Conference tecrus::mormonism

================================================================================
Note 55.20                     The Adam-god Theory                      20 of 36
CIMNET::REEVES                                       29 lines   5-JAN-1989 16:59
                     -< Brigham Young DID Teach Adam-god >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re: .2,.14,.16
    One serious ommission exists in all of this discussion about the
    Adam-god-theory and that is related to the historical and doctrinal
    context of the times. LDS doctrine has unfolded over an extended
    period of time. Joseph Smith's early beliefs and teachings about
    the Godhead [ as reflected in the Lectures on Faith] were quite
    different than his later beliefs and teachings. And Brigham Young's
    beliefs about Adam during the period of time that the famous sermon
    was delivered were quite different than present formal church doctrine.
    Perhaps the best discussion of the Adam-God Doctrine in existence
    is a doctoral dissertation done in the late 1960s by Rodney Turner,
    a member of the religion faculty at BYU. Bro Turner's conclusions
    were simply that BY taught a doctrine that was very popular for
    a few brief years, but which was discarded as not correct [for a while
     the doctrine was even denied to have ever been taught at all] .
    As you know, today the Church does not accept nor teach the Adam-god Theory.
        Brigham Young and Orson Pratt were constantly bickering,in print
    no less, about doctrines of the Church and their clashes make for
    interesting reading. As it turns out church doctrine as it has
    developed,is closer to Orson Pratt than to Brigham Young.
    My experience over the years, is that frequently people have had
    a difficult time realizing that the doctrines of the church have
    been of an "unfolding" nature, commencing in one form and as time
    passed,developing into more sophisticated and articulate forms.
    Numerous examples includes such things as Joseph Smith on the Godhead
    cited above, the very name of the Church, even the basic organization
    structure of the Church, et al. This "unfolding" or developmental
    nature of church doctrine is completely consistant with the concept
    of continuous revelation. 

================================================================================
Note 55.21                     The Adam-god Theory                      21 of 36
CIMNET::REEVES                                       19 lines   5-JAN-1989 17:21
                             -< "more-more-more" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Me again--I got interrrupted.
    Mainstream Christians are critical of Latter-day Saints because
    changes in our doctrines, practices and approaches over the years
    seem to contradict our claim to continuous revelation. Yet in reality
    that claim to continuous revelation both accepts the need for change
    and acknowledges that truth and knowledge develop, rather than being
    dumped in completed form in our laps.
    Of course, most of what is thought of as mainstram Christianity
    today, actually developed over many hundreds of years and didn't
    begin to jell until at least the 10-13th centuries. As such, people
    often have difficulty with a church which claims truth, and yet
    which shows a decided developmental nature. The fact that Adam-god
    gives so many people trouble, both members and non-members alike,
    shows that our maturity around how truth unfolds, or develops or
    evolves [ or all of the above] has not kept pace with our information.
    Revelation is a participatory experience [ not simply one where we
    prove worthiness and God drops us a revelation] which requires that
    we draw upon experience, existing knowledge, and respond in context
    of the times in which we live.

================================================================================
Note 55.23                     The Adam-god Theory                      23 of 36
CIMNET::REEVES                                       58 lines  10-JAN-1989 16:38
                       -< "WHAT, Us Deny--Or Me Worry?" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re.22
    In 1953, as a almost new member of the Church, I wrote President
    David O. McKay about the Adam-God Doctrine (After all, why not go
    to the top when seeking information) and I received a reply from
    Joseph Anderson who, at that time, was functioning as a secretary
    to the First Presidency. Bro. Anderson said that Brigham Young had
    never taught Adam-God so the denial phase was still operational.
    I surmise that it had to end when Rodney Turner's dissertation came
    out. I didn't end with any kind of "announcement" or "decision",
    it just sorta pooped out.
    Yes, Brigham Young was a Prophet of God, but being a prophet, even
    being THE prophet doesn't mean you're always correct--you still
    have the same kinds of constraints the rest of us have when it
    comes to the operation of mouth, mind and spirit. There is an old
    Marion G Romney Story which we've all been told which goes something
    like this: he was advised by President Heber J. Grant to keep his
    eye on the prophet because the Lord would never let the prophet
    lead the people astray. . .
    I believe that story occurred, and I believe its correct: the Lord
    will not let the prophet lead the people astray, but I believe it
    for very different reasons that are frequently given. The story
    is used almost exclusively to suggest that the prophet is always
    right. Both our history and doctrine show that Church Presidents
    have often made serious mistakes. I THINK THE VALUE OF THE STORY
    IS THAT WHEN OR IF A PROPHET SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF LINE,
    THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH JUST WON'T RESPOND--THERE WON'T BE
    THE SURGE OF SUPPORT NECESSARY FOR THE IDEA OR CONCEPT OR WHAETEVER
    TO SUSTAIN ITSELF. For example, when Alf Landen ran for the U.S.
    Presidency the Church formally supported him; and the membership
    rose up and nearly did to the Deseret news what Joseph smith did
    to the Nauvoo Expositor; they cancelled subscriptions right and
    left and vented their anger. To this day the church has never formally
    supported another presidential candidate. This same concept is true
    with respect to other Church leaders besides the president as well:
    e.g. Joseph Fielding Smith's comment that man would not make it
    to the moon, Ezra Taft Bensen's comments that You cannot be a liberal
    democrat and a good LDS too, nearly everything Spencer W. Kimball
    wrote about homosexuality,[which was all written before he became
    president of the Church] etc.etc.
    	In the mid-fifties when the priesthood quorums were studying
    the great apostasy (over a period of 4 years), there was a great
    emphasis on the fact that we do not believe in the infallibility
    of the Prophet. Since that time, however, there has been an interesting
    shift. Although it is not spoken, there is a growing popular notion
    that because the prophet is THE prophet, he can never be wrong when
    it comes to matters of doctrine (which is precisely the doctrine
    of infallibility that we used to reject).
    	As a result of that earlier training I have no trouble when
    the church puts its foot in its mouth because I know that its directly
    run by people, and people blow it every now and then [ I AM impatient,
    however, with the notion that suggests  because the Church is true,
    everything Church leaders do MUST be the right things at the right
    time]. I have a friend who works with the Brethren who paraphrases
    an old statement: "The Church Must be true. If is wasn't the General
    Authorities would have destroyed it a long time ago." Great truth
    in that sentence. Great truth.
    John
     

================================================================================
Note 55.24                     The Adam-god Theory                      24 of 36
NEXUS::S_JOHNSON                                      7 lines  11-JAN-1989 10:27
                             -< Heard Differently >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>        time]. I have a friend who works with the Brethren who paraphrases
>    an old statement: "The Church Must be true. If is wasn't the General
>    Authorities would have destroyed it a long time ago." Great truth

    The way I heard this "true" statement is, "The Church Must be true. If
    is wasn't the missionaries would have destroyed it a long time ago." 
    

================================================================================
Note 55.29                     The Adam-god Theory                      29 of 36
CIMNET::REEVES                                       29 lines  11-JAN-1989 16:51
                           -< Respondus Interruptus >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    re.24-.28
    The terms "Adam-God Theory" and" Adam-God Doctrine" are both used
    throughout the literature to refer to the teaching. For about 3
    years it was considered "doctrine" by significant numbers of church
    members.
    
    One of my concerns is that while we seem comfortable with the concept
    that there is continuous revelation, we become very nervous ( or
    seem to be very nervous) at the idea that what we may consider to
    be basic doctrine is in reality developmental in nature. For instance,
    it was James E. Talmage (sp?) who penned the now- official pronouncement
    by the 1st Presidency on the Godhead, and although the doctrine
    had been unfolding or "cooking" for many years, his statement (1915
    I think but I may be wrong inasmuch as I don't have a copy of the
    document easily at hand) BECAME the church doctrine. 
    All of our doctrines are not complete, i.e. the doctrine of Atonement,
    the doctrine of Agency, and are still developing [ For perhaps the
    best single statement on the Atonement EVER written, see Eugene
    England's classic "That They Might Not Suffer" published several
    years ago in DIALOGUE].One of the difficulties with a developmental,
    or revelatory process is that earlier statements by whoever, be
    he prophet or poet, may be based on incomplete data. And, as such
    may inaccurately reflect what later emerges as the whole picture.
    The classic example is the Church's doctrine with respect to people
    of color. For a generation, everybody who could write, including
    some apostles and Church Presidents delivered almost every kind
    of imaginable excuse for why the blacks could not have the priesthood,
    and everybody was simply speculating---yet the speculation was regarded
    by many as doctrine [which it wasn't].

================================================================================
Note 55.30                     The Adam-god Theory                      30 of 36
CIMNET::REEVES                                       35 lines  11-JAN-1989 17:18
                           -< Respondus Continuous >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    Sorry about that.I got interrupted [the NERVE of them, wanting work
    done!].
    What I'm getting at is that there seem to be two or three standard
    responses when we see doctrinal or procedural conflicts in the church:
    
    	a. We don't understand what the doctrine MEANS [as contrasted
    	with what it says] and there is absolutely no contradiction
    	between what is taught now and what was taught then.
    
    	b.[ If the doctrine is different now than it was in earlier
    	years of the dispensation] Somebody is keeping something from
    	us, either by deception or through ineptness.
    
                                                            
    	c. There is some sort of mystical interpretation of the doctrine
    	which only the spiritually enlightened can understand, which the
    	rest of us poor souls are unable to grasp.
    
    What we forget is that conflict exists! AND both doctrines and
    procedures evolve (Yes, that dirty word EVOLVE!). Even a cursory
    exploration of Church history reveals that. And it shouldn't bother
    us. TRUE doesn't mean PERFECT. I remember during the last year or
    two of President David O. McKay's life, Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft
    Bensen were taking public pot-shots at each other: at conference,
    at BYU, everywhere they spoke. And when confronted with the information
    one of my "The Brethren never disagree" friends couldn't deal with
    it and insisted that "We just didn't understand what they said",
    when what they said was more then clear!
    As I said, what concerns me is that incredibly inflexible, rigid
    approach to Church doctrine. I suppose if the early members of the
    church could see it today, they'd be shocked! and If we could see
    the Church 100 years from now, we too will be shocked because it
    will be greatly different than it is today [ and if it isn't we're
    all in deep trouble!]

================================================================================
Note 55.31                     The Adam-god Theory                      31 of 36
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       38 lines  11-JAN-1989 19:07
                          -< Evolving UNDERSTANDING >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Note 55.30 by CIMNET::REEVES

>   doctrines evolve 

    If the statement were rephrased to say "our UNDERSTANDING of God's
    doctrines evolves", then I could go along with what you are saying.
    Truth is truth, and God's doctrines do not themselves change or evolve.
    A person's understanding of them, including a prophet's understanding,
    can evolve, as the Lord chooses to give additional light and knowledge
    on a subject, and as a person's capacity and/or willingness to accept
    the light and knowledge God gives allows. 
                                       
    Perhaps it would be useful to draw a distinction between church
    doctrine and speculation. 
    
    Accepted LDS church doctrine is that body of teachings contained in the
    scriptures, and in statements by the united voice of the apostles and
    First Presidency. These are easy to identify, and they are the only
    "doctrines" which are binding on the church. New revelations may come,
    but they will be accepted as doctrine by the church in a clearly
    defined way. 
    
    Speculation, on the other hand, includes all other discussion, whether
    by individual church leaders or by members. If this distinction is
    correct, then the Adam-God theory can not be considered an accepted
    church doctrine, but rather falls in the realm of speculation. Church
    members and leaders are free to speculate as they wish, but we need to
    be careful to not think that such speculations are the same as accepted
    church doctrine. 
                             
    As to disagreements among the presiding brethren, yes, on occasion they
    do occur, just as they did amongst Christ's original apostles, but one
    should not get the impression that there is much contention among the
    presiding brethren of the church. Overall, they are quite united in
    agreement on church matters. 
    
    Rich
                                

================================================================================
Note 55.32                     The Adam-god Theory                      32 of 36
CIMNET::REEVES                                       54 lines  12-JAN-1989 18:15
                                -< Hmnmnmnmnn >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I'm not talking about "God's Doctrines" I'm speaking of Church
    Doctrine. The two mnay or may not be similar/identical or antithetical.
    
    When we speak of God as being changeless, we erroneously assume
    that means that the church doesn't change, and we also erroneously
    assume it means church doctrine doesn't change. To be absolutely
    candid, Arguments which presume that only our perception or
    "understanding" of church doctrines change,that in reality if we "only
     knew the whole picture, we would see that the doctrines haven't
    changed at all" are especially vulnerable to the light of subsequent
    history.  There are three very clear examples
    of developmental or evolutionary doctrines in the church [what I
    mean by developmental or evolutionary is that the doctrine in its
    later stages is very different--sometimes by 180 degress--than its
    initial statement and which has undergone progressively more
    sophisticated development and articulation]: 1) the doctrine of the
    Godhead,which did not emerge as we have it now until after the Ohio period,
    2) the fundamental organization of  Church leadership, which
    has undergone substantial revision (from 1st and 2nd elders, to
    a first presidency, to a multiple presidency, to a three-quorum
    equal authority, to a two quorum [ 1st presidency presiding but
    Quorum of the Twelve controlling] hierarchal authority, and 3) of
    course the Adam-God doctrine which is now rejected in total, but
    which was a prominant doctrine for a brief period during the life
    of Brigham Young. 
    
    In the nature of things, such change is inevitible, both in the
    development of doctrine and in our understanding of doctrine. In
    1964, a seminary teacher in Utah (his name escapes me at the moment)
    wrote a master's thesis on the origins of the Church of the First
    born of the Fullness of Times, and included in his apendices, a
    list of some 89 break-away groups which had formed during the lifetime
    of Joseph Smith. In all cases, the break-away groups then, as now,
    simply could not accept change either in doctrine or church
    organization, and their inability to deal with change  caused them
    to leave the fold.
    Currently, there are people who have great diffioculty with the
    decided change in the role of women in the church, [ there is
    at least one occasion when President Kimball indicated that women
    will hold the priesthood (not just "share" it, but hold it)]. Such
    a function is not hard to believe because for at least a generation
    there have been certain PRIESTHOOD ORDINANCES which have been and
    still are performed by women (in the early days of the Church women
    administered to the sick, just as men did--in the name of Jesus
    Christ and by the authority of the priesthood).
    
    We belong to a Church which has experienced significant
    doctrinal change during its history which goes beyond the notion
    that "Well, gang, you guys just don't understand the semantics--we
    were really saying such and such all along."
               
    Personally, I find such change exciting, stimulating, and evidence
    to me that the Church is, indeed, inspired.
    jpr

================================================================================
Note 55.33                     The Adam-god Theory                      33 of 36
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       43 lines  12-JAN-1989 19:35
                                  -< Change >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: Note 55.32 by CIMNET::REEVES

>   I'm not talking about "God's Doctrines" I'm speaking of Church
>   Doctrine. The two mnay or may not be similar/identical or antithetical.

    I think you and I are in agreement on this distinction between "God's"
    doctrines and "Church" doctrines, which is perhaps a semantical
    distinction. 
    
    By "God's" doctrines, I mean knowledge of the TRUTH, which is things as
    they are, as they were, or as they are to come. In other words, the
    true FACTS. These do not change. God has a fullness of the TRUTH. Men,
    including the prophets, do not have a fullness of the TRUTH. So, your
    conclusion is valid that the "Church" doctrines will change as it's
    leaders obtain a greater understanding of TRUTH, by the grace of God.
    An Biblical example of this is when the early apostles believed the
    gospel was only for the Jews, but upon revelation understood that it
    was also for the Gentiles. I think this can be viewed as a change in
    "Church" doctrine. 
    
    I also agree that Church "procedures" can and do change, but I do not
    put this in the same category as "doctrines". God may inspire the
    brethren to adjust the organization chart or the specific duties of the
    offices in the church as its needs change, just as a skillful navigator
    makes fine adjustments in course to reach his destination. With the
    Lord at the helm of the church, such changes will be expected as He
    directs His church. 
    
    Then there is speculation. Is a statement by the president of the
    church or an apostle considered a "doctrine" of the church or as
    "speculation", if it is not found in the scriptures, and if it is not
    presented to the church as an official statement of doctrine from the
    First Presidency and the apostles? Some might call it part of the
    "Church" doctrines, but I would call it interesting speculation, and no
    more. So far as I can tell, any statements by Brigham Young on the
    Adam-god theory fall in this category. 

>   Personally, I find such change exciting, stimulating, and evidence
>   to me that the Church is, indeed, inspired.
    
    Me, too!
    
    Rich

================================================================================
Note 55.34                     The Adam-god Theory                      34 of 36
DNEAST::STTHOMAS_KEV                                 44 lines  13-JAN-1989 06:30
                             -<  Truth and Change >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    It seems to me that there some questions that still need to be
    answered here. First, a clarification on whether the doctrine
    still applies today or has been rejected in total.  In the responses
    that I have heard so far it would seem to have been rejected. 
    Secondly, the letter from the 1st Presidency on the denial of
    the doctrine being taught.   I need to hear a little more on this.
    Is Bro. Anderson representing the 1st Presidency, or just himself
    here.  I suspect that John wasn't the only person that received
    a letter on this subject, it would seem that, in the 50's the 
    official stand was such.  Third, we need to hear more about
    Prof. Turner's dissertation, as brought up by Allen.
    The thing that strikes me is that the doctrine as taught by
    Brigham Young wasn't just a few isolated statements, but was
    taught and believed by some of the prominent folks in the church
    then. It was accepted as gospel.  The implication here is that
    to be an LDS , one has to change as doctrines change, notwithstanding
    Rich's comments on God's doctrine and "church doctrine".  Good 
    comments, Rich.
    
    The rub here is that where, for example, admitting blacks into
    the the priesthood is considered an example of an "unfolding,
    evolving, developing doctrine", the departure from the Adam-God
    doctrine seems to me to be restrictive in nature, where a
    "Truth" was taught in the most EMPHATIC terms, by the Prophet,
    over a period of years, then abandoned.  I suspect if Bro. Brigham
    were here today he'd be "mildly surprised" at the change in the
    Church.  Here's a hypothetical question for you all.  If the
    Bishop of your Ward stood up in Sacrament Meeting addressed
    your congregation and said this Sunday, " Bros. and Sis. ,
    I just received word from the 1st Presidency that you are not
    to go home today. You are to gather your families and proceed to
    walk to Jackson Co. Missouri, the trip to commence at the end of
    Sacrament Meeting.  How many of you would do it without question.
    How many would seek a clarification of "policy". ask to see the
    "marching orders" from the Prophet, no less. How many would go
    home to gather up their gold, how many would sadly shake their
    head and leave the congregation, not making the trip. does it sound
    far fetched?  Open for discussion, brethren!
    
    Kevin St Thomas
    
    (not the doubting one!)      
    

================================================================================
Note 55.35                     The Adam-god Theory                      35 of 36
NEXUS::S_JOHNSON                                     35 lines  13-JAN-1989 10:23
                            -< Here's what I think >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>        Church.  Here's a hypothetical question for you all.  If the
>    Bishop of your Ward stood up in Sacrament Meeting addressed
>    your congregation and said this Sunday, " Bros. and Sis. ,
>    I just received word from the 1st Presidency that you are not
>    to go home today. You are to gather your families and proceed to
>    walk to Jackson Co. Missouri, the trip to commence at the end of
>    Sacrament Meeting.  How many of you would do it without question.
>    How many would seek a clarification of "policy". ask to see the
>    "marching orders" from the Prophet, no less. How many would go
>    home to gather up their gold, how many would sadly shake their
>    head and leave the congregation, not making the trip. does it sound
>    far fetched?  Open for discussion, brethren!

    If the bishop of our ward did this, I would hope he would allow
    us to go home and get the things we need to make the trip.  I'm
    not talking about getting "gold", but food, bedding, clothing and
    the various other things necessary to make a trek from here to Jackson
    Cty.  In my opinion, anyone who leaves to go on a trek without being
    properly prepared is dumb.  What did they teach us as scouts, to
    be prepared.  When we went on overnighters we usually met an hour
    before we left and had a pack inspection to make sure everybody
    had the necessary stuff to survive.  When the saints came west,
    they did not do so in haste, they prepared by building and gathering
    what they needed.
    
    About change in the church.  The church is a growing, dynamic
    organization.  As with any growing organization, to continually
    meet the needs of the participants, change should occur.  I don't
    think any successful organization stays successful by not changing.
    If they don't change and are still successful, then they probably
    have a corner on the market.
    
    scott
    
    

For those that might be interested, a related note is

     88   Principles vs Policies

Moved here from Note 107.10  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             SIGNS OF THE 2ND COMING                    10 of 10
IPOVAX::PERM "Kevin R. Ossler"                       48 lines  13-JAN-1989 09:50
                  -< It's sooner (or later) than you think! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re: 55.34 by Kevin St. Thomas.

>    If the
>    Bishop of your Ward stood up in Sacrament Meeting addressed
>    your congregation and said this Sunday, " Bros. and Sis. ,
>    I just received word from the 1st Presidency that you are not
>    to go home today. You are to gather your families and proceed to
>    walk to Jackson Co. Missouri, the trip to commence at the end of
>    Sacrament Meeting.  How many of you would do it without question.
>    How many would seek a clarification of "policy". ask to see the
>    "marching orders" from the Prophet, no less. How many would go
>    home to gather up their gold, how many would sadly shake their
>    head and leave the congregation, not making the trip. does it sound
>    far fetched?  Open for discussion, brethren!
>    
>    Kevin St Thomas
    
You know, I've spent some time thinking about this very thing. What 
*would* I do?

Concerning the Bishop's leadership, it pays to have a witness
*beforehand* of the bishop's calling. Not just in case of the
impending Apocalypse, but also when he makes more mundane
announcements, or issues callings, or pleads for some form of
repentance from the ward. One is then better prepared to concentrate 
on the message, rather than the messenger.

Concerning the message, given what we know about the gospel, and the
'signs of the times' that it teaches, and the rapid fulfillment of
those signs even as we speak, it has occurred to me that the above
hypothetical situation is a very real possibility. Given also what we
know about what such a declaration could mean, that the Second Coming
is at hand, and Israel is to be gathered in Zion to meet Christ, well,
I think I would run the whole 1254 miles (Boston to Jackson Co.). 

But when the above hypothetical situation does come about, I would 
imagine that the message would be by "the mouth of two witnesses," eg. 
the Bishop and the Stake President. I would imagine that when the call 
comes, it won't be to helter-skelter get your body to Jackson County 
ASAP; rather it would be a highly organized expedition whereby all the 
aged, infirm, widows, etc. could be provided for and taken along also.

There *is* one question I might ask the bishop: Since I have a car but 
not a handcart, couldn't I just drive there? :-) 

/the other kevin

    re.11
    I've been to Jackson county, and it would TAKE a commandment to
    get me back there.
    
    On another note:
    Somebody raised the issue of speculation (sorry, but I didn't write
    down your name before I hit the reply button). It's easy to identify
    speculation when its in a Gospel Doctrine Class or a High Priest's
    group, or an Elder's Quorum. But its tougher to spot when its at
    the pulpit of the tabernacle, or in the Church News. In those places
    every word carries the trappings of authority and officialdom. But
    speculation is speculation wherever its preached (sorry folks but
    every word that comes from the pulpit of the tabernacle is NOT the
    word of God). I remember about four years ago Ron (or Lloyd--I keep
    getting the Poelman brothers mixed up) gave a talk at conference
    and certain of the brethren were displeased with it, so a couple
    of days after conference, he put on the same suit, and tie, and
    the tab choir filled the choir loft, and they re-taped his talk
    with the "appropriate" changes in it, edited the new tape into the
    session tape and the video tape sent out to stakes of the Church
    was the expurgated version.
    
    What that means to me is that the brethren, from the President on
    down, do speculate; sometimes in public sometimes not (for instance
    the entire system of belief that many LDS people have that they
    chose their spouses in the pre-existence somes from a letter that
    John Taylor sent a women which said "in your case, it may be that
    you and your husband chose one another in the pre-existence"--or
    words to that effect) but because of the trappings of authority
    their speculation is all-to-often accepted as the word of God--which
    it isn't. As the church grows and an increasingly vocal cadre of
    "Everything the brethren say is IT" grows as well, it will become
    more and more difficult to make the seperation between speculation
    and truth. A contemporary example is that a certain unnamed G.A.
    made a comment several years ago that "You cannot be a good Latter-day
    Saint and a liberal democrat as well" which, of course is sheer
    nonsense (John Taylor thought that the British Monarchy was far
    superior to American democracy--he was an englishman)--but the looney
    tune politics of that G.A. are taken to be the absolute truth by
    a lot of LDS people who believe that he couldn't utter a non-truth,
    which is part of the reason for the shift of LDS politics to the
    far right in the last fifteen years or so.
    
    What this long-winded tirade means, is that yeah--we ALL speculate--and
    speculation whether from the brethren or anyone else is still
    speculation.A rose by any other name. . .
    jpr
    

    re.11
    
    I have never thought that obedience because of credentials was very
    gospel-like. To me, such obedience smacks of unrighteous dominion
    [" If you REALLY support the brethren, you'll do such and such"].
    Like John H. Widsoe, I believe in a rational theology--a theology
    and its accompanying manifestations in religious observance which
    is solidly grounded in good reason. I believe that faith springs
    from reason, and that commandments--all commandments-- have basically
    understandible reason (and reasons behind them).Thatsone of the
    reasons  why truth and knowledge are so important Yes, I know about
    "We will prove them herewith. . ." but even that admonition doesn't
    carry with it the notion that the Lord is trying to see how much
    like lemings we are. 
    
    Besides, I happen to know that the church is selling, not buying,
    lands in Jackson county.
    jpr
                        

    re. .14 John A. Widsoe

    Re. .15
    
    John, 
    
    You briefly mentioned that the Church is selling land in Jackson,
    Cty, Mo. Is it to any one in particular, or general sales to public.
    I have been told that LDS and RLDS Church have had some transactions
    in Independance, Mo. This info confirmed that the Church was selling
    in Missouri in general, in fact selling to the RLDS Church. The
    question is what property, and to whom ? (if to particular parties)
    
    signed,
    
    Curious Kevin      

    
    Re.17
    The last I heard, the land that the Church was selling was to corporate
    buyers, i.e. private corporations. There HAs been some exchange
    between the LDS and the RLDS of property but i'm not aware of what
    or how much.
    I'm sure that you know that in the last ten years, principally because
    of the work of Bob Matthews on the Inspired version of the bible,
    there has been significant exchange between the LDS and RLDS hisotrical
    departments. Bob, is the only LDS person EVER[ other than Bernheisal
    in the late 19th century] to have examined Joseph Smith's original
    notes and work on the bible, and established a high-trust relationship
    between the two historical departments.
    I don't know if land exchanges between the two churches amount to
    much. Sorry
    jpr
    
    Joseph smith