askandanswer

I’m in the process of marking 148, 1,500 word first year “reflective essays” in which students were asked to watch, reflect, and respond to this video by Dr Wray. In this video Dr Wray raises the question about the morality of having children during a time of climate change. I didn’t keep exact track of the figures but my feel is that probably a little over 2/3rds rejected the idea that climate change should be a significant consideration to take into account when deciding whether or not to have children. Again, I haven’t looked at the results too carefully, but my impression is that by far the largest percentage of this 2/3rds would have been from non-western, third world, mostly Asian countries. Most of those who seemed persuaded by the idea that this was not a good time to have children were white western females.

Thanks for posting this @mikbone I was unaware of this guy. After reading your post I watched two of his episodes.

What I'm suggesting is the teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40 If I had wanted to suggest something along the lines of what you have written I would have written something like "As the prophet of the church, Brigham Young may have taught things that might have sounded like falsehoods to some people and that there is some reason to suggest that he may have taught these things for a prolonged period and in various places." "

The teaching of additional light and truth to those who have already demonstrated an ability to discern truth from error does not generally cause the sort of reactions that you claim were caused by teaching the Adam-God theory. So that raises a question in my mind as to whether what was taught was indeed light and truth. It doesn't seem to be quite consistent with Doctrine and Covenants 88:40 For aintelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; bwisdom receiveth wisdom; ctruth embraceth truth; dvirtue loveth virtue; elight cleaveth unto light; fmercy hath gcompassion on mercy and claimeth her own; hjustice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

I like to think that I'm too well-mannered to laugh at the views and opinions of others, but sometimes the temptation arises. To think that God would allow His prophet to teach false doctrine about His character and nature for 25 years, especially after he and His Son appeared in person to Joseph Smith - well that's an example of when I'm tempted. To quote again from a previously quoted from talk: Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray. President Wilford Woodruff stated: “I say to Israel, The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, selected by G. Homer Durham [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1946], pp. 212-213.) If Brigham Young did indeed teach the Adam-God theory - and I have never looked into the matter myself, and nor do I intend to because it is so unimportant - and God allowed him to continue teaching this, I would be inclined to accept that there must be some truth to it. However, I say this from the position of one who has never looked at the idea or its associated teachings.

From the ABC, Australia' government funded national broadcaster a few days ago: https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-04-13/how-fast-can-a-womat-actually-run-faster-than-usain-bolt/103648118 How fast does a wombat really run? An investigation into the 40 kph phenomenon

I came to the same conclusion as @Vort and @NeuroTypical. And that led me to ponder how it can be said that as part of the atonement, Christ endured all and more that any mortal can, will, or has ever been called on to endure because all unbaptised mortals, and probably, occasionally, some baptised mortals, live without the influence or presence of any member of the Godhead in their lives. I’ve no doubt that Christ did descend below all, but I can’t see how He might have gone through the experience that is the ordinary condition of most mortals in not having a member of the Godhead present in their lives. My lack of understanding of this experience in no way reduces the reality of it, it just raises, what is for the moment, a question to think about.

I think we can agree on two things; 1) that the Adam-God theory was once taught in the church and 2) now it is not being taught in the church. I'm not sure, from those two facts, whether we can reliably come to the conclusion that it was a) taken away from the church and b) the reason for that presumed taking away was because of the wickedness of the church.

Was there ever a time in the life of Christ when at least one member of the Godhead was not present?

Clearly there still exists enough light and truth about this doctrine for you to have studied it extensively. That makes it hard for me to see how this knowledge has been taken away.

1. Because methods of publication and distribution were not as fast or as widespread as they are now. Compare with how long it took to publish and disseminate the Book of Mormon to England and Canada with how long it takes to do the same with a publication today. 2. Because there were fewer organisations and individuals that were inclined to make the kinds of attacks we are now seeing. Levels of hate, and the organisations of the haters seem to be higher and better organised now than previously. 3. Those who were inclined to make such attacks were focussed on bigger targets rather than a new and obscure group that only had a significant presence in a few US states. I've noticed some changes in the world since I've been in it, and no doubt there were some changes between 1830 and my arrival. Changed circumstances sometimes require a response and sometimes that response involves doing things differently.

To publish the revelations in a publicly available book is to make them available to the world and we know who is the god of this world. I can see some advantages in not signaling your moves to the opposition. I'm not saying this is the reason why the revelations are no longer made publicly available in the way that they used to be, but this possibility does have some plausibility

Perhaps it might be more correct to say that his head was re-placed - from his shoulders to the ground.

This is something that interests me as well. I've always wondered what it would be like to make an error. Sometimes I think about deliberately making an error just to see what it would feel like, but when I actually try to, I just don't know how to do it. (Well, not always )

Yes, this is true. But this doesn't explain why there hasn't been a single revelation quoting the words of God directly that has been added to our scriptures since 1847. The question is why this is? Because it is not necessary.