It look like I may have been wrong. We had a tread about this a couple of years ago and dangermom said it wasn’t being taught at the time, and that she wouldn’t be surprised if someone was making it up. Let’s see, let me try and dig that quote up.
(My bolding) As I pointed out in that thread, the person who would been speculating a little too much would have been this guy, although it doesn’t surprise me that active Mormons aren’t aware of who taught that concept.
The reason that Young’s teachings on the nature of Adam is fascinating to me is that when I was coming of age in the 70s, the teachings were very much that the prophets knew the truth. Here is a fairly typical article from that era.
I would have been a junior in high school when that came out. There were repeated messages that the prophets wouldn’t lead people astray. That it required a correct understanding of God’s plan or we were toast on Judgment Day. Then it comes out that Brigham had been teaching a doctrine which later leaders clearly labeled false. How do reconcile this difference?
I guess we’ve come a long ways, baby, in that devote members are willing to throw Joseph Smith under the bus to preserve the current leaders’ decision to place conformity with ordinary Christianity over what had been cherished beliefs.
You are at fault for having questions. Any time I went to church leaders when I had legitimate questions concerning the inconsistencies in the teachings, the first thing they would do would be to try to make it about me and my “worthiness.” I guess the question of why Joseph Smith was screwing other men’s wives can only be answered if the person who is asking the question isn’t screwing anyone he shouldn’t be. Or even thinking of screwing someone or perhaps watching porn because it may tempt him to want to screw someone. So, we can have prophets of the Lord fuck fourteen-year-olds; pressure married women into marrying him, while sending the husband on missions; and the problem isn’t them, but you? 'm OK.