1. My general conclusion from years of thought, study and discussion on this topic is that there is very little Official
Mormon Doctrine and even less mandatory doctrine and little that could be classified as forbidden doctrine.
2. The Adam God theory presents a good case study on this topic. There are those who insist that it is a mandatory doctrine
- that a person cannot be a faithful Latter-day Saint without believing it - and others that a faithful Latter-day Saint would
not believe it, e.g. Bruce R. McConkie.
3. Brigham Young in a number of statements denies that it is mandatory doctrine, official Church doctrine or even recommended
belief.
4. In a letter Joseph F. Smith and Pres. Wilford Woodruff declare that it is not binding upon the Church, that it was Brigham
Young's personal opinion and did not go through the process to become an official doctrine.
5. In another letter President Joseph F. Smith stated that the Adam God doctrine is neither mandatory nor forbidden.
6. In testimony before a Senate committee in 1904 President Joseph F. Smith proclaimed the great freedom of belief among
the Saints, explaining that a member could remain in good standing without believing an official Mormon doctrine found in
a canonized revelation. He was referring to polygamy. So, even an official canonized doctrine, the subject of a modern revelation
is not necessarily a mandatory doctrine - that is, not required to become a member or to continue as a member in good standing.
7. In 1833 there was a controversy in the Church over the destiny of the devil, his angels and the sons of perdition. The
First Presidency responded in a letter denouncing teachings on this and sanctioning the decision of the Bishop and his council
in relation to this doctrine affecting a members standing in the Church.
I read a number of sources on these several points.
Callers:
1. The self proclaimed prophet, Art Bulla called. That a revelation is not presented to the Church does not make it non
binding. He makes this assertion against a mountain of evidence to the contrary. He charged that the Church is corrupt and
that I am corrupt. A member should be excommunicated for believing or teaching evolution. He further charged that I am crucifying
Christ again and putting him to an open shame for talking about the differences of belief held by different Church leaders.
He claimed that Christ is revealing this to him about me. However he goes far beyond my observations. I believe the foundation
laid by Joseph Smith clearly establishes that differences will and should exist. That Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt,
Bruce R. McConkie and others differ on some points is undeniable, but I consider this to be consistent with our foundational
priniciples of seeking, searching, uncertainty, the unfolding of mysteries, personal belief all being part of progression
as individuals and as a Church. Art, on the other hand, argues that prophets cannot hold divergent views and he points to
differences between some of Brigham Young's views which later leaders have ignored or with which they have disagreed, or advanced
beyond, and claims the Church has fallen into apostasy and for the past 28 years only he and several followers are true believers.
In total contradiction to Pres. Brigham Young, Pres. Wilford Woodruff and Pres. Joseph F. Smith, whose statements I read,
Art contends that the Church is in apostasy for not teaching those views of Brigham Young on Adam God which go beyond the
scriptures and the teachings of Joseph Smith.
2. Did Brigham Young teach views which would be considered orthodox by Joseph Smith's views and by modern LDS belief? My
answer was, Yes. He asked, Why did not Brigham Young attempt to reconcile his two different teachings on Adam? I responded
to this question with my speculations derived from my study and observation, also considering several points on diversity,
which leads to contention.
3. If we need prophets to bring clarity, why are there not strict doctrines in the LDS Church? Why is such diversity allowed?
Some discussion followed. Could one totally reject the prophets, accept only Jesus and be a member in good standing? The LDS
position is that the Jesus of the Bible is not enough. I responded with reference to Luke 10:16 and John 13:20 in which Jesus
declared that to reject those whom he sends is to reject him and also to reject his Father. This is the teaching of the Jesus
of the New Testament. All that is required for LDS is to accept the Jesus of the New Testament, but this includes his teaching
that we must accept those whom he sends - Joseph Smith, et. al. We ran out of time.
Email:
Van:
In 1873 President Young was quoted by the Church's Deseret News as saying that God Himself revealed this doctrine to him:
"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to
them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our Father and God--..." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)
Your comments!
I responded, giving some quotes and several references to the effect that Brigham Young made no claim to a specific revelation
on Adam God. In his stated view of truth, all truth is the result of revelation from God to someone. All truth in the world
in every field and every category came at sometime and in some manner to someone from God. Therefore, anything Brigham Young
believed was true, from his view, traces its origin to revelation from God.
