesh.
Here are some problems I have, You say it is a vision of the future, because it mentions JS mom and dad who are alive, I never made mention of them. But JS does say, HIS BROTHER ALVIN WHO HAS LONG SINCE SLEPT. When the bible mentions people sleeping, it means they died! Alvin was dead, the verses are clear, JS was surprised that Alvin was in the Celestal Glory with out being baptised for the remission of sins. In my topic, I pointed out, you need to be married and sealed in the temple in order to make the celestial glory. But in order to make it into the temple, you must be baptised for the remission of sins, Which Alvin was not. I went on to say, if proxy everything will save us, why bother being a faithful LDS member trying to live all the laws only to maybe fail and have someone else who never followed the laws be saved by proxy marrige or baptism?
Notice in verse 6 it says JS Marvalled, this tells me that if JS was surprised by the fact that Alvin enterd in, then the issue of proxy baptism did not come into question at the time, otherwise JS would have been happy to see his brother not be surprised. Add to that, what about all the people that died upon the earth during the great flood of noah? No record of names for the LDS to do baptisms for the dead? What about them. Thank you rick b
Hi All,
I just wanted to go on record regarding Rick's post "Who are the LDS talking about?" That research was originally done (by me) for a flip chart to be used at the Nauvoo Christian Visitors Center in Nauvoo, Illinois in 2005. If you visit there you will see it still on display. Then I published it as an article for my own newsletter in the winter issue of 2005. Then I granted permission to Mormonism Research Ministry to put it on their web site. I said no attribution was necessary since the article consisted almost entirely of quotes from LDS leaders. I gave Rick the same permission earlier this summer and again said no attribution was necessary. Rick has engaged in no underhanded plagiarism here.
Personally, I'd like to see some discussion of the issues Rick raises rather than attacks on his character or methods.
Sharon Lindbloom
Your are Nice. And so is your site! Maybe you need some more pictures. Will return in the near future.
»
Post a Comment