Lowell Bennion
The two bishops I had from 16 to 20
Leonard Arrington
Neal Maxwell-I just loved the man and he is my favorite apostle ever.
Spender Kimball. Like him or not he loved people and cared and believed in what he was doing. He is the prophet of my youth.
BH Roberts.
Brigham Young for leading the saints west and building the great basin. Again, a controversial fellow but certianly a giant in what he accomplished.
Mormon Heroes
-
_amantha
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 2:15 am
William Law
Any critic who is married to a TBM
BH Roberts
My spouse for staying married to me despite our fundamental disagreement.
The women who endured polygamy against their will. (this is more of a sympathy vote)
All exmos and people of other religions who have had the courage to challenge their cognitive dissonance. (non-mormons who deserve to be recognized)
Korihor
Laman and Lemuel
Lucy Harris (she wasn't a Mormon but she was married to one)
Dr. Wade England for sincerely helping to build bridges between believers and non-believers.
(not necessarily in that order)
Any critic who is married to a TBM
BH Roberts
My spouse for staying married to me despite our fundamental disagreement.
The women who endured polygamy against their will. (this is more of a sympathy vote)
All exmos and people of other religions who have had the courage to challenge their cognitive dissonance. (non-mormons who deserve to be recognized)
Korihor
Laman and Lemuel
Lucy Harris (she wasn't a Mormon but she was married to one)
Dr. Wade England for sincerely helping to build bridges between believers and non-believers.
(not necessarily in that order)
Last edited by Guest on Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:37 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
_wenglund
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4947
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm
-
_Tidejwe
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:14 am
Many excellent answers in this thread. I'll add one to amantha's post. She said:
We could also say, any TBM who is married to a critic. It has got to be REALLY hard for them with all the cultural/social pressure, etc that they take every week with Eternal Marriage/exaltation talk, and all other such stuff, as well as knowing what some other members think and say when they aren't around. Such people are seriously a great example of LDS members.
To Jason Bourne: Thanks man, I appreciate the link and will certainly check it out!
amantha wrote:Any critic who is married to a TBM
We could also say, any TBM who is married to a critic. It has got to be REALLY hard for them with all the cultural/social pressure, etc that they take every week with Eternal Marriage/exaltation talk, and all other such stuff, as well as knowing what some other members think and say when they aren't around. Such people are seriously a great example of LDS members.
To Jason Bourne: Thanks man, I appreciate the link and will certainly check it out!
~Active NOM who doesn’t believe much of the dogma or TRADITIONS but maintains membership for cultural, social & SPIRITUAL REASONS, recognizes BOTH good & bad in the Church & [has] determined the Church doesn’t have to be perfect to remain useful. -Served mission in Haiti, holds temple recommend etc
-
_dooosh
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:22 am
-
_Coggins7
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3679
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 12:25 am
Coggins7 wrote:
Brown was a faithful Apostle and knew perfectly well that he had no authority to alter the Church's policy without revelation from the Lord and the unanimity of the Brethren.
First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?
Two things. David O. McKay wrestled deeply with this issue years before, and was crystal clear that he could not go forward without the mind and will of the Lord on the matter (this was primarily in connection with investigators in Africa). I don't say Brown did not receive a revelation, but I notice that you don't claim he did either. Did Brown claim such?
The second was the timing. The Lord is not a fool. 1969 was just coming out of the height of continuous race rioting around country that had gone on for several years, and of the ascendancy of Black Power ideology. The country was in the midst of a massive cultural revolution that was tearing the country apart over core issue of ideology, culture, and values. Had the Church lifted the ban at that time, the immediate cry of capitulation to social pressure would have gone forth from the rooftops and the Church's credibility would have sustained substantial damage.
At the time it actually came, at the end of the seventies, no particular racial foment was in the air. The same cry went up from the same usual suspects (and continues today), but made much less sense and created much less hay than it otherwise would have.
What the heck are you talking about?!?! Brigham Young had the Lecture at the Veil preached in the temple for over 40 YEARS at the end of the Endowment.
I'm going to need a credible historical source for this.
Sources. Show me the evidence. Bits and pieces of the concept were mentioned, cryptically, in public sermons (or aspects of related ideas), but the doctrine was never preached publically. Historical facts are going to be hard, even for you, to alter.
You're first claim is true, and is irrelevant. The second is either mendacious or born of ignorance. Course correction, at this point, and the maintaining of some intellectual credibility, is still possible.
Sources. And I can quite easily prove that it was never official doctrine. It was never published as an official position, it was never put before the Saints as such and sustained by the membership (indeed, most of the membership never even knew about it, in its fully form, and hence, diary entries are virtually all we have of the subject).
Young made some 1,500 sermons, all of which were taken down a recorded by Church transcribers. Some 20 of these made reference to aspects of his ideas on Adam and his relationship to God.
Now, perhaps, given all the foam and froth you have spashed out of the tub over this non-issue, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain these quotes from Brigham Young:
"So I [Brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.238, Brigham Young, July 24, 1853, emphasis added)
"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852, emphasis added)
"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.7, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, emphasis added)
"The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.94, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852, emphasis added)
"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870, emphasis added)
I have never tried to defend young on this issue, and frankly, I don't understand what he was trying to say. Neither do you. His teachings in the Temple, in the form they have survived, are fundamentally at odds with a number of central church teachings, and this is probably why it was never taught beyond Yong's own time. He clearly understood the settled, orthodox teachings. His other ideas are singular and astonishing, and I wish he was here so I could ask him what he was getting at, but he is not. It may, as some have speculated, been partially a play on name titles and Priesthood offices. Young may have not himself, really known what he was talking about, and overstepped his doctrinal and intellectual reach. Or, he may have known, but was unable to explain it in a manner that would be understandable doctrinally, even to himself. I don't know.
For example, "Adam" is both a name and a name title, meaning "first man and father of all". In this sense, Adam applies to the mortal man Adam, who is the Father of the human race, and God the Father, who is the father of our spirits. Adam is also, in LDS theology, considered to have been a God, or god-like being in the preexistence (along with Lucifer and a number of other spirits who had advanced to a significant degree there before mortality) (as he is also seen in a number of ancient semitic religious texts), so, as I say, I really don't know.
My testimony gets me through these little traffic jams, however, jams that send folks like you spinning off into oncoming traffic.
Sources.
Brown was a faithful Apostle and knew perfectly well that he had no authority to alter the Church's policy without revelation from the Lord and the unanimity of the Brethren.
Whoa there Coggins...make sure you know what actually happened before coming off as ignorant on the matter. As First councilor, Brown was in charge at the time because President David O McKay was completely incapacitated/infirm (not acting as President of the church) because of his health. He couldn't do anything in regards to church responsibilities and left everything up to Brown to be in charge for all church duties required of the "Prophet". Thus, yes he DID have authority with whatever was necessary as dictated by McKay. Consequently, he still held a vote on the matter, and the entire first presidency and quorum of 12 sustained it, with one exception...Lee. When Lee found out what they'd all agreed to (he wasn't present for it), he went off about how necessary the ban was, and refused to agree to it (not unlike what happened when Woodruff tried to ban polygamy). Lee forced Brown to publish a statement publicly telling everyone that all the excitement about removing the ban wasn't actually going to happen, etc. Brown even complained about Lee's dealings with the matter in a California Newspaper interview. Besides, who are you to claim that Brown DIDN'T receive a revelation about it? How is it that EVERY apostle but Lee felt the spirit that it was time to remove the ban in 1969?
First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?
Two things. David O. McKay wrestled deeply with this issue years before, and was crystal clear that he could not go forward without the mind and will of the Lord on the matter (this was primarily in connection with investigators in Africa). I don't say Brown did not receive a revelation, but I notice that you don't claim he did either. Did Brown claim such?
The second was the timing. The Lord is not a fool. 1969 was just coming out of the height of continuous race rioting around country that had gone on for several years, and of the ascendancy of Black Power ideology. The country was in the midst of a massive cultural revolution that was tearing the country apart over core issue of ideology, culture, and values. Had the Church lifted the ban at that time, the immediate cry of capitulation to social pressure would have gone forth from the rooftops and the Church's credibility would have sustained substantial damage.
At the time it actually came, at the end of the seventies, no particular racial foment was in the air. The same cry went up from the same usual suspects (and continues today), but made much less sense and created much less hay than it otherwise would have.
What the heck are you talking about?!?! Brigham Young had the Lecture at the Veil preached in the temple for over 40 YEARS at the end of the Endowment.
I'm going to need a credible historical source for this.
The Adam God Doctrine wasn't preached publicly?
Sources. Show me the evidence. Bits and pieces of the concept were mentioned, cryptically, in public sermons (or aspects of related ideas), but the doctrine was never preached publically. Historical facts are going to be hard, even for you, to alter.
If you say so...it's funny that nearly every single leader at the time had things in their diaries about it, there were public discourses about it.
You're first claim is true, and is irrelevant. The second is either mendacious or born of ignorance. Course correction, at this point, and the maintaining of some intellectual credibility, is still possible.
He promised to excommunicate people who didn't believe in it (including one of the apostles, Pratt) unless the repented and professed belief in it. In Pratt's case, publicly renouncing his previous remarks and professing belief in it. If it warrants excommunication, I'd venture to say that it was considered pretty dang official. Brigham Young even DECLARED it was a REVELATION from God and not his opinion. So you're calling him a liar? A prophet declaring something as REVELATION from God sounds pretty dang official to me.
Sources. And I can quite easily prove that it was never official doctrine. It was never published as an official position, it was never put before the Saints as such and sustained by the membership (indeed, most of the membership never even knew about it, in its fully form, and hence, diary entries are virtually all we have of the subject).
Young made some 1,500 sermons, all of which were taken down a recorded by Church transcribers. Some 20 of these made reference to aspects of his ideas on Adam and his relationship to God.
Now, perhaps, given all the foam and froth you have spashed out of the tub over this non-issue, perhaps you would be kind enough to explain these quotes from Brigham Young:
"So I [Brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.238, Brigham Young, July 24, 1853, emphasis added)
"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852, emphasis added)
"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.7, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853, emphasis added)
"The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.94, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852, emphasis added)
"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870, emphasis added)
I have never tried to defend young on this issue, and frankly, I don't understand what he was trying to say. Neither do you. His teachings in the Temple, in the form they have survived, are fundamentally at odds with a number of central church teachings, and this is probably why it was never taught beyond Yong's own time. He clearly understood the settled, orthodox teachings. His other ideas are singular and astonishing, and I wish he was here so I could ask him what he was getting at, but he is not. It may, as some have speculated, been partially a play on name titles and Priesthood offices. Young may have not himself, really known what he was talking about, and overstepped his doctrinal and intellectual reach. Or, he may have known, but was unable to explain it in a manner that would be understandable doctrinally, even to himself. I don't know.
For example, "Adam" is both a name and a name title, meaning "first man and father of all". In this sense, Adam applies to the mortal man Adam, who is the Father of the human race, and God the Father, who is the father of our spirits. Adam is also, in LDS theology, considered to have been a God, or god-like being in the preexistence (along with Lucifer and a number of other spirits who had advanced to a significant degree there before mortality) (as he is also seen in a number of ancient semitic religious texts), so, as I say, I really don't know.
My testimony gets me through these little traffic jams, however, jams that send folks like you spinning off into oncoming traffic.
OK, fine, so the temple isn't public, public discourses aren't public, general conference probably isn't public either...but I'd say the temple and excommunication makes it pretty dang official. Every single person who went through an endowment for over 40 years heard it preached in the temple. 40 YEARS. Bishop Bunker lived WAY BEFORE McConkie and JFS. JFS and McConkie only denounced the Adam God Theory BECAUSE of Bunker. Bunker was the FIRST....a pioneer in denouncing it. It was Bunker who got the Adam God stuff taken out of the endowment. If it weren't for Bunker JFS and McConkie would've believed in the Adam God Doctrine. The only reason you believe it was never official is because others have said so because Bunker stood up to it first. They called several councils over the matter to discuss whether Bunker was right about it being unofficial and wrong. BUNKER is to thank for that, not JFS or McConkie.
Sources.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
- Thomas S. Monson
- Thomas S. Monson
-
_moksha
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 22508
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm
-
_Jason Bourne
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?
Slow down there Coggy old boy. I gave you the source. Go read the book then come back. You really need to read beyond the Ensign and your priesthood manual if you want to discuss these things intelligently.
-
_Mister Scratch
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5604
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm
Coggins7 wrote:The second was the timing. The Lord is not a fool. 1969 was just coming out of the height of continuous race rioting around country that had gone on for several years, and of the ascendancy of Black Power ideology. The country was in the midst of a massive cultural revolution that was tearing the country apart over core issue of ideology, culture, and values. Had the Church lifted the ban at that time, the immediate cry of capitulation to social pressure would have gone forth from the rooftops and the Church's credibility would have sustained substantial damage.
Wow, this is a real classic. Actually, the Church *did* capitulate. It had weathered the pain of lawsuits, stuff being thrown at the BYU basketball team, etc. This "timing" argument makes zero sense. On the other hand, it is kind of interesting to consider that the Church lifted the ban purely for PR reasons, as Coggins suggests.