Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Adam - God Theory

When a prophet, Spencer W. Kimball made the following statement at general conference.
"We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Kimball, Spencer W. "Our Own Liahona." Ensign (Nov. 1976), p. 77-79.

This was a plain statement that current GAs disagree with the doctine of Adam being God, and that they feel Brigham Young's statements are misunderstood.

Typical Opinions Brigham Expressed:-

"Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 50. (1852)

However in the very NEXT paragraph he stated, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael..." Any illusion that he was proposing Adam (Michael) to be Heavenly Father (Eloheim) is tossed out here. But for better understanding let's proceed anyway.

To try and understand what Brigham must have meant in the first bit I will present some possible ideas. Adam is a god, as are all who accept and follow the gospel of Christ in its fulness (John 10:35). And as he is the first parent in fallen flesh, and we are cut off because of the fall, he is the only god with whom we have to do patriachally (as to get to the Father we must go through the Son, not patriarchally).
Eve was one of his celestial wives, looking backward (ie she now being one of his celestial wives). He brought her with him. But she wasn't one of his celestial wives at the time he brought her.
He is the Ancient of Days, being our first father to live a life of years here (as stated in D&C 27:11).
Of course these are only assumptions of his intent, as he isn't available for comment.

Brigham said "When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he [Christ] took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve....

"Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven....

"Now, remember from this time forth, and forever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." Journal of Discourses. vol. 1, pp. 50-51.

Heavenly Father is the father of the human family (while Adam can be regarded so also).
Heavenly Father was also a character in the garden of Eden when talking to Adam and Eve (I'll quote Brigham on this soon)(even though Adam lived there permanently at the time). So it could be that we should be reading Brigham's statements based on his assumption of the knowledge of the hearers. Others propose that there were errors in recording by those writing his talk down. Either way the following adds insight.

Reading these quotes of Brigham bellow makes it very clear what he thought of Adam and God, and Adam to Christ:-

"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of."

"The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" Discourses of Brigham Young. 2nd ed., p. 94.

"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.159

"Our Lord Jesus Christ-the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [Adam and Eve]." Discourses of Brigham Young, 2nd ed., p.40.

Now consider the following Scripture references:-

Jude 1:9 "Yet Michael the Archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the Lord rebuke thee."

D&C (Doctrine and Covenants) 78:15-16 "That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high. and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."

D&C 29:34 "Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

Luke 3:38 "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God."

Moses 6:22 "And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed."

It is obvious from these latter collections that 1. Brigham Young didn't think Adam was our Heavenly Father or the father of Jesus Christ. And 2. (and most importantly) that the Scriptures oppose such a concept.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Homosexuality and Lesbianism

Most, if not all, would be aware that the Scriptures speak quite clearly against these lifestyles. So I'm not really interested in looking at it from that approach in this post.

The prophet John Taylor stated, ".. it takes a woman and a man to make a man." 1877 Journal of Discourses 19:245

For homosexuality to be a correct lifestyle John Taylor would need to be incorrect. Such a lifestyle proposes that a man can be whole with another man, or whole on his own. It would equally suggest that women can be lesbians and be whole on their own, also.

I'd again like to quote from John Taylor _
"Sisters, you are eminently constituted for this work. God has given you both the desire and ability to do it; you can enter into the sympathies of others, and you can better appreciate their feelings than we men can, and you are altogether more competent to minister in such affairs. Hence the Prophet Joseph Smith, in his day, organized a Female Relief Society.." Journal of Discourses 19:245

Looking at John Taylor's claim he is proposing women to be different from men (which I think none reading would dispute). He mentions that women are more into the heart issues. This doesn't mean men don't have a heart, as Jesus Christ is a man (for starters). But it means that a good woman is more that way than an EQUALLY good man, or a bad woman as to an EQUALLY bad man.

This then establishes that a man and a man relationship isn't as complete as a man and a woman, because the latter relationship is MORE capable of dealing with heart issues. Note that I have emphasised the word "MORE". This is to again say that I have not proposed men have no heart, only that women are better in this area overall.

Men are better in the cold logic area than women. This is helpful where the heart may lead to wrong decisions. This is not proposing that women have no logic. It is saying that a good man has more logic than an EQUALLY good woman, and a bad man has more logic than an EQUALLY bad woman.

So a woman and woman relationship isn't as complete as a man and a woman relationship either. It hasn't as good an ability to deal with logical issues.

Someone may argue, well what if my same sex partner is good, isn't that better than me marrying a bad person of the opposite sex? The point is to find someone of the opposite sex that matches you and grow together.

Gen 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an helper OPPOSITE to him." (UMC - Unauthorised More Correct version). Note the word "opposite", rather than "meet" as used in the AKJ (Authorised King James version). While the use of the word "meet" isn't incorrect in intension, the word "opposite" is a more accurate translation of the actual Hebrew word used. It means opposite or facing from the other side (according to Strong's Concordance). And it is appropriate to the point of obtaining a complete balance in a relationship.

So far I have dealt with the imbalances of each individual sex. But the other point I would like to bring out is that of what a marriage actually is. Is marriage a sex license, to feel accepted with God or society? Or is it for saying we will live together and share time together? Is it for saying we love one another so much that we are prepared to live under the same roof? These may be side lines to marriage, but aren't what it is.

Marriage was given for man and woman to produce offspring, and raise those children in an environment that would give the child complete balance and instruction within a secure relationship. If we add other good things to it, that is fine, provided we don't forget what a marriage actually is. It is because society has forgotten what marriage actually is that we have 8-year-olds having sex to gain experience, a "try before you buy" system, and misconceptions of gender.

I love my brother very much, and my sons. I loved Spencer W. Kimball. I love Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. I love the latter two more than anyone else I love. I would love to go home and live in Heavenly Father's presence. Living with someone you love is wonderful. But I can't produce offspring with them. That love isn't what marriage is about. And sex must be reserved for that which it is naturally for _ having children. Whatever fulfilment a person may feel they have in these lifestyles is nothing to that which you can have in a correct relationship with the right person of the opposite gender.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Revelation - Who Gets It

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the church about revelation to those other than a small circle. When it comes up in classes, members seem to be quick to pass it off with a couple of catch phrases, rather than considering its importance to our salvation. The usual flow of conversation is that people get it for their callings, someone quotes one experience or two in their lifetime, and then the fear factor is presented of someone going off with revelations that were from false sources. And that leads to the statement that it is only the prophet who is entitled to revelation for the church. That usually is the death of the conversation.

2 Pet 1:19-21 "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

I would pose the question that if prophesies in the Scriptures aren't for private interpretation because they were given by the Holy Ghost, wouldn't that also make the rest of Scripture not for private interpretation, having also been given by the Holy Ghost? And if so then doesn't that then mean that only the Holy Ghost can tell us what the Scriptures are saying: That we have to become "holy men [and women] of God" "moved by the Holy Ghost" to interpret them? And this requires revelation. So every moment we spend reading the Scriptures should be moments of revelation. We should be being prophets and prophetesses unto ourselves.

Of course those appropriately programmed will now want me to add the classical oogy-boogy and say but only the prophet is entitled to revelation for the church. I would ask, however, how many people have you personally met who have claimed to have received revelation for the whole church? I've never met one. Yet I have met countless numbers who have received revelation pertaining to doctrine while reading the Scriptures. And even if I'd met 10 people having claimed revelation for the whole church, that would still make it almost no one in comparison. So the oogy-boogy is really a bit of a nonsense fear concept of Satan's to get us to do nothing in regard this subject, is my opinion. I'm not saying that no one has ever gone off on a tangent and imagined himself to be the new prophet. But the same fear is used in regard religion. It could be a false one so let's not listen to any. An irrational solution.

D&C 42:61 "If thou shalt ask, thou shalt receive revelation upon revelation, knowledge upon knowledge, that thou mayest know the mysteries and peaceable things--that which bringeth joy, that which bringeth life eternal."

So it is only by being taught these mysteries and peaceable things that we can obtain joy and eternal life. And this has to be done by revelation to a "Holy man of God" (hopefully you). These have to be obtained by the Holy Ghost (D&C 36:2, 39:5).

I would encourage all to despise not the gifts of the Spirit. Use revelation and gain eternal life.

Monday, March 05, 2007

Is Satan Really Cleaver, or Have we just Been Gullable?

I have often heard members and others claiming a belief in the Bible, say that Satan is very cleaver. But if he was actually all that cleaver why didn't he deceive Moses (Moses 1:12-13)? And why do the Scriptures say that deceiving the very elect won't happen (Matt 24:24)? He wasn't even wise enough to come here and get a body. He has no chance of obtaining godhood.

He was among the first group born (a son of the morning). So he had potential. He had obviously put more effort in as an intelligence to increase himself as an individual, before being born as a spirit child, than most. But his leaning toward greed for power and position doesn't demonstrate very good understanding of the important heart issues. Which would fit in with his going off on false doctrinal concepts like his claim that he could force all to do good, and thus save us.

I would be more inclined to state that Satan presents an idea that we may not have the knowledge to counter. Of course, he may actually beleive that he is right, and be no wiser himself. We may become confused into thinking that what he is presenting makes sense. It is hard for us to admit to being conned by a ninkempoop. So we like to think he must be highly intelligent. And we question how someone could be so apparently successful without having great cunning? But does it take great wisdom for a child to confuse another? Particularly if the new idea seems to offer greater freedom of choices?

Then there are those who just choose evil, because they want to. Satan doesn't need to do much more than make a suggestion, in these cases. Unfortunately Telestials (the majority) are self-first in the main. No great genius required there, by Satan.

Naturally it is his desire to do anything contrary to what God wants. And that of itself demonstrates poor intelligence. A wise person generally won't do something just because someone else doesn't want them to. That makes a person a slave to the other person's ideas (even though the slavery isn't in service).

Look at Satan in Moses 1:19 "And now, when Moses had said these words, Satan cried with a loud voice, and ranted upon the earth, and commanded, saying: I am the Only Begotten, worship me."

And verse 22 "And it came to pass that Satan cried with a loud voice, with weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth; and he departed hence..."

This hardly demonstrates an intelligent being.