Mysteries of the Kingdom

[freedomforall]

How could this be made any clearer?

As a fictional narrative it is very clear. Reality says this doctrine is nothing more than an anomaly, with which cannot be proven correct because no one really knows what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young meant behind this anomaly. Spreading it around as canonized scripture is folly at the very best. And my question wasn't answered because the full lifespans of Adam and Eve were not addressed. Only the one infraction so that the whole narrative might have sway on the unknowing and ignorance to what scripture actually teaches.
When one truly feasts upon the word, they come to see there a holes in that doctrine and that it insults the testimonies of those believing in the word of God. And it is a mockery of the First Vision narrative.

I get reamed out for my beliefs, scoffed and called names because I take a stand for my beliefs and that God, himself, through the Holy Ghost has witnessed to me many times that what I read is true.

I only pray that the DOJ can be set aside and the actual word of God be read and read, studied and pondered for what it really is. We cannot go to heaven on some one elses shirttail. This would include Joseph Smith or anyone else.

Like Joseph said, If you don't believe him, you don't believe the Bible. Words have meaning and we have Josephs words. Therefore we have Josephs meaning. The words are very clear, the meaning is very clear. Argue all you want against the Bible and Joseph. Believe if you dare or not.
But Joseph's and Brigham's words are simple and clear, their meaning is simple and clear.

The fiction is yours, reality is that Joseph and Brigham taught this doctrine. The anomaly is that someone can be so blind to such simple words with such clear meaning. You can pray all you want for the truth to be set aside. But if you set aside the DOJ, you must also set aside the Teachings of President Brigham Young and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and Wilford Woodruff Journal and Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report and The Essential Brigham Young and the Bible.

Such a heavy cost to not believe. In the face of such direct testimony with such clear meaning, one most likely has something they hold so close as to block out reason. John Taylor and Joseph himself tell us who the Holy Ghost is and he does not testify against himself.

I choose to believe Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and The Bible and chose not to believe any testimony not in harmony with the same.

I honestly don't care what you think about my testimony or how it came about. You may say whatever you like, but it makes no difference whatsoever. You may believe whatever you like, however, scripture tells us a different story and this is what we are supposed to feast on. Go ahead, look it up. The church membership has been under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon enough, not for being lax in reading the DOJ.

As far as Joseph and the bible are concerned, we believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly.

Scripture trumps any man's word where there is conflict in doctrine. Just on this thread alone, there has been conflict within those presenting this doctrine. I would think that there would be complete harmony, wouldn't you?

Say what you will but it won't change my hard earned knowledge of the Godhead, the gospel or who Jesus is, or for that matter, even God.

Where in the bible does it tell us that Adam is our God, or Majesty on High? Where does it tell us that Jesus is subordinate to Adam? Where does it tell us that we all can become a Christ? Where does it tell us that we will take upon many different bodies in succession in our progression?

If Joseph said we don't believe the bible, just what parts is he talking about? We'll be waiting for the info.

Another thing, why does Joseph Smith say he did more for this church than even Christ?

[HappyCamper8]

I hope I'm not coming across as arguing or anything because I'm truly just thinking and asking questions...

The thing I don't quite understand about "Scripture trumps any man's word where there is conflict in doctrine." is if you really think about what scripture is, it's just a "man's" word written down at some point. Why choose the "man's" word in the bible over the "man's" word written down 100 or so years ago? Why are those words in the Bible in the first place? Didn't some other "men" decide this should go here, and this shouldn't?

If an authority today seems to contradict an authority in Joseph's day, it's been said to follow the current prophet. In other words, the current prophet trumps Brigham etc...

Why is that? Seriously wondering.

It almost appears that the current prophet trumps older ones, unless it's an older one from near the time of Christ.

I think there appears to be an almost dead zone comprising the early prophets of the latter days which are always "trumped".

If we don't believe the things that were taught from that "dead zone", has the Church truly changed and nowhere near the same?

Serious questions, not meant to argue...

[Finrock]

How could this be made any clearer?

As a fictional narrative it is very clear. Reality says this doctrine is nothing more than an anomaly, with which cannot be proven correct because no one really knows what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young meant behind this anomaly. Spreading it around as canonized scripture is folly at the very best. And my question wasn't answered because the full lifespans of Adam and Eve were not addressed. Only the one infraction so that the whole narrative might have sway on the unknowing and ignorance to what scripture actually teaches.
When one truly feasts upon the word, they come to see there a holes in that doctrine and that it insults the testimonies of those believing in the word of God. And it is a mockery of the First Vision narrative.

I get reamed out for my beliefs, scoffed and called names because I take a stand for my beliefs and that God, himself, through the Holy Ghost has witnessed to me many times that what I read is true.

I only pray that the DOJ can be set aside and the actual word of God be read and read, studied and pondered for what it really is. We cannot go to heaven on some one elses shirttail. This would include Joseph Smith or anyone else.

Like Joseph said, If you don't believe him, you don't believe the Bible. Words have meaning and we have Josephs words. Therefore we have Josephs meaning. The words are very clear, the meaning is very clear. Argue all you want against the Bible and Joseph. Believe if you dare or not.
But Joseph's and Brigham's words are simple and clear, their meaning is simple and clear.

The fiction is yours, reality is that Joseph and Brigham taught this doctrine. The anomaly is that someone can be so blind to such simple words with such clear meaning. You can pray all you want for the truth to be set aside. But if you set aside the DOJ, you must also set aside the Teachings of President Brigham Young and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and Wilford Woodruff Journal and Brigham Young Oct.8, 1854 General Conference Report and The Essential Brigham Young and the Bible.

Such a heavy cost to not believe. In the face of such direct testimony with such clear meaning, one most likely has something they hold so close as to block out reason. John Taylor and Joseph himself tell us who the Holy Ghost is and he does not testify against himself.

I choose to believe Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and The Bible and chose not to believe any testimony not in harmony with the same.

I honestly don't care what you think about my testimony or how it came about. You may say whatever you like, but it makes no difference whatsoever. You may believe whatever you like, however, scripture tells us a different story and this is what we are supposed to feast on. Go ahead, look it up. The church membership has been under condemnation for not reading the Book of Mormon enough, not for being lax in reading the DOJ.

As far as Joseph and the bible are concerned, we believe the bible to be the word of God as far as it has been translated correctly.

Scripture trumps any man's word where there is conflict in doctrine. Just on this thread alone, there has been conflict within those presenting this doctrine. I would think that there would be complete harmony, wouldn't you?

Say what you will but it won't change my hard earned knowledge of the Godhead, the gospel or who Jesus is, or for that matter, even God.

Where in the bible does it tell us that Adam is our God, or Majesty on High? Where does it tell us that Jesus is subordinate to Adam? Where does it tell us that we all can become a Christ? Where does it tell us that we will take upon many different bodies in succession in our progression?

If Joseph said we don't believe the bible, just what parts is he talking about? We'll be waiting for the info.

Another thing, why does Joseph Smith say he did more for this church than even Christ?

The issue, freedomforall, is that in your posts you are equating your interpretation and your understanding of the scriptures, with the scriptures.

Truth comes by the Holy Spirit and that is how truth gets revealed. Say what you believe and people will either accept it or they won't. If what you speak is truth and you speak by the power of the Holy Ghost then your words will get carried to the hearts of those who are receiving through the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the best that you can do and that you can hope for.

-Finrock

[Finrock]

I hope I'm not coming across as arguing or anything because I'm truly just thinking and asking questions...

The thing I don't quite understand about "Scripture trumps any man's word where there is conflict in doctrine." is if you really think about what scripture is, it's just a "man's" word written down at some point. Why choose the "man's" word in the bible over the "man's" word written down 100 or so years ago? Why are those words in the Bible in the first place? Didn't some other "men" decide this should go here, and this shouldn't?

If an authority today seems to contradict an authority in Joseph's day, it's been said to follow the current prophet. In other words, the current prophet trumps Brigham etc...

Why is that? Seriously wondering.

It almost appears that the current prophet trumps older ones, unless it's an older one from near the time of Christ.

I think there appears to be an almost dead zone comprising the early prophets of the latter days which are always "trumped".

If we don't believe the things that were taught from that "dead zone", has the Church truly changed and nowhere near the same?

Serious questions, not meant to argue...

The reality is that many people are not interested in what really is true. They are interested in defending their paradigm and in defending the position of their egocentric and sociocentric circles. Loyalty to the leaders and the institution is more important than truth. Those who fall in to that category will never admit error or change, not until God works in them a mighty miracle through His matchless power.

But, to answer your questions somewhat, all truth comes from the Spirit of Truth. If scripture contains truth its because it was received and recorded through the power of the Spirit of Truth. As mortals we are left to see through a glass darkly and at times, as we humble ourselves, the Spirit can open our eyes and ears and our minds and hearts, so that we can understand the truth as it was intended to be understood. We need to be ready to hear and to receive the Spirit of Truth regardless of who is speaking or who might of wrote the words down. Then a part of our trial is to remain loyal to that Spirit of Truth regardless of competing voices, positions, or loyalties. There is no easy way to depend on the words, notions, ideas, and thoughts of mortals, no matter who they are and what their position is. So, we live good lives, doing and acting based on the light inside of us, and by doing so God promises that His Spirit will always be with us. The Good is Good and when we grow sensitive to the Good we will recognize it from within the chaos.

-Finrock

[freedomforall]

I hope I'm not coming across as arguing or anything because I'm truly just thinking and asking questions...

The thing I don't quite understand about "Scripture trumps any man's word where there is conflict in doctrine." is if you really think about what scripture is, it's just a "man's" word written down at some point. Why choose the "man's" word in the bible over the "man's" word written down 100 or so years ago? Why are those words in the Bible in the first place? Didn't some other "men" decide this should go here, and this shouldn't?

If an authority today seems to contradict an authority in Joseph's day, it's been said to follow the current prophet. In other words, the current prophet trumps Brigham etc...

Why is that? Seriously wondering.

It almost appears that the current prophet trumps older ones, unless it's an older one from near the time of Christ.

I think there appears to be an almost dead zone comprising the early prophets of the latter days which are always "trumped".

If we don't believe the things that were taught from that "dead zone", has the Church truly changed and nowhere near the same?

Serious questions, not meant to argue...

For the most part all the words coming from old prophets were written down due to a direct command from God. Then those words were authenticated and became canon, or words we can take to the bank.
The words in the DOJ are not canon, or official doctrine to be relied upon. Opinions are not canonized doctrine. And where there is conflict between canon and man's own imaginations, we should choose canon. We read in the Book of Mormon over and over to feast upon the word. We also hear frequently to live by every word out of the mouth of God. Now since everyone is not a prophet, the most likely place to get God's word is in canon, right?

Each dispensation has had its own prophets to carry on the work under the direction of God.

It is appaling that so many people will read the DOJ and internalize doctrine that cannot be found in canon, or at least, corroborated by canon. Yet the fact of the matter is, all doctrine we accept as doctrine comes directly from canon. This is our base line doctrine to be feasted upon, right?

The Adam-God doctrine coming out of the DOJ is not canon, nor has it been approved for the whole church membership to feast upon. It is nothing more than an anomaly. We read:

BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

[freedomforall]

Then a part of our trial is to remain loyal to that Spirit of Truth regardless of competing voices, positions, or loyalties.

Exactly, and this is why I stick to my knowledge and interpretation of scripture. And since we read that understanding scripture is of no private interpretation, then we must assume that my, or any other true seeker with a strong testimony of scripture came from the Spirit, if truly seeking to know what God means in his words. Like you stated, it is not easy.

[HappyCamper8]

I hope I'm not coming across as arguing or anything because I'm truly just thinking and asking questions...

The thing I don't quite understand about "Scripture trumps any man's word where there is conflict in doctrine." is if you really think about what scripture is, it's just a "man's" word written down at some point. Why choose the "man's" word in the bible over the "man's" word written down 100 or so years ago? Why are those words in the Bible in the first place? Didn't some other "men" decide this should go here, and this shouldn't?

If an authority today seems to contradict an authority in Joseph's day, it's been said to follow the current prophet. In other words, the current prophet trumps Brigham etc...

Why is that? Seriously wondering.

It almost appears that the current prophet trumps older ones, unless it's an older one from near the time of Christ.

I think there appears to be an almost dead zone comprising the early prophets of the latter days which are always "trumped".

If we don't believe the things that were taught from that "dead zone", has the Church truly changed and nowhere near the same?

Serious questions, not meant to argue...

For the most part all the words coming from old prophets were written down due to a direct command from God. Then those words were authenticated and became canon, or words we can take to the bank.
The words in the DOJ are not canon, or official doctrine to be relied upon. Opinions are not canonized doctrine. And where there is conflict between canon and man's own imaginations, we should choose canon. We read in the Book of Mormon over and over to feast upon the word. We also hear frequently to live by every word out of the mouth of God. Now since everyone is not a prophet, the most likely place to get God's word is in canon, right?

Each dispensation has had its own prophets to carry on the work under the direction of God.

It is appaling that so many people will read the DOJ and internalize doctrine that cannot be found in canon, or at least, corroborated by canon. Yet the fact of the matter is, all doctrine we accept as doctrine comes directly from canon. This is our base line doctrine to be feasted upon, right?

The Adam-God doctrine coming out of the DOJ is not canon, nor has it been approved for the whole church membership to feast upon. It is nothing more than an anomaly. We read:

BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

Isn't canon decided by men though? Look at the bible. It was all decided by a group of men, not of our current faith unless I'm mistaken...

Technically, we believe the same of the Book of Mormon. It became canon, because a man decided to collect some writings.

I get that we say they were inspired, but people are also saying the prophets from the early latter day saints were inspired to write what they did. I also get that some of it is not canon, but does that make it ultimately "not true"?

What about polygamy in doctrine and covenants? Isn't that canon now?

[freedomforall]

Isn't canon decided by men though? Look at the bible. It was all decided by a group of men, not of our current faith unless I'm mistaken...

Technically, we believe the same of the Book of Mormon. It became canon, because a man decided to collect some writings.

I get that we say they were inspired, but people are also saying the prophets from the early latter day saints were inspired to write what they did. I also get that some of it is not canon, but does that make it ultimately "not true"?

What about polygamy in doctrine and covenants? Isn't that canon now?

All prophets have been called by God, no matter what the church was called at the time. Christ was considered of being a prophet and there was no church at the time.

The Book of Mormon is canon because it was written by men called of called and then sealed up until Joseph was commanded to find it and translate it into language we can understand.

Writings that are not canon should be considered as other than directly accurate and true. If they were then what need have we for canon? Also, we are told that we will receive other scriptures from the Ten Tribes that will ultimately be added to ours, and vice versa. I don't think the DOJ will be a part of that great collection for the Ten Tribes to take to the bank.

Polygamy is in canon, but has caused a lot of contention. If one reads carefully, God says polygamy is an abomination...however, if and when he says to increase seed unto him, he will command the practice. Otherwise, we are to live the one wife, one husband practice.

[HappyCamper8]

Isn't canon decided by men though? Look at the bible. It was all decided by a group of men, not of our current faith unless I'm mistaken...

Technically, we believe the same of the Book of Mormon. It became canon, because a man decided to collect some writings.

I get that we say they were inspired, but people are also saying the prophets from the early latter day saints were inspired to write what they did. I also get that some of it is not canon, but does that make it ultimately "not true"?

What about polygamy in doctrine and covenants? Isn't that canon now?

All prophets have been called by God, no matter what the church was called at the time. Christ was considered of being a prophet and there was no church at the time.

The Book of Mormon is canon because it was written by men called of called and then sealed up until Joseph was commanded to find it and translate it into language we can understand.

Writings that are not canon should be considered as other than directly accurate and true. If they were then what need have we for canon? Also, we are told that we will receive other scriptures from the Ten Tribes that will ultimately be added to ours, and vice versa. I don't think the DOJ will be a part of that great collection for the Ten Tribes to take to the bank.

Polygamy is in canon, but has caused a lot of contention. If one reads carefully, God says polygamy is an abomination...however, if and when he says to increase seed unto him, he will command the practice. Otherwise, we are to live the one wife, one husband practice.

It makes sense, it just seems there has been so much contention on this board and in other places about polygamy. Specifically about whether or not it is doctrine. Apparently, since it's in canon, it is doctrine. Now for what purpose, I'll leave that alone, but if it's in canon, it's doctrine, correct?

However, I still am a little confused about the canon of, for instance, the bible. There was no bible for over 1,000 years after the writings of the "men" correct? It wasn't for over 1,000 years of writings kicking around until it became "canon". (I say bible as in the writings were collected and agreed upon by men as canon). (When I say men not of our faith above, I say that because wasn't it like over 300 religious leaders deciding what is canon. After the falling away or apostasy?) So putting myself in the place of Jebediah (made up name )in the year 300 bc. If I heard a prophet teaching, or read a writing from a prophet, wouldn't I say, but it's not canon so it can't be official. I'm probably not explaining my thoughts very well. Sorry!

[freedomforall]

Isn't canon decided by men though? Look at the bible. It was all decided by a group of men, not of our current faith unless I'm mistaken...

Technically, we believe the same of the Book of Mormon. It became canon, because a man decided to collect some writings.

I get that we say they were inspired, but people are also saying the prophets from the early latter day saints were inspired to write what they did. I also get that some of it is not canon, but does that make it ultimately "not true"?

What about polygamy in doctrine and covenants? Isn't that canon now?

All prophets have been called by God, no matter what the church was called at the time. Christ was considered of being a prophet and there was no church at the time.

The Book of Mormon is canon because it was written by men called of called and then sealed up until Joseph was commanded to find it and translate it into language we can understand.

Writings that are not canon should be considered as other than directly accurate and true. If they were then what need have we for canon? Also, we are told that we will receive other scriptures from the Ten Tribes that will ultimately be added to ours, and vice versa. I don't think the DOJ will be a part of that great collection for the Ten Tribes to take to the bank.

Polygamy is in canon, but has caused a lot of contention. If one reads carefully, God says polygamy is an abomination...however, if and when he says to increase seed unto him, he will command the practice. Otherwise, we are to live the one wife, one husband practice.

It makes sense, it just seems there has been so much contention on this board and in other places about polygamy. Specifically about whether or not it is doctrine. Apparently, since it's in canon, it is doctrine. Now for what purpose, I'll leave that alone, but if it's in canon, it's doctrine, correct?

However, I still am a little confused about the canon of, for instance, the bible. There was no bible for over 1,000 years after the writings of the "men" correct? It wasn't for over 1,000 years of writings kicking around until it became "canon". (I say bible as in the writings were collected and agreed upon by men as canon). (When I say men not of our faith above, I say that because wasn't it like over 300 religious leaders deciding what is canon. After the falling away or apostasy?) So putting myself in the place of Jebediah (made up name )in the year 300 bc. If I heard a prophet teaching, or read a writing from a prophet, wouldn't I say, but it's not canon so it can't be official. I'm probably not explaining my thoughts very well. Sorry! You're doing great!

See if these give you any answers that help to understand:

The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Chapter 1

1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

6 We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Also:

Scriptures, Writing of

Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, Ex. 24:4 (Deut. 31:9).
I will give thee … a law … which I have written, Ex. 24:12.
written with the finger of God, Ex. 31:18 (Deut. 9:10).
writing was the writing of God, Ex. 32:16.
Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words, Ex. 34:27.
ten commandments … wrote them upon two tables of stone, Deut. 4:13 (5:22).
wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, Deut. 10:4.
wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law, Josh. 8:32.
Samuel … wrote it in a book, 1 Sam. 10:25.
acts of Uzziah … did Isaiah the prophet … write, 2 Chr. 26:22.
in the book of the records, Ezra 4:15.
shall be written for the generation to come, Ps. 102:18.
Take thee a great roll, and write in it, Isa. 8:1 (2 Ne. 18:1).
write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, Isa. 30:8.
wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the Lord, Jer. 36:4.
write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, Ezek. 37:16 (37:15–22).
written to him the great things of my law, Hosea 8:12.
a book of remembrance was written, Mal. 3:16 (Gen. 5:1; Moses 6:5, 46).
disciple which testifieth … wrote these things, John 21:24.
they wrote letters, Acts 15:23.
things were written aforetime … for our learning, Rom. 15:4.
ensamples: … written for our admonition, 1 Cor. 10:11.
we write none other things unto you, than what ye read, 2 Cor. 1:13.
to this end also did I write, 2 Cor. 2:9.
the things which I write unto you, Gal. 1:20 (1 Jn. 1:4).
second epistle, beloved, I now write, 2 Pet. 3:1.
What thou seest, write in a book, Rev. 1:11.
he said unto me, Write: for these words are true, Rev. 21:5.
I make an abridgment of the record, 1 Ne. 1:17.
engraven upon plates of brass, 1 Ne. 3:3.
a record of the Jews from the beginning, 1 Ne. 5:12.
upon these plates which I am writing, 1 Ne. 6:1.
hath he shown all things, and they have written, 1 Ne. 14:26.
I do not write anything upon plates save it be … sacred, 1 Ne. 19:6.
fruit of thy loins shall write; and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write, 2 Ne. 3:12.
I will write unto him my law, 2 Ne. 3:17.
I write the things of my soul, 2 Ne. 4:15.
all things which are written, from the creation, 2 Ne. 6:3.
we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, 2 Ne. 25:23.
write the words which I speak, 2 Ne. 29:11.
commandment that I should write, Jacob 1:2.
these things are written for … the Lamanites, Jarom 1:2.
my son … may write … concerning Christ, W of M 1:2.
records of the holy scriptures, Alma 37:3.
all things are written by the Father, 3 Ne. 27:26.
ye shall write them and shall seal them up, Ether 3:22.
write the things which he had seen, Ether 4:1.
called … to write for my servant Joseph, D&C 9:4.
thou wast called and chosen to write the Book of Mormon, D&C 24:1.
Lord commanded us to write, D&C 76:80.
write this commandment, D&C 90:32.
print my words, the fulness of my scriptures, D&C 104:58.
These things were all written in the book of Enoch, D&C 107:57.
write the words which I speak, Moses 2:1.
given … to write by the spirit of inspiration, Moses 6:5.
records have come into my hands, Abr. 1:28.


And:

1 Ne. 13:26
26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away.

According to this we may find that our understanding of the bible can be limited because of plain and precious parts having been taken out as indicated. Only prayer, pondering and study can help in receiving a greater knowledge.

[freedomforall]

So did Joseph Smith contradict himself, and confuse us as to whom is in the Godhead?

Articles of Faith:

1) We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

Man's interpretation of Joseph Smith:

God the Father, Jehovah and Michael
Or is it Michael/Adam as Father, Jehovah and unknown?

Now here is another way to see it:

Mosiah says that God, himself would come down and take upon himself flesh. And that the Spirit is the Father, and Jesus is the flesh. The son becoming subject to the will of the father..being Father and son...Mosiah 15:1-5

The Father and Son combined is the Very Eternal Father.

Sorry folks, I didn't make this stuff up...it's in the book. See also the words of Zeezrom.

Now read D&C 109 and see who is being prayed to.

One of the only ways we can conclude there is someone above Jehovah/Jesus is when a voice is heard in the heavens declaring that he is pleased with his son at the Son's baptism.

Another is when Christ tells Mary that she cannot touch him because he hadn't ascended to his Father and our Father, his God and our God.

John 20:17
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Other considerations:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/god-t ... m?lang=eng

See also:

BD El
Might, strength. In Hebrew and related languages it designates “the divine being.” Many biblical names employ El with other words, such as Bethel (“the house of God”), Eleazar (“God has helped”), Michael (“who is like God”), Daniel (“a judge is God”), Ezekiel (“God will strengthen”), and Israel (“to prevail with God” or perhaps “let God prevail”). Possibly the best known use of El is in Elohim, a plural form signifying the “almighty” or “omnipotent,” a name applied to the Father.

BD God
When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are His children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as Lord (in small capitals), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with Him. All mankind are His brethren and sisters, He being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done by God were actually done by the Lord (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1), but we know that it was actually the Lord (Jesus) who was the creator (John 1:3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:9).

The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of God, etc.

GS God, Godhead
It is generally the Father, or Elohim, who is referred to by the title God. He is called the Father because He is the father of our spirits (Num. 16:22; 27:16; Mal. 2:10; Matt. 6:9; Eph. 4:6; Heb. 12:9). God the Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. He is all powerful (Gen. 18:14; Alma 26:35; D&C 19:1–3), all knowing (Matt. 6:8; 2 Ne. 2:24), and everywhere present through His Spirit (Ps. 139:7–12; D&C 88:7–13, 41). Mankind has a special relationship to God that sets man apart from all other created things: men and women are God’s spirit children (Ps. 82:6; 1 Jn. 3:1–3; D&C 20:17–18).

[sandman45]

Transgress
1. to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; offend; sin.

Sin
1. transgression of divine law:

Let's quit splitting hairs...Adam did sin by violating a command. But God does forgive if sincerely asked.

God forgave them, yet didn't let them back into the garden. Instead they went about tilling the soil, raising babies and feeling pain, fatigue and some sorrow all the rest of their days. They would have committed sin as well.

but according to MODERN day PROPHETS.. they plainly tell us that TRANSGRESSION is not SIN... go back and i linked quotes from Elder Oaks and others.

Also no Christ did not Atone for his father... Adam's Savior did on Adam's World

[shadow]

Transgress
1. to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; offend; sin.

Sin
1. transgression of divine law:

Let's quit splitting hairs...Adam did sin by violating a command. But God does forgive if sincerely asked.

God forgave them, yet didn't let them back into the garden. Instead they went about tilling the soil, raising babies and feeling pain, fatigue and some sorrow all the rest of their days. They would have committed sin as well.

but according to MODERN day PROPHETS.. they plainly tell us that TRANSGRESSION is not SIN... go back and i linked quotes from Elder Oaks and others.

Also no Christ did not Atone for his father... Adam's Savior did on Adam's World

That's not backed by scripture.
Christ did Atone for Adam which is why Adam had to wait for Christ to be resurrected. Adam's resurrection could not have happened without the atonement of Christ.

12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;

13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.

14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death.

17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.

18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful

38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.

49 All these ^^ and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance,

50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.

51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life

[freedomforall]

Transgress
1. to violate a law, command, moral code, etc.; offend; sin.

Sin
1. transgression of divine law:

Let's quit splitting hairs...Adam did sin by violating a command. But God does forgive if sincerely asked.

God forgave them, yet didn't let them back into the garden. Instead they went about tilling the soil, raising babies and feeling pain, fatigue and some sorrow all the rest of their days. They would have committed sin as well.

but according to MODERN day PROPHETS.. they plainly tell us that TRANSGRESSION is not SIN... go back and i linked quotes from Elder Oaks and others.

Also no Christ did not Atone for his father... Adam's Savior did on Adam's World

That's not backed by scripture.
Christ did Atone for Adam which is why Adam had to wait for Christ to be resurrected. Adam's resurrection could not have happened without the atonement of Christ.

12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;

13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.

14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death.

17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.

18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful

38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God.

49 All these ^^ and many more, even the prophets who dwelt among the Nephites and testified of the coming of the Son of God, mingled in the vast assembly and waited for their deliverance,

50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.

51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life

You can't change the mind of someone when their whole belief system is based on conjecture, supposition, anomalies and other than canon. I have tried and tried to no avail. Even to the point of getting board warnings. (even though the rules used to say, doctrine not in line with church doctrine will not be allowed) so now the Adam-God doctrine in coming at us frequently. Additionally, I am getting rather tired of being the only, as the saying goes, dog in this fight. So, by all means, if you've got some issues with this crazy doctrine, please speak out. Citing the JOD all day long proves nothing, and is a lousy testimony builder.

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

D&C 93:38 Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning; and God having redeemed man from the fall, men became again, in their infant state, innocent before God.

So, we've already been redeemed by God the Father (it wasn't Christ, he is our brother and was redeemed with us)

Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

And we will be redeemed again by Christ. As the Son, he will redeem us thus becoming our Father, The Father of the next Eternal Round.

[True]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

[creator]

=))

[freedomforall]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

Would I be amiss to say I fully believe we have offshoot fundamentalists coming on this forum pretending to be orthodox LDS, yet teaching doctrine not corroborated by official church doctrine?

Doug
JWharton
Sandman45
and now Hidingbehindmyhandle

I know I am forgetting other names, but their message and purpose have not been to bring unity among the saints. In fact, some have had differing views themselves. Not what I call becoming one with Christ, which is the whole purpose of Christ's message.

3 Nephi 19:23,29
23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

Doctrine and Covenants 35:2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

The next one talks about Trump? :-ss

Doctrine and Covenants 29:13
13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the barth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

[sandman45]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

Would I be amiss to say I fully believe we have offshoot fundamentalists coming on this forum pretending to be orthodox LDS, yet teaching doctrine not corroborated by official church doctrine?

Doug
JWharton
Sandman45
and now Hidingbehindmyhandle

I know I am forgetting other names, but their message and purpose have not been to bring unity among the saints. In fact, some have had differing views themselves. Not what I call becoming one with Christ, which is the whole purpose of Christ's message.

3 Nephi 19:23,29
23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

Doctrine and Covenants 35:2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

The next one talks about Trump? :-ss

Doctrine and Covenants 29:13
13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the barth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

Lol. I'm Full Tithe paying member with current temple recommend. And apparently I have the best calling in the church
Or so I'm told...(Librarian)

Appreciate the name calling.

I am just pointing out that it was taught and there are examples in the scriptures. But you seem to ignore it or completely disregard them. Or I guess your "interpretation" of them is way different than what Joseph or Brigham says on specific verses.

Since we know exactly where you stand with the doctrine
what are your thoughts on Brigham Young? Joseph, Heber C Kimbal. ? And others who taught it and other doctrines now not practiced by church ? Were they all false prophets or something?
Or fallen prophets?
Or did they interpret their visions and revelations incorrectly?


I find it confusing on why the church likes to try to keep its history on the DL instead of explaining it in classes etc

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

Would I be amiss to say I fully believe we have offshoot fundamentalists coming on this forum pretending to be orthodox LDS, yet teaching doctrine not corroborated by official church doctrine?

Doug
JWharton
Sandman45
and now Hidingbehindmyhandle

I know I am forgetting other names, but their message and purpose have not been to bring unity among the saints. In fact, some have had differing views themselves. Not what I call becoming one with Christ, which is the whole purpose of Christ's message.

3 Nephi 19:23,29
23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

Doctrine and Covenants 35:2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

The next one talks about Trump? :-ss

Doctrine and Covenants 29:13
13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the barth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

Name calling and False Accusations is what you do best. You drove Doug off this Forum with it.

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

There are a lot of people who believe this, yes the same thing,

[Hidingbehindmyhandle]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

Would I be amiss to say I fully believe we have offshoot fundamentalists coming on this forum pretending to be orthodox LDS, yet teaching doctrine not corroborated by official church doctrine?

Doug
JWharton
Sandman45
and now Hidingbehindmyhandle

I know I am forgetting other names, but their message and purpose have not been to bring unity among the saints. In fact, some have had differing views themselves. Not what I call becoming one with Christ, which is the whole purpose of Christ's message.

3 Nephi 19:23,29
23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

Doctrine and Covenants 35:2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

The next one talks about Trump? :-ss

Doctrine and Covenants 29:13
13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the barth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

Lol. I'm Full Tithe paying member with current temple recommend. And apparently I have the best calling in the church
Or so I'm told...(Librarian)

Appreciate the name calling.

I am just pointing out that it was taught and there are examples in the scriptures. But you seem to ignore it or completely disregard them. Or I guess your "interpretation" of them is way different than what Joseph or Brigham says on specific verses.

Since we know exactly where you stand with the doctrine
what are your thoughts on Brigham Young? Joseph, Heber C Kimbal. ? And others who taught it and other doctrines now not practiced by church ? Were they all false prophets or something?
Or fallen prophets?
Or did they interpret their visions and revelations incorrectly?


I find it confusing on why the church likes to try to keep its history on the DL instead of explaining it in classes etc

And just for you, I think I will talk about Pres. Trump, just because you hate it so much and you express a self proclaimed right that you can tell others what is not acceptable. We are rapidly heading to a civil war in fulfilment of John Taylor's prophecy due, in large part, to the bigotry and racism fomented in this country, specially in the last 60 years. And that bigotry includes a mostly irrational bigotry towards the properly and duely elected Donald J. Trump, which bigotry you buying into just as the political left is.
As baptised and recommended members it is our duty to support and sustaine the legal and moral actions of legally elected officals


The reason The Church does not include certain doctrines in their teaching materials s the exact same reason Moses rewrote the first five books of the Bible and we don't have the further light and knowledge of the Book of Adam. Jehovah Christ, in mercy, withheld them from the majority so as not to condemn them in their unbelief.

[Kingdom of ZION]

The reason The Church does not include certain doctrines in their teaching materials s the exact same reason Moses rewrote the first five books of the Bible and we don't have the further light and knowledge of the Book of Adam. Jehovah Christ, in mercy, withheld them from the majority so as not to condemn them in their unbelief.

I do not believe that the first five books, the Torah was ever rewritten. It is almost letter perfect (off 5 letters in some versions), and was dictated by G_d, letter by letter. It is the only portion of Scriptures to ever have been done so. It has many hidden secrets within it, and Moses did not write it! It was not a translation of older writings like the Book of Mormon. I differ in opinion with Joseph Smith when he said the BoM was the most perfect book ever written (if that is what he actually said?), however, it does have the most sweetest spirit and greatest foundational understanding given of the Gospel of Salvation, that is found in canonized scriptures.

I will agree with you, in that we do not have Adam's writings, but then the book of Genesis is not purported to be Adam's writings.

Shalom

[freedomforall]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

Would I be amiss to say I fully believe we have offshoot fundamentalists coming on this forum pretending to be orthodox LDS, yet teaching doctrine not corroborated by official church doctrine?

Doug
JWharton
Sandman45
and now Hidingbehindmyhandle

I know I am forgetting other names, but their message and purpose have not been to bring unity among the saints. In fact, some have had differing views themselves. Not what I call becoming one with Christ, which is the whole purpose of Christ's message.

3 Nephi 19:23,29
23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

Doctrine and Covenants 35:2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

The next one talks about Trump? :-ss

Doctrine and Covenants 29:13
13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the barth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

Lol. I'm Full Tithe paying member with current temple recommend. And apparently I have the best calling in the church
Or so I'm told...(Librarian)

Appreciate the name calling.

I am just pointing out that it was taught and there are examples in the scriptures. But you seem to ignore it or completely disregard them. Or I guess your "interpretation" of them is way different than what Joseph or Brigham says on specific verses.

Since we know exactly where you stand with the doctrine
what are your thoughts on Brigham Young? Joseph, Heber C Kimbal. ? And others who taught it and other doctrines now not practiced by church ? Were they all false prophets or something?
Or fallen prophets?
Or did they interpret their visions and revelations incorrectly?


I find it confusing on why the church likes to try to keep its history on the DL instead of explaining it in classes etc

Reveal one sentence where I called you a name, let alone it being a name attacking your character, person or personality. I said I believe fundamentalists are on the forum. I also said there are those who teach Adam_God doctrine. I'm sorry if that offends you in some way.
I don't recall calling anyone names in an attacking manner. Telling someone they are not correct about some point is not attacking them, unless they have low self esteem and cannot take what they dish out. I have been called names as well by those with that very problem.

If you've got say 15,000,000+ members of the church believing in the teachings straight from scripture, as apposed to 1000 believing in the Adam-God doctrine...who is going to be believed most readily? It is apparent that for those pushing such a doctrine only base their church membership and beliefs on an anomaly from years ago, doctrine that is not canonized in any way, shape or form, has not been proven correct and not accepted by many church members in that day, yet adhered to as if it were yesterday's newspaper.

I, for one, stand with all the current brethren who have claimed that doctrine to be false, so don't single me out as a lone ranger on the idea that yesterday's newspaper has to be burned at some point. You and others believe you have it all figured out and decide to come onto this forum and see how many people you can get to join in on the old news articles. I've seen little respect for the views of any opposition, name calling by those that get opposed and some downright intellect bashing. So tell us why we should accept such doctrine after having gained strong testimonies of our own with the news we currently have, namely scriptures, scriptures that do not corroborate that doctrine. I and others have pointed this out time and again, yet our views go in one ear and out the other no less than our knowledge entering your ears. So let's call it an impasse and quit trying to shove each others doctrines down the throats of others.

If God and His Christ wanted us all to learn of, study and ponder such doctrine, it would be as plain as day withing canon. To say it is so secret and not everyone will accept it is nothing more than a work of fiction. As it is, and with what we have...not everyone in the church knows, believes or understands what canon teaches, I mean, look at all the bickering, contention, differences of doctrine, etc we have today...clearly against what Christ wants from his followers. He says, let Contention and disputations be put away. And members of the church go right on with the doctrine bashing and ignore the fact that God abhors this practice. Then some people come along and cause even more disputation and contention with this so called Adam-God doctrine. So now we have even more problems. Let's face the facts, shall we? If there is any truth to that doctrine, it will be revealed by God and in his way. And even if and when it is revealed to be true, there will be even more people apostatize. Why?

3 Nephi 27:33
33 And it came to pass that when Jesus had ended these sayings he said unto his disciples: Enter ye in at the strait gate; for strait is the gate, and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few there be that find it; but wide is the gate, and broad the way which leads to death, and many there be that travel therein, until the night cometh, wherein no man can work.

Mormon 9:8
8 Behold I say unto you, he that denieth these things knoweth not the gospel of Christ; yea, he has not read the scriptures; if so, he does not understand them.

[freedomforall]

Hidingbehindmyhandle, I am pretty sure you are Doug because there is no way another person on earth can believe that and somehow make their way to this same thread.

Would I be amiss to say I fully believe we have offshoot fundamentalists coming on this forum pretending to be orthodox LDS, yet teaching doctrine not corroborated by official church doctrine?

Doug
JWharton
Sandman45
and now Hidingbehindmyhandle

I know I am forgetting other names, but their message and purpose have not been to bring unity among the saints. In fact, some have had differing views themselves. Not what I call becoming one with Christ, which is the whole purpose of Christ's message.

3 Nephi 19:23,29
23 And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one.

Doctrine and Covenants 35:2
2 I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.

The next one talks about Trump? :-ss

Doctrine and Covenants 29:13
13 For a trump shall sound both long and loud, even as upon Mount Sinai, and all the barth shall quake, and they shall come forth—yea, even the dead which died in me, to receive a crown of righteousness, and to be clothed upon, even as I am, to be with me, that we may be one.

Lol. I'm Full Tithe paying member with current temple recommend. And apparently I have the best calling in the church
Or so I'm told...(Librarian)

Appreciate the name calling.

I am just pointing out that it was taught and there are examples in the scriptures. But you seem to ignore it or completely disregard them. Or I guess your "interpretation" of them is way different than what Joseph or Brigham says on specific verses.

Since we know exactly where you stand with the doctrine
what are your thoughts on Brigham Young? Joseph, Heber C Kimbal. ? And others who taught it and other doctrines now not practiced by church ? Were they all false prophets or something?
Or fallen prophets?
Or did they interpret their visions and revelations incorrectly?


I find it confusing on why the church likes to try to keep its history on the DL instead of explaining it in classes etc

And just for you, I think I will talk about Pres. Trump, just because you hate it so much and you express a self proclaimed right that you can tell others what is not acceptable. We are rapidly heading to a civil war in fulfilment of John Taylor's prophecy due, in large part, to the bigotry and racism fomented in this country, specially in the last 60 years. And that bigotry includes a mostly irrational bigotry towards the properly and duely elected Donald J. Trump, which bigotry you buying into just as the political left is.
As baptised and recommended members it is our duty to support and sustaine the legal and moral actions of legally elected officals


The reason The Church does not include certain doctrines in their teaching materials s the exact same reason Moses rewrote the first five books of the Bible and we don't have the further light and knowledge of the Book of Adam. Jehovah Christ, in mercy, withheld them from the majority so as not to condemn them in their unbelief.

And what are your sources?

[freedomforall]

The reason The Church does not include certain doctrines in their teaching materials s the exact same reason Moses rewrote the first five books of the Bible and we don't have the further light and knowledge of the Book of Adam. Jehovah Christ, in mercy, withheld them from the majority so as not to condemn them in their unbelief.

I do not believe that the first five books, the Torah was ever rewritten. It is almost letter perfect (off 5 letters in some versions), and was dictated by G_d, letter by letter. It is the only portion of Scriptures to ever have been done so. It has many hidden secrets within it, and Moses did not write it! It was not a translation of older writings like the Book of Mormon. I differ in opinion with Joseph Smith when he said the BoM was the most perfect book ever written (if that is what he actually said?), however, it does have the most sweetest spirit and greatest foundational understanding given of the Gospel of Salvation, that is found in canonized scriptures.

I will agree with you, in that we do not have Adam's writings, but then the book of Genesis is not purported to be Adam's writings.

Shalom

And what are your sources?