More bad news for our scripture believing friends

[_bcspace]

Sure. And Jesus is also our Father though not in the direct lineal sense.

I think perhaps, you should nip along to your Stake President, show him a transcript of this thread and ask him if you'd said anything that might be considered 'apostate'. Let us know how you get on...

Well (to feed Liz's paranoia), I have indeed shown myself the transcript.

[_Darth J]

1) Adam-God wasn't what BY taught.

Yes, it is, and it's not a matter of opinion. blog.php?u=7958

Neither is Adam Sr Adam Jr which remains a viable explaination.[/quote]

It only remains viable if you deliberately ignore objective reality---which you are doing.

Brigham Young did NOT teach "Adam, Sr./ Adam, Jr." He taught that Adam is the person that Latter-day Saints pray to as Heavenly Father, and that Elohim is our heavenly grandfather. Nobody needs to take my word for it; click on the links on my blog and look at BYU's digital scans of the Millenial Star.

Last we left it, I was wondering when someone was going to gainsay their own proof text which showed Adam Sr Adam Jr. I certianly didn't bail on that one.

Feel free to show me where.

Second, Joseph F. Smith is explicitly stating here that the LDS Church is a sola scriptura church. In that case, there is no reason to listen to anything LDS leaders say that has not become part of the canon---including, ironically, Joseph F. Smith's characterization of the Adam-God doctrine.

Close, but it's doctrine to be worried about, not canon.

That's the OPPOSITE of what Joseph F. Smith said.

Third, since this is Joseph F. Smith's personal statement, which was never canonized as the "accepted word of God," why are we to take his opinion as authoritative?

Because he illustrates the point that D&C 107 is in effect.

He illustrates the point that LDS leaders are making it up as they go along and making disingenuous, revisionist statements to try to make it look as if that is not the case.

2) It doesn't meet the D&C 107 criteria.

Here, bcspace is equivocating between "doctrine" and "scripture."

Nope. Not even concerned with scripture or canon and doctrine Trump's as I've explained before.[/quote]

Which, again, is the OPPOSITE of what Joseph F. Smith said in your quote, and which also supports the proposition that Adam-God, which was officially taught and published by the Church, Trump's the scriptures.

If pronouncements by church leaders only matter if they meet D&C 107 criteria, then there is no reason to listen to LDS leaders until whatever they say is canonized.

Not canonized, published.

Which contradicts the quote from Joseph F. Smith that you shared.

That being the case, why exactly does the LDS Church hold General Conference, publish the Ensign, etc.?

They are official doctrine which, being the interpretation of scripture and revelation, is more important and authoritative than canon.

Which contradicts the quote from Joseph F. Smith that you shared.

But be it far from me to say that you do not have a coherent argument, but are simply looking for loopholes in the teachings of the organization you claim to be the One, True Church.

[_Buffalo]

No, you're just stuck because you haven't been paying attention when I mention D&C 107 and Adam Sr Adam Jr is a perfectly cromulent explaination that matches the facts far more than Adam God.

107 is about scripture, not doctrine. And, as of right now, the evidence of Adam Ar./Jr is exactly zero.

[_Chap]

Can we find any signs elsewhere in statements by the CoJCoLDS that make clear the startling fact that this church (well, at least the CoJCoLDbcspace) is alone amongst all churches that believe in the literal truth of the Book of Genesis in believing in a real, historic Adam who is not the common ancestor of all living human beings?

Remind me, what was so special about that guy?

Presumably, if we are not all descended from Adam, then we are not descended from Eve either. How then is it that Adam speaks of her as 'the mother of all living'?

Aha! 'Father' does not mean 'actual progenitor' and nor does 'Mother' either?

Then presumably when the CoJCoLDS says we are children of Heavenly Father, it does not mean that we are descended from him?

[_bcspace]

It only remains viable if you deliberately ignore objective reality---which you are doing.

The reality that BY himself didn't consider much of what was written in the JoD to be doctrine? Or the reality that Adam-God violates several other key doctrines? Etc?

Last we left it, I was wondering when someone was going to gainsay their own proof text which showed Adam Sr Adam Jr. I certianly didn't bail on that one.

Feel free to show me where.

Been too long. Sorry. Got tired of waiting.

That's the OPPOSITE of what Joseph F. Smith said.

What JFS said illustrated the point of D&C 107, that all 15 had not been brought on board.

He illustrates the point that LDS leaders are making it up as they go along and making disingenuous, revisionist statements to try to make it look as if that is not the case.

D&C 107 ensures this is not the case.

Nope. Not even concerned with scripture or canon and doctrine Trump's as I've explained before.

Which, again, is the OPPOSITE of what Joseph F. Smith said in your quote

That is where doctrine resides, so yes, doctrine is tied to scripture in that sense. But the LDS interpretation of John 3:5 as water baptism as opposed to physical birth is a prime example of how doctrine Trump's scripture. Without doctrine, what does John 3:5 mean?

But be it far from me to say that you do not have a coherent argument, but are simply looking for loopholes in the teachings of the organization you claim to be the One, True Church.

You call them loopholes bedause they frustrate all your favorite arguments. I really don't have to look for anything; knowing LDS doctrine as I do, I can navigate real life hand in hand with it too easily for your mental gasps and strawmen to have any negative effect.

[_Darth J]

Re: "Adam, Sr./Adam, Jr." versus "Adam = Heavenly Father and Elohim = Heavenly Grandfather"

Whom are you going to believe: bcspace or your lying eyes?

Millennial Star, November 26, 1853:

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, 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.

Millenial Star, December 10, 1853:

"As the great Eloheim is supreme and Almighty over all his children and kingdoms, so is Adam as great a ruler, or God, in his sphere, over his children, and the kingdom which they possess. The earth and all things upon it were created for Adam, and it was given to him of his father to have dominion over it. In that dominion he will be sustained throughout all eternity."

Not binding on the Church, huh?

"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."

"If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord. That is vastly stronger proof than Christendom can give."


blog.php?u=7958&b=2865

P.S. Speaking of straw men, bcspace, I am talking about the Millenial Star, not the Journal of Discourses.

[_bcspace]

107 is about scripture, not doctrine.

It says that the FP and Qo12 are equal in authority and as such, both bodies must be in agreement.

And, as of right now, the evidence of Adam Ar./Jr is exactly zero.

It is/was as much doctrine as Adam-God, correct.

[_Darth J]

Argument by assertion

[_bcspace]

Aha! 'Father' does not mean 'actual progenitor' and nor does 'Mother' either?

Only one of many possibilities. We don't have all the details, but we have enough to show that evolution swims with LDS doctrine. What happened to the preAdamites is another interesting question.

[_bcspace]

Whom are you going to believe: bcspace or your lying eyes?

BY himself was pretty closed mouthed about it when asked to explain. But as we've seen from Adam Sr. Adam Jr., few if any, ever took into account all that he said.