[QUOTE=JCOverseas;214621]
I don't post on these boards much, but I do feel the need to interject my two cents before this degenerates into a simple witch hunt--and I think that we are all capable of better than that. ...
       This practice of taking a McCarthy-style approach ("...are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?") with someone, just because they are well-versed in Church canon and writings but hold views that are not in accord with *current* doctrine, has been a disappointing one to watch.
[/QUOTE]



GAIA:

Yes, it certainly can be.

But i'd like to add that it's a somewhat recent development -- or rather, a recent worsening of a tendency that has often existed in groups -- especially religious groups -- including, i might add -- conservative Christianity.

And while Joseph Smith (founder and first president of the LDS Church) did have his own "brush" with a case of "McCarthy-itis"  (he was responsible for having "the Nauvoo Expositor" - a newspapaper that printed negative things about him -- destroyed) --

His VALUES were quite different; for example, he said this about a man who was criticized for teaching "false doctrine":

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodists, and not like the Latter-day Saints.    Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled.   It does not prove that a man is not a good man   because he errs in doctrine ."
(Contributor, Vol 4: Oct 1882-Sep 1883 p 172-173)

Thus, even if BackOnTrack's unnamed "they" in this thread did happen to "err" - and those who have disagreed with BackonTrack and others towing the "party line" have certainly provided SCRIPTURAL AND HISTORICAL EIVDENCE to support their views - -while BackonTrack and others have NOT --

Joseph Smith would NOT necessarily have faulted / labelled them -- as BackonTrack and others have- as being "puffed up", "self -serving", "jealous", etc.

And BoT -- if you DON"T think such qualities are "evil" or "nasty", i must question your judgement; i certainly think it's "evil" to deliberately LIE about  or misrepresent the truth -- don't you????    Hmm --  Perhaps that's why you don't seem to mind misrepresenting me.....


Another person deliberately labelled and persecuted by the Church for telling the TRUTH -- award-winning Historian D MIchael Quinn -- said this of  such LDS McCarthyism:

"Among a certain kind of Mormon, there is a tendency to believe that everything that is said or written about the Church must be glowingly positive and flattering, or else it's labelled 'anti-Mormon.'....
It is an odd situation when present General Authorities criticize historians for re-printing what previous General Authorities regarded not only as faith-promoting but as appropriate for Mormon youth and new converts.

...A more serious problem of Mormon history is involved in the implications of Boyd K. Packer's [and others, right here onB'Net!]  demand that historians demonstrate that "the hand of the Lord has been in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning to now." Every Mormon historian agrees with Ezra Taft Benson that "we must never forget that ours is a prophetic history," but there are serious problems in the assertion or implication that this prophetic history of Mormonism requires the "hand of the Lord" in *every* decision, statement and
action of the prophets"

[Editor's comment: If this was so we would have no changes in the principles and doctrines of the Gospel ......]

"...Central to the apparent demands of Elders Benson and Packer is the view that the official acts and pronouncements of the prophets are always the express will of God. This is the Mormon equivalent of the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility...

Elder Packer is not advocating Paul's dictum of milk before meat, but he demands that Mormon
historians provide *only*  a Church history diet of milk to Latter-day Saints of whatever experience... a diet of milk alone will stunt the growth of, if not kill, any child. 

... Why does the well-established and generally respected Mormon Church today need a  protective, defensive, paranoid approach to its history   that the *actually*  embattled earlier Saints did NOT employ? 

Ezra Taft Benson and Boyd K. Packer  [and BoT and others here]  want Church history to be as elementary as possible and as defensive   as possible.    This is Accommodation History for consumption by the weakest of the conceivably weak Saints, for the vilest of the conceivably vile anti-Mormons, and for the most impressionable of the world's sycophants...

The   Accommodation History advocated by Elders Benson and Packer and actually practised by some LDS writers is intended to protect the Saints, but actually disillusions them and makes them vulnerable ...

The tragic reality is that there have been occasions when Church leaders, teachers, and writers have not told the truth they knew about difficulties of the Mormon past, but have offered to the Saints instead  a mixture of platitudes, half-truths, omissions, and plausible denials...   

A so called "faith promoting" Church history which conceals controversies and difficulties of the Mormon past actually undermines the faith of the Latter-day Saints who eventually learn about the problem from other sources... "    

(D. Michael Quinn. Talk before the Mormon Historical Association. Brigham Young University. 4th November 1981)




This principle of thinking and speaking freely is CENTRAL and KEY to LDS doctrine, and is the FOUNDATION for the principle of Free Agency that the Chruch teaches is absolutely essential to mortal life and the Gospel:  and has often been defended -- even by such political "opposites"  as Apostle Hugh B Brown and Apostle Ezra T Benson:


Apostle Hugh B Brown:
"I should like to enter a plea for friendship, understanding, brotherhood and tolerance, all so badly needed in our confused and troubled world. In one of our Articles of Faith we claim for ourselves and freely accord to all men   the untrammeled right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience ." 

Improvement Era, 1908:
"But [the LDS Church] declares the inalienable rights of freedom of conscience and upholds the untrammeled agency of the individual in all matters of belief. In so far as the practice of anyone's faith and belief interferes with no other's freedom, "Mormonism" demands and defends individual liberty ." 


Then-Apostle Ezra T Benson, "Preaching the Princple of Freedom:"
" To Elder Benson, the battle for individual agency was all-important—and that which threatened freedom caught his wrath. He believed that the fight to preserve the God-given principle of agency and freedom was a matter of principle, not politics. Agency was central to the gospel. Should the children of God have untrammeled agency, or should they be coerced into following a predetermined path?  This question had precipitated the war in heaven, and it was still causing conflict throughout the world.

"The central issue in that council, then, was: Shall the children of God have untrammeled agency to choose the course they should follow, whether good or evil, or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient?  . . . The war that began in heaven is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality." 


So beleive me, JCOverseas --

While some here may seem to champion the notion of "Free Agency and How to Enforce It" --
The TRUTH is that such "McCarthy-ism"  is NOT AT ALL NOR IN THE LEAST consistent with the Gospel or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints  -- no matter how hard some may try to represent differently.


Blessings --
~Gaia

GAIA:


There are seveal principles you need to understand, in order to put "Adam-God" in proper perspective.


1. The term "Elohim" is actually a plural which means literally "Gods" and it's frequently used that way in LDS theology; so it is a term which, precisely speaking, refers NOT to an individual, but to an OFFICE or to a plurality. It is also occasionally used in general LDS discussion to refer to God the Father.

I agree that the term "Elohim" is plural and could refer to multiple Gods or a group acting as one or in unison.



2. The Elohim (plural) go back and back, into etermities -- Heavenly Father and mOther have a Heavenly Fatehr and Mother, who have a Heavenly Father and mOther, .....etc, etc. --

I agree

As the Hymn "If you Could Hie to Kolob" says truly:

If you could hie to Kolob, In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward, With that same speed to fly,
D'ye think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be ?"
("If You Could Hie to Kolob" - - LDS Hymnal # 257)

In answer to the question in the hymn, I think you could find it out and that the Gods who are there know the answer and are capable of telling us.. Your point of there being more than one exhalted being has agreement with me.


So according to LDS doctrine, there are an innumerable number of "Grandfather Gods" and "Grandmother Goddesses" who could possibly "stand in" for each other, under various circumstances.

But do they stand in for each other? Are there any recorded revelations that verify this?


2. The terms "Elohim" "Michael-Adam", "Jehovah", and "Christ" are all PRIESTHOOD OFFICES , *not* proper names of people.

How do you know this?

This is important to keep straight because in LDS practice, one single person may hold many different Priesthood offices; or an office may be filled by different people at different times.

How do we know that Michael and Jehovah, in particular are offices?


So according to the Adam-God doctrine, the being we refer to as Heavenly Father participated in the Creation and in the early establishment of this earth, in MORE THAN ONE WAY/ context, and in more than one office --

It's a bit like saying,

"Brother Smith participated in General Conference in three different contexts:

1) as an individual (giving the opening prayer or sustaining the authorities),

2) as an Apostle, (giving an address),

and finally

3) as a father, (bringing his family and taking the baby out to be changed when necessary).


However, "father", "Apostle" and "Brother Smith" are all very *different* things, with different roles, responsibilities, obligations, authorities, power, etc.

It would be as wrong to say that "Father" is an apostle, as it would be to say that "father runs the church", or "apostle" changes diapers as part of his official responsibilities.

Thus, it is NOT (doctrinally) correct to say that "Adam is God," or that "LDS worship Adam" --

So Brigham and other GA's could very truthfully deny that "Adam is God" (as they did) withOUT negating the principles of the so-called "Adam-God" doctrine.

The Being who held the OFFICE of Adam, could hold the OFFICE of Elohim as well, or at different times and under various circumstances; or could even switch back and forth -- as many LDS men in small wards or branches do -- when they fuction in different Church positions, each with different roles, responsibilites, authorities, boundaries and limitations.


There are several more principles that help to explain A-G and put it into context; these are just a few; but i hope they help.

In lay terms, tell us how you feel the system works. From what I am hearing, I understand that you believe that the being who was married to Eve and was the first man on this earth whom we have called Adam, was an exhalted, resurrected being who worked out his salvation on another planet the same as we or Christ has done on this planet. That in his exalted state, he fathered spirit children. That he came to this earth and upon partaking of the forbidden fruit, fell from his exalted state and by doing so he was able to procreate with Eve the mortal bodies of his spirit children that he bore to Eve in his previous exalted state. When he became old around 930 years, he changed back from his mortal state to his exalted state again. Is this correct? Was he a Christ on his planet previously? Was this being kown as Adam translated or resurrected? Did he die? What exactly is the nature of his leaving this world and what do we call it? What was his role after his supposed death? I also understand that you are saying that his Father in heaven who gave birth to his spirit stood in as God when Adam was still in the garden in his innocence as a celetstial being. Please tell me if this is correct and what parts are not correct and what corrections need to be made. Also tell me how and who gave birth to Jesus Christ on this earth as well as in the heavens. Was this Jesus' first mortal probation? Was he previously exalted? Was the first mortal man on this earth, that we know as Adam, the Father of Jesus' body on this earth? Without quoting Brigham Young or others, I just want an explanation of how you understand the A-G to work.


Blessings --
~Gaia

Gaia, I would have to quit my job and family to keep up with the volume of your posts!!!
And yet, you haven't answered if you are a member of Sunstone or a similar group or associate with them which is a relevant question on topic.

Ironhold wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that this is a conversation even I haven't gotten involved in beyond a general informational post?

That should tell people something.

Iron, what would the message be, that you would like to give people?

[QUOTE=BackonTrack;218515]Gaia, I would have to quit my job and family to keep up with the volume of your posts!!!

GAIA:

That's because i provide quotes and references to BACK UP my points, BoT.  I highly recommend that policy, btw *smile*.

BoT:
And yet, you haven't answered if you are a member of Sunstone or a similar group or associate with them which is a relevant question on topic.
[/QUOTE]



GAIA:

I thought JCOverseas already told you (in Message 34):

a)   that my actions were "hardly the actions of someone who is trolling for recruits"

and

b)  This practice of taking a McCarthy-style approach ("...are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?") " --

Is inappropriate   here. 


But to prove a point -- NO, i am not, nor have i ever been. 


Now that we've shot down your theories, and proven the weakness of such tactics, i hope we will *not* find them used again.

As Joseph Smith and many other LDS leaders have taught (and i quoted previously)  -- we ALL have the right to follow our consciences, wherever they may lead -- whether that includes Sunstone or anywhere else -- and LDS should be the LAST ones to find fault with anyone who does.


~Gaia