Posted on Leave a comment

Why Adam-God is Controversial (Part 8 of 8)

The Adam-God doctrine is one of the most controversial doctrines in Mormonism.  Has it always been that way?  Christ’s Church apostle David Patrick and Seventy Benjamin Shaffer will talk about why it is popular, and which LDS leaders have embraced and opposed it.

Benjamin: If somebody’s struggling with this, we don’t say, “Oh, no, you have to accept this.” If you’re not getting it, that’s okay. But I believe that as your faith progresses, as Franklin D, Richard said, you’ll find a place eventually, where you kind of have to realize, am I really a child of God or not? Then it starts making more and more sense and eventually it’ll come into its place and you’ll get it. But in the meantime, don’t worry about it. Don’t let it trouble you too much. One of the last things I do want to say about Adam-God, is that I believe that–and the purpose of my presentation yesterday was really about Joseph Smith being the origin of Adam-God teachings. The more you don’t like it, the more….

GT:  Because a lot of people attribute it to Brigham Young, is that right?

Benjamin:  That is right. So the more you don’t like this doctrine, the more you want to compartmentalize it, make it as fringe and as small as possible because you want to keep the rest of the stuff.  You want to keep singing “I Am a Child of God” in primary, but you just but you don’t want…

GT:  So all the bad things go with Brigham.

Benjamin:  All the bad things go with Brigham and we say, “Brigham, there was some bad stuff here. You take the bad stuff, we’re keeping the rest.” Whereas I view this as an expansive doctrine, which I think I can teach out of the New Testament very effectively, even without Joseph Smith. But Joseph Smith, as the origin of the Adam-God teachings can really challenge people, because they want to say this was just Brigham Young. So the last thing I kind of want to say is that I believe that it’s very clear from the historical and the doctrinal record, that Joseph Smith was the origin of these Adam-God teachings.

Benjamin:  We don’t deny that polygamy is part of this great big, beautiful, diverse mess we call Mormonism. We, to a certain extent have to take ownership of that and understand it, we believe, and so it is part of our doctrine.

David:  Yeah, and we recognize, however, that people, when they start to research things, and they say, “Well, wait a minute, why isn’t my church teaching me this? Apparently, it was once taught, and now they’re not teaching it?  That leads to other doctrines that have been put aside. But we say, we’re taking those off the shelf and here they are for you. We realize that that can be a conflict and why they would then say, “Well, this gateway doctrine of the Adam-God Doctrine, we’d better shut that down.”

GT:  I’m going to call Adam-God the Marijuana of fundamentalism.

David:  Cannabis. We prefer cannabis.  {Chuckling}

What are your thoughts on the Adam-God doctrine?  Remember to hear the conclusion, you need to sign up for our free newsletter and I will send you a secret link.  Go to https://GospelTangents.com/newsletter to sign up today!

David Patrick & Benjamin Shaffer tell why the Adam-God doctrine has always been controversial.

 

387: “Families are Forever” a Hurtful Doctrine?

386: Why Polygamists are Threatening to LDS Church

385: God in a Box or Pyramid?

384: Documentary Hypothesis & Adam-God

383: Intro to Adam-God Theory

382: Scriptures of Christ’s Church

381: Intro to Christ’s Church

Posted on Leave a comment

“Forever Families” a Hurtful Doctrine?

Many LDS members find comfort in the idea that Families can be together forever.  But does it have a darker side?  What happens when a family member leaves the Church?  In our next conversation with Christ’s Church apostle David Patrick and Seventy Benjamin Shaffer, we’ll find out that both were former members of the LDS Church.  Have they been cut off from their families?

Benjamin:  Right. So we believe that families are forever. But I view this statement that families can be together forever as essentially one of the most vile and apostate teachings that has ever been perpetrated upon the Latter-day Saints.

GT:  You just offended all of my LDS listeners. {chuckling}

Benjamin:  I’m so sorry. Let me explain the difference…So families are forever is what I believe. The Doctrine and Covenants makes it clear that the same sociality which exists amongst us here will exist amongst us hereafter, which basically means that if you’re viewing the sealing ceremonies, if you’re viewing these concepts of the eternity of families as an eternity of association, then I think we’ve got a really big problem. Because essentially, what they’re then saying is, is that if you don’t follow our rules, if you don’t make it to the temple, then you’re not promised an eternity of association with your loved ones. That would mean, you’d have to have some kind of enforcement method where people can’t be with their families anymore. This is kind of what I would call the geographic view of the Three Degrees Of Glory, like they’re separated so fundamentally by geography, that people in one Kingdom can’t visit the people in another. If that’s the view that you take, then God’s a monster by that kind of reasoning. Essentially, what you’re saying is, is that the single mother who didn’t pay her tithing and didn’t get sealed to her child, or the single mother, therefore, who isn’t sealed to the Father, and therefore, dies without having those opportunities–you’re saying that you’re going to tear these children from their mother’s arms. This is worse than the slave auction block. We’re not just talking about separation for life. There’s a separation for eternity. It’s just absolutely heinous.

David:  Benjamin, do you think the most Latter-day Saints are not going to be as maybe literal about the word can be together forever, and you may be a little bit more literal than they are?

Benjamin:  Perhaps, but I think that the thing is, is that when you have your whole family, everybody’s in good standing with the church. It’s true. You don’t really think about it that way. But the moment anybody leaves the church, the moment someone apostasizes, people do start to panic. I’ve seen it over and over again.

David:  Yeah.

Benjamin:  If somebody starts leaving the church, they say, “Well, but does that mean I won’t be with you in eternity?” It’s like one of the first things that a lot of LDS people immediately go to when somebody, even if somebody just drinks a beer or something, is “Oh my goodness, you’re putting our eternal family at jeopardy”. That’s why I think it’s a really invidious doctrine. It’s not that your average LDS family when everyone’s in good standing is even thinking about it. They’re all just feeling happy. They’re going to be together forever. It’s all good. But yeah, when someone leaves, I think it is fairly universal for people immediately to go to that more terrifying understanding of,  “Wait, does this mean then that we are separated?” I think that’s why it’s dangerous.

Have you thought of it that way before?  Are forever families a two-edged sword that both provides comfort and pain?  David & Benjamin talk about the impact on their families.  Check out our conversation….

“Forever Families” is a comfort for the LDS, until a family members leaves. Then it is hurtful.

Don’t miss our previous conversations!

386: Why Polygamists are Threatening to LDS Church

385: God in a Box or Pyramid?

384: Documentary Hypothesis & Adam-God

383: Intro to Adam-God Theory

382: Scriptures of Christ’s Church

381: Intro to Christ’s Church

Posted on 1 Comment

Why Polygamists are a Threat to LDS Church (Part 6 of 8)

The LDS Church still has an Exclusion Policy when dealing with converts from polygamist groups.  Why does the LDS Church seem so threatened by polygamists?  Apostle David Patrick and Seventy Benjamin Shaffer explain why they think polygamists are so threatening to the LDS leadership.

GT:  So the [LDS] Church has a huge concern with [polygamists joining the Church] and so they’ve implemented this [Exclusion] policy. Then when the gay policy came, they [justified the policy by saying,] “Well we’ve been doing this with polygamists for years. What’s the problem?” I don’t like this policy. I don’t like it against polygamists either, but I do understand the concern because it does seem like, especially here in Utah, they don’t want you guys infiltrating our church and then taking people away. But I think it also happens that we take away some of your church members that don’t like polygamy.  To me it goes both ways. But, we’re more concerned about our people leaving than your people joining.

GT:  I don’t know how true this is, and I know that you don’t speak for all fundamentalists, either. But we’ve heard that that, I want to say it’s the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB), but I might be wrong on that, they will say, “Well, go get your LDS temple endowment and then come join us.” Are you familiar with that reasoning?

Benjamin:  Yes. Well, more than 40 years ago, that was kind of the essential viewpoint of almost all Mormon fundamentalists.  There was about a 50 year stretch from John and Lauren Woolley in the early 1900s, through Rulon Allred, where we also kind of believed that was the program. As David explained, there were keys outside the church and they were keys inside the church. We believe, in Christ’s Church, we’ve now rejoined all those keys into one organization. But during that time period, that 50 years, there was the idea that if you wanted to receive certain blessings and certain ordinances, or complete those things, you had to go to the fundamentalists, but you started in the [LDS] Church, first. So, for example, Rulon Allred did not build a temple.  He didn’t believe it was necessary, because the mainstream LDS temples were still viewed as authoritative sources to receive that ordinance.

David:  Rulon Allred was the leader of the Apostolic United Brethren.

GT:  Yeah.

Benjamin:  Joseph Musser and Rulon Allred, which were the founders of the AUB, they said exactly that.  They told their people, “Oh, well, you should definitely, of course, come to us, but don’t join the AUB and do these higher things until you’ve done the earlier things.  You’d be skipping a step.” So, they really only accepted members–they weren’t a whole church, right? They were an appendage to the church.

GT:  They were funneling people to the LDS Church and then saying, “Okay, get this all done, and then we’ll give you the graduate degree.”

Benjamin:  So excluding children, that was exactly the church’s response to the AUB policy of saying, “Oh, we’re an auxiliary to the church, essentially. So you want all of your children to be members of the mainstream LDS Church, and then you want them to go on missions and you want them to go to the temple, get married in the temple, and all that sort of thing, and then become part of our priesthood group to complete their gospel training.”  But they view themselves, like I said, only as that auxiliary or just as a capstone to everything the church was already doing. So their view was that the church was meant to be a pipeline that led [to them.]

David:  In all fairness, that may not be their view today.

Do you agree with this exclusion policy for children of polygamists?  Don’t miss our conversation as Benjamin explains why the primary song “I Am a Child of God” teaches the Adam-God theory! Check out our conversation….

Benjamin Shaffer & David Patrick explain why there is still an Exclusion policy for fundamentalist converts to LDS Church.

Don’t miss our other conversations with David and Benjamin….

385: God in a Box or Pyramid?

384: Documentary Hypothesis & Adam-God

383: Intro to Adam-God Theory

382: Scriptures of Christ’s Church

381: Intro to Christ’s Church