Mormon Discussion’s podcast production is certainly not connected to The Mormon Church aka The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It also is most assuredly not approved or endorsed by Intellectual Reserve, Inc or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Any of the awesome content or the solid opinions expressed, implied or included in Mormon Discussion Inc’s awesome podcast lineup and production are solely those of Mormon Discussion Inc. and/or its program hosts and not those of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. or The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Mormon Discussion Inc is a 501(c)(3) and is in the arena of journalistic work and is part of a free press. A free press is fundamental to a democratic society. It seeks out and circulates news, information, ideas, comment and opinion and holds those in authority to account. The press provides the platform for a multiplicity of voices to be heard. At national, regional and local level, it is the public’s watchdog, activist and guardian as well as educator, entertainer and contemporary chronicler. Under the “fair use” defense, however, another author may make limited use of the original author’s work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.
The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner’s exclusive rights.
Subject to some general limitations discussed later in this article, the following types of uses are usually deemed fair uses:
- Criticism and commentary: for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. A book reviewer would be permitted to quote passages from a book in a newspaper column, for example, as part of an examination of the book.
- News reporting: such as summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. A journalist would be permitted to quote from a political speech’s text without the politician’s permission.
- Research and scholarship: perhaps quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations. An art historian would be able to use an image of a painting in an academic article that analyzes the painting.
- Nonprofit educational uses: for example, when teachers photocopy limited portions of written works for classroom use. An English teacher would be permitted to copy a few pages of a book to show to the class as part of a lesson plan.
- Parody: that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. A comedian could quote from a movie star’s speech in order to make fun of that star.
Hmmmm….why was it even called a ‘theory’? I’m sure Brigham taught it as doctrine. Theory downgrades its place in history. Is that part of apologetics too?
And I would rename equivocation in this case as a type of gass lighting?
Lastly, I think , as you discovered, that Brigham was very clear about what he meant. While there may be some surface differences, on a fundamental level, the modern church still follows this bizarre train of thought, even tho they want to package it in a more digestible manner than good old blunt Brigham did. He was about as delicate as a bull in a china shop.
Here’s what I say they’ve kept, if I’m understanding the doctrine….
…with multiple God’s all over the place, the confusion about who is God and how that all works remains just as ambiguous and confusing.
……they haven’t dropped the doctrine of God having been a man as we are, who has now advanced to a God
…..the doctrine crudely admits that a polygamist wife will fill planets with offspring, which is talked about in hushed tones and still part of the belief.
….temple polygamy is still practiced and polygamy is believed in as the ultimate reward.
the dropping of the other details are irrelevant if they keep the ones I’ve mentioned.
The feigned outrage from the leaders (because they’ve been embarrassed by the discovery of Brighams indelicate teaching) doesn’t change the fact that they still hold to the most offensive tactics of the doctrine today. Brigham didn’t have to tiptoe around these weird ideas in his one man run dictatorship in the wiley west with the tumbleweeds. He had no need of apologists. His pride wouldn’t have allowed it anyway, I dare say.
i’m no seasoned apologist or researcher, just an arm chair amateur trying to apply a bit of common sense. What do I know?
I know this much…I sure don’t miss the smoke and mirrors. That was an interesting look at what you did for a time. Wow. They didn’t deserve you!
My thought on the connection between Adam-God and Joseph Smith, Jr. is Joseph’s teaching that the “Ancient of Days” is Adam. Most Jews and Christians interpret the Ancient of Days as being God (Yahweh for Jews and either the Father, Son or Holy Ghost for different Christians). Since the Ancient of Days is God, if Adam is the Ancient of Days, therefore Adam is God.
Thanks for your excellent work on the Adam/God Doctrine. You made it very clear.
One thing I’m not sure is correct is the bit about Brigham Young changing the way the seniority in the Quorum is counted. I read an article on John W. Young, Brigham’s son that was quite interesting. Brigham ordained him as an Apostle when he was 11 years old. This was so that he would have seniority in the Quorum when Brigham died, and thus a dynasty would be created in the Church of Youngs as prophets. This article said that the QUORUM changed the method of counting seniority AFTER Brigham died, specifically to block John W. from ascending to the predisency (John W had a reputation as something of a loser.) That’s why the method of counting seniority was changed. So which is the correct reason? I don’t know for sure. But I throw that out there for what its worth. John W. would also make a great podcast subject, as he led a colorful (dubious) life in the East, and was supported with copious amounts of cash doled out of the tithing coffers by his dear old dad. Cheers!
Hi, Neal!
Thanks for the added detail about Brigham’s son and the whole ordaining him as an apostle at age 11 gambit.
I didn’t go into that much detail in the podcast because I thought it would detract from the main point I was trying to make. (That and I probably forgot.) ;^)
I think (!) I touched on this episode back in my Apostolic Coup d’etat episode a few years back but I could be mistaken about that.
Anyway, thanks for your great sense of historical detail and for keeping me honest!
I appreciate your comments and your listenership!
RFM