Serg

Waiting for you L.H.

I mentioned this somewhere before, but for your benefit I will now repeat it: I've read all the discourses from Brigham Young... or at least all the ones he wrote or had written after he became a President of the Church. I simply disagree with some people's interpretation of what he taught. I know what he taught, and meant. And to put it all in a nutshell for you, Jason, and anyone else who is interesting in hearing what I think, I know Brigham knew Adam was and would be someone with whom all of us have and will have to do... because he was given a position of seniority over all the rest of us... exempting only our Lord and His Father who is in heaven... among all those we know and those we will know are our fatherS who are in heaven. And that is my story and I'm still stickin to it... regardless of what others may think. :) Ray; you only "know" what young taught as you see it fit, because you interpret it from the conservative(mere mormon) way, there is no single possibility in your head that Adam could be god right? also, no possibility(according to ACTUAL!!!!!teachings) that Young(or any respectable member) would come up with such an absurd doctrine, hence, everything that might(logically) in Young's discourse lead you to believe he taught such absurdity, you(unconciously) fit into the actual mold of thinking doctrine, and thuis you find it not absurd at all, and in fact, not related at all to our clear interpretation of it. Moreover, it matters not if you got it right ot=r us, as to this thread concerns, but it matters how such a belief can make it to official or coherent belief among mormons(as L.H) as to be accepted also by us. Plainly put, we are reviewing this doctrine, not estavlishing necessarily who proposed it. It matters not.

Running into difficulties my friend; He doesn't say anywhere in the scriptures anything about doing so of one's own free will and choice. I would assume that if a God wished to transgress back over to mortality in order to commence the plan of salvation for His children, He would be allowed to do so. Assuming Adam is God this would be HIS plan. He would say who is permitted to be a part of it. True, D&C says "Every angel that has ministered(or will at any time) on this earth, PERTAINS to it." But it doesn't say they cannot have pertained to another world previously. Because why prophesy of something that has already came to pass? Furthermore, Brigham Young, in his discourse, said that the account given in Genesis was such that the people of Israel would accept it. Assuming this is correct, the scriptures would not mention anything about Adam being our Father in Heaven. One thing that is clear is that Adam is referred to as "The Ancient of Days" in the D&C. So who is the ancient of days? A quick look at the above reference given in Daniel would lead one to believe that the ancient of days is God. It is things like this that causes me to keep an open mind on the subject. But this is a very dangerous thing to point out indeed. Heaven forbid Joseph Smith also believed Adam was God. I'm sure many of you will now order a warrant for my crucifixion. L.H. 1) "I would assume that if a God wished to transgress back over to mortality in order to commence the plan of salvation" Scripture speaks of a Lord(who happens to be also our father), that proposed a plan, yes, and in contemplation of a most probable fall, also provided a "Redeemer". Now, the reason that the Father didnt come into mortaliy to rescue us, what was it? Oh! He already had a body! Otherwise it makes no sense as to if God the Father could have come into the world and died for us, he had to choose one of his sons, in fact, it is yet more dubious when we accept(what you propose us) that He not only could have died again while being "Adam" here, but also could have come again as a Jesus and die again also(for if He " so wished" He would have been let). Now, we find that He didnt, we find that another had to come instead of Him, why? maybe cause He didnt want to contradict Himself when promised(to us, as it had been to HIM-long before-even "eternities past") D&C 29: 41-43 41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be acast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed. 42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son. 43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his aprobation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe; Wow, now, a) Here we got one person talking, called the Lord, that is telling us concerning one man, another, Adam. With this, we could say that is self-contradictory to speak of one's self as another person with characteristics so opposed, also, there is not one single thread on the Lord's account as to identify Himself to this Adam, who, not only was in His presence before not being in such, but that also was imparted commandments by Him. This would make absolute no sense, for Adam then(if he was "Elohim") was banned from His own presence, gave commandments to Himself, and saved Himself thropugh His own only begotten son. Interestingly, such a thesis of contradictory personality(as proposed by Morris in Christhology) is opposed by us(mormons) for the same reason! We object to Christ being one person(literally) with the Father, because it makes no sense that(not only there was an absense of God for a time) but because it would involve that he prayed and worshipped Himself, and many other things! B) moreover, it complicates further, because at least with Christ, such a belief does not encounter the difficulties Adam raises, for example, Adam was spiritually dead, a thing most unspeakable to say of God at any time. Not only that, but He needed to be redeemed and was appointed(by Himself?) a time of Probation(of course, this may be contested, as Christ Himself was subject to it), but as most absurd He not only tasted(as Adam) the first death(spiritual) but also the second(and final) as to have been considered " Cursed" forever, and banned form the Presence of an allmighty God(interestingly, not only never mentioned, but never even inferred). Thus, God Himself(in difference form the two personages perspective in Christ) became mortal, sinned, was saved, and resurected, all by His own hand. c) Also, look at the explicit content of the inmortality, that it was gonna be ETERNAL, not temporal, or subject to will, but eternal. Now, no precedent(but to the contrary) can be shown that explains how a god's body is subject to death at will. For Christ had no body previous to his birth, why should have Adam! Is not Christ superior than Adam? Does not Scripture says explicitly(in Paul's Corinthinans) that "The second Adam" was far superior to the first? 2)"Because why prophesy of something that has already came to pass? " Well, my friend, do we NOT have the account concerning how in the preexistance Lucipher contradicted the Father? But that already and long gone happened, do wenot have concurrently, Isaiah, Ezequiel, Enoc, Moses, Zacariah, Jesus, Paul and John(in apocalipsis) telling us about it? Were they then not "prophesying" concerning a thing most worthy to be conceiled as to be forgotten because of how old was? And many other things! My question comes, when, you only select this particular teaching of Young. The only president who has said such a thing in all registered dispensations. Why not also his views concerning the divinity of the institution of slavery? Or on divorce?(a very interesting one). Is it not in Scripture(and plain logic) thet if "it be contrary to my doctrine" or "more or less of it" the "doors of Hell shall be opened unto them"? Why does, then, any Scripture not contain it? Oh, you say, Israel received what he wanted to receive, well then, we certainly are different from Israel, as we have morover accepted the difficult concept of a Mother without whinning! Why not also such a truth?! It only gets complicated as we go on, it lacks the Scriptural, LOGICAL(most of all) and authoritative(tradition) backup it would need. I dont know L.H., you need more(is all I am saying) to sell it. Regards

This statement is wrong. If one wishes to understand why, look up these verses: Daniel 7:9,13,14,22; and D & C 27:11, 116:1, 138:38 Furthermore, I find it rediculous that people try to claim that Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God theory. I have read the discourses on it; the entire discourses. Unless he was speaking in some sort of code language, he was unmistakably teaching that theory. People can try to pick the discourses apart to prove that he wasn't teaching it, because he said so and so, but those same people can pick the bible apart in the same manner and prove that Jesus never existed; and that all the prophets of old actually taught doctrines of little-bo-peep who lost her sheep. A little lame; wouldn't you say? I don't see what's to be so ashamed of. Brigham Young beleived a certain thing, and he taught it to the people; Which teaching was later denounced a few presidents down the line. So what? Why make up stories about how it never happened? L.H. Oh, at least I dont say Young didnt teach it, I just say that i dont believe him for teh many reasons that have not been met in this thread. As McConkie put it, "what is revelation" "Revelation is whatever prophet Smith said unless president Kimball says otherwise" , lol. So in light of tradition, history, Scripture, logic, and many more things, i choose not to believe a word that came out of the mouth of Young concerning this particular topic. Now Young is a very interesting fellow, one may argue(against those who propose that Young " prophetically" expanded this "knowledge" ) that Young himself didnt consider himself a prophet, indeed he said : "I am not too given to prophecying...whenever I want prophecy i call brother Kimball, he is my prophet...". LOL. You say LH: As you said, this idea would infer that our bodies can become subject to death again after the resurrection, however, not everyone. Only those who attain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Keep in mind, in Brigham Young's days, it was believed that the standards to attain to that glory and have the ability to beget spirit children and become the God of their own world, were set so high that very few people would make it. Therefore, those who did not attain to this glory would not be subject to death again; which would be about 99.99999% of everyone who ever lived. 1) If then Adam died after he was resurected, according to your scale of worthiness, then he never made it to be a Great Elohim, for he could die again here! 2) The Scripture says that every soul on this earth, whether an exalted God or a son of perdition will never die again, for "body and spirit shall be never separate" in any respect in any one's body. I believe McConkie later recounted this theory: "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This [i.e., Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." (p. 6 of McConkie's letter) This despite earlier claims by church leaders to the contrary. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the 10th President of the church, claimed concerning the source of the Adam-God theory in the church's own Journal of Discourses, that: "...in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed". (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 96) Josh B) I wouldnt put a bet on Fielding Smith's corroborating "witness" for he himself in such a book promoted his son in law's teachings(McConkie's) that " negroes"(racist word) were " unworthy" in the preexistance, a teaching that McConkie himself regreted later, as he wrote " forget everything I have said, forget everything any prophet of the past has said...we spoke without th elight that has now come into the world(Kimball's revelation)...it is time you believe in a living prophet"(not a textual quote)LOL.

You may ignore it, but the conversation remains open to future inquisitors. LOL.

I am not missing anything Dr. that's my point! You say: Not true. There is value apart form will. Look at a child’s beauty. Do you place his/her value only on your will? Look at the arts, etc. Fact: Beauty is a social construction, it is a communal "sense", it does not exist by itself, you dont find(what we call in phylosophy-universals) "beauty" alone in the universe, nor do you find truthfulness, or loyalty, those are characters and social constructions, we agree that what constitutes "beauty"(in THIS century) is a slim chick, with long hair(or short)etc... We agreed that "beauty"in God would have to "absort" us, indeed, we construct such universals, and they ONLY come(as VALUABLE) through one's(or any other's) WILL(mind, reason, thought). Thus, i child might be "beautiful" to you(cause you are there watching him!) but iof such a kid remained ALONE in the universe(or at least THIS world) he would NOT be beautiful, he would just be a kid, unless another WILL(mind) encounters itself with him and judges him(through the agreed social construction) as "beautiful". You say:You imply that our value to God is dependant on “what we do.” Yes and no. He values us notwithstanding what we do "sir", for we are His sons, BUT, He values the righteouss heart ALSO, as an addition to that all natural-by default-love. Indeed Christ said "IF ye love me, keep my commandments", why would he say that? In fact, why do we have to keep His commandments? Why does have God to create such commandments for us? Ah, but also He mentioned LOVE, is not love the greatest meassure of value? What we value, we may say, we love(in a certain way) , moreover in God's case and His commandments, He LOVES us, and He says that the only way in which we can SHOW (or otherwise-truly DO) love Him, is while being obedient. So in fact, all the value we have(be it the parental-by default or the conduct one) comes ONLY from Will, for God, is WILL. If there were no Will(i.e.God), there would be no VALUE. Value comes only through the inner concepts of a WILLING MIND, value does not exist by itself apart from Mind(Will). In fact, the only value(as in-useful-)you may find in water, is the fact that it "is needed for us to survive.", thus, if there would have been NO us to use it to survive, it would have no VALUE to you(for YOU are a Will!). We might mention that there are two sorts of values, intrinsic values, and extrinsic values. Water's value of sustaining us is an extrinsic one(external to it, not necessary to it for existing), while the nature of water(it's very-only-being) is intrinsic. God's value then, cannot be only intrinsic(we cant just calue Him as we value water intrinsicly-because it only exists), but we have to value Him also extrinsicly(of How He interacts with other thiongs-beings), thus, his freedom. Water's example is the most perfect one for this topic. You very sincerely admit :You ask why I “dont find it virtous, or righteous, or good(in a moral way), why? [sic]” because it is an inanimate object sir. It is a non-moral agent., and finally you get it! Hence, if God is not actually ABLE to will evil He deserves then no moral judgement(we may not say that He is GOOD), just as we dont consider water 'good". And after all this you dare say You are grasping here. , Well, Dr., to that i can only say that you may as well ignore all this thread then. Also:you have an underlying belief in your deity’s anthropomorphisms. Although I have nowhere mentioned or alluded here to any corporeal nature of God, of course i believe that. But a treatsie on God's moral agency only includes such aspects as it sees fit, it is not necessary nor has anything to do

Dr.T I am sorry you dont get my point. I cant make it any clear(it's philosophy not a doctrinal class), sorry.

If they were useless for conversation, because they propose limitations to God's power, then this very therad is just as useless for its very tittle reads a question that must be found ABSURD , if in fact it could not be contended(as it has benn) that it is not totally true, hence, it is you who ASSUME put of nothing that God CAN do anything, and, as such is obviously true, it is useless to contend in respect of it(in any sense, and at any cost). You see Dr.T, you cant consider your thomistic views a universal 'obvious truth"(for they indeed, are not), nor can you just say that all these personalities(far more brilliant that you and me,)wasted their time, in what you in all your wisdom consider an 'absurdity". An "absurdity" was to the Pope that the Earth was not the center of this universe, until it was TESTED such a belief, and founded gulty of the most ridiculous faults. Just the same has happened to this absolutist belief of God's soverignity, it has been contested for the past 4 hundred years(specially the las 150) and found gulty of contradiction, not only LOGICAL contradiction(as in NO religious frame of refference), but irreconciliable to Jewish tradiction(Scripture) and cbiblical conceptions of God. Now, if you want(as i wish) to contend this, my response, dont do it in a simple post of two lines saying its absurd, test it, and show me rationally the "way" as I am being kind to do with you.

LOL. Here we go: Dont misunderstand me. I am talking of God's MORAL quality, not His usefulness quality. Those are very afar from each other. I am stating, that while we justify the concept of punishment(by God) because we assert that we are responsible(morally)of such acts, we then establish that we could(in order to be significantly free) had been able to do otherwise(of what we actually, did). It follows, that those who here, practice virtue(or sanctity of conduct) are valued by both men and God, why? Because we know of the deal it involves in a person, that such would behave in a manner that is not so natural(as being truthful, condesendent, loyal, etc...)and we know such virtue is a result of self-effort(and assisting grace) and a very conflicting moral and psycological inner life. Indeed, it is very problematic to practice chastity(mentally contradictory) as you have natural impulses that are not within your "religious" calendar(you want to have sex long before marriage gets near you in ANY sense). Thus we say, wow, I admire that you do that. Thus God says, Behold, thou art righteouss, thou are a resemblance of Mine Only Begotten son, etc... because value comes from will, not otherwise. When we consider then, God's moral quality(status-modus operandi, etc..), we find, that if He were BOUND by nature to act in a single way, then, He would not be even near human righteousness, for we indeed fight in ourselves to persevere, thats worthy. If we were bound(as we partly are) to be only evil, and we actually acted according this " nature", then God could not punish us, or admire in us our effort of virtue, but because we van do otherwise and choose not to, we preserve our worthiness. Thus happens to God. He cannot be bound by nature(as water) to be in a state(moral goodness-frozen ice), for then, it would have no value in terms of personality. Righteousness is not doing "good" alone, but CHOOSING to do so in face of opposites, the time you stop choosing, and start acting by default, you loose your freedom, or at least, what is worth of it. If in preexistance we had free will, and chose good over evil(as yet do angels according to regular christian belief), then is not in which circumstances i encounter myself in what makes me more righteouss, but in what i WILL(to do) anywhere. Hence, Lucipher(being of light) chose evil over goodness, in the very presence of God! Now God would certainly be more worthy that His creatures(or sons), and His righteousness would have to surpass anyone else's, thus He has to be even in more sublime terms, able to do otherwise(than good, i.e.evil) but choose not to, because being a Free Being, and good in nature(just as our good nature)(but He is not "goodness" itself, that does not exist), keeps existing in a single manner(hence His course is an 'eternal round"-not because He lives literally dgoing on a circle, LOL). Now, you find water usefull, because of its nature, but you dont find it virtous, or righteous, or good(in a moral way), why? You may reffer in any case, to the "godness" of its USE, of its CREATOR, etc...but not to the water itself, why again? Because that water, did not choose to help you out in your thurst, but it was designed by nature to do so. Hence, it does not govern itself, why should we praise it? Do we praise our computer when we find in the internet what we are looking for? Why not? Then, should we praise(or find, morally righteouss) a Being that is bound by nature(i.e.programed-not governing Itself,-planned-etc..) to be "good"? We then accept, even if roughly only, that He is able to do evil, but He doesnot do it, because He chooses not to, hence, He is our perfect example(as in Christ's), for if Christ could have not ever sinned, then He is no example to us, but to those of His kind(bound by nature to be goodness and merely endure suffering). If Christ did not have any freedom as to accept satan's offer in the desert to adore him, then 2: a) Satan, knowing such a thing!, would have never even tried it! B ) He would not be any example of morality,as we have to choose, and cant create in us a nature of infalliable goodness) So we find the same conclusion, "Do you not like to ice skate? Build a snow man? Put ice cubes in your drink to cool it?" , of course i do, but particularly, as I am from the Tropic, i think I would find iceskating a bit difficult and rare(not funny), also i never made a snow man, and ultimatelly, what if9as vegetarians) i would preffer to drink water or juice without ice? These actuallities cannot be " applied to god" as you say, for they are cultural accidental things, while God's attributes must be treated as universally recognized and intelligiable to all. Also "Do you just say, "well this water freezing thing is useless because that is what it's supposed to do!" I don't think so." , well, you can value its usefulness(again), but you dont thank water itself! Do you say "thank you water, for you have been so kind of helping me in my thurst" ? No, why? Ah....there you go friend. Also, "Because that is your nature, I can't respect you."? , hum, you run into even more serious difficulties, do you RESPECT water? Because it's nature SERVES you, do you OWE anything to water then? No, do you do any of these concerning it's(water's) Creator? Oh, yes, then we hit our jack pot. But then again, when you finally recognize that you dont owe anything to water(nor respect for goodness), and you ultimatelly point towards heaven and say "there He is" " to Him I owe", then you tell me that He also is in the same position as water(for you believe that He also is bound by nature), so where do we point to? To whom do we point, that CHOSE to do and create all this GOODNESS(as in-usefulness in the world) for us, instead of just doing NOTHING at all? Was He(who ever it is) BOUND to create us? No. Just as He is not bound to do anything out of volition to His Will. Lord, this is so edifying Regards,

If it were an absurdity then none of it's two options would be taken, but, as a fact, most theologians(scholastics-modern) have taken the a part of the premise, while process theologians(partly-mormonism) alludes the b part(that He CAN create it, and it doesnt follow that He HAS to be able to lift it). Why? It goes to the core of things. While the thomistic theologians(christians) cannot conceive of limitations in God, we can. In fact, we(mormons, process theology, etc..) accept a God that is subjet to space(He's got a body), if so, also to "time"(though not with the same decaying results), battles of these thougts you can go and read(endless, LOL). But, in conclusion, surely God does not have to be able to CONTROL(i.e."have power over") every thing He creates, for instance, He created us, INTELLIGENT(FREE) beings, can He control us? No, not "because" He doesnt want to, but because He actually cant! He imparted us with His own essense(of individual freedom), He cant break that, He could stop sustainging our minds and bodies withdrawing His light of life, and thus make us not able to think rationally or even live on earth, but He cant enter our minds and manipulate us and yet preserve our identity and significantly moral freedom, He cant have it both ways, hence, He is not responsible for the evil in the world, and we(mormons) dont encounter our selves with the very good question(made by atheists) of reconciling the Perfect Omnipotent God to our evil deeds. Hence, He can create what ever He conceives as logically and essentially posible to Him(state of affairs) without having(based on thomistic-aristotalean assumption) to actually have power(total-one) over such. As you see, Dr.T(and this-my comment- is only a mere and worthless fragment of this historical paradox in philosophy), this "absurdity" you call, you only do in reference to Thomas' teachings, not in refference to the bible, or any other source. Thus, this is not a mere absurdity, "easy" to resolve to you, as even you limited yourself concerning it. Lets see your part of the bargain! Go ahead, and make us believe why this valid premise is(Suddenly and contrary to what most-if not all theologists-) is mere absurdity. Oh, you also said "is not a real problem for God's omniscience ", dont worry , we are talking of omnipotence, not omniscience(that would make another GREAT topic...)LOL. Regards

Sorry if it resembles your thread, is just that this one deals with God's morality, and yours is very wide, and given this forum's participating people, it will be hard to focus on this alone. I choose, that He chooses not to, and is able, that deserves my appraisal, my adoration my worship, how would i worship and admire the "goodness"of a Thing that is bound to be so? He would cease to be a God, but not to exist, just as you would cease to be His elected son(to salvation) if you chose evil, but wouldnt cease to exist.

You believe God always had the LDS priesthood?Dr. T As Brigham Young stated(while sober LOL), "The priesthood is nothing more than a pure government system". So ëarthly"priesthood, is just an authorization to men to represent He(or Those) Higher than Him while here. So "God"as an indevidual or community, does not(do not) posses this later priesthood, for God caannot posses "the authority to represent Himself", but, He indeed posseses the True priesthood, that of Government. Now, when i say that "God"possesed such power since always, i dont mean God as a personal individual, for Elohim did not exist always, just as jesus didnt, they had a birth, a spiritual birth, so they got their priesthood when they achieved(whatever they acheived) to get divinity. But, God as an institution, this is, a Quorum, a Governing Body, a Godhead, always has existed, for although the gods did have a beggining in time(but not an end-just like us-in terms of volition though all opur essense is eternal) this form of universal government has always existed, so there has always been a God, even if it was not Elohim at some given time. That is why this assertion towards adam is worse, for Adam wa snever a God(nor is yet), so he could have not "always"possesed it, that is why such a theory is faulty :) regards,

Behold here another way interesting ad edifying topic. Blake ostler continues, in his book, to assert "cathegorical"freedom to all intelligent beings, this is, they have the power to do otherwise at the moment they make whatever their desicion is, at that precise time and place. This, leads him to establish that God cannot be less free than us. We certainly believe that we will preserve our free will while exalted, hence, we must also conccur that Eloheim has it also. It follows that although he may be more good than us by an endless margin, he still has to have in his power th eoption to do otherwise. if he did not have teh power to err instead of doing right, he would not be morally responsible for His acts, let alone His goodness. If He, because of his exaltation, were to be naturally good by essence, and then, he CoULD NEVER, choose other wise because His nature obliged Him to do good, then, according to Ostler, we might as well thank Water for freezing at 32 degrees. But we dont, why? Because the water didnt choose to do so, it followed it's own nature and couldnt be otherwise. The same happens if we ascribe to God such conceptions. Solution? Then how can we be sure that God will not become suddenly evil? We know that wont happen, but not because it CANT happen. It wont, because our Lord and Father is a Person with Character, you just dont change an eternal character of goodness, also, the Gods supervise in some sense every order in th universe, the Godhead is fundamenta.l to this, for it is a relationship of love(and approval) of Three, hence, if one god were to do otherwise(which we cant conceive) he would not for automatically his intentions will be made known to th eothers who share that relationship of power and true knowledge, and he would loose his power to be able to do so. What do you think? Do we treat God as water? Or as a loving , free divine being? regards,

This is a great topic, and one very often misunderstood. Read Ostler's "Exploring Mormon thought: The attributes of God"where it deals(very lengthly) with the issue of how "omnipotent"can God be. And it ends stating several conclusions, one of which is here given by Apostle :God has all power is to point out that He has all power necessary to save us from death and hell. God cannot change numbers, or some rules, even more, the chapter in which he deals with this("Maximal divine power") states the paradox that we can draw: Is God so omnipotent as to create a rock that he cannot lift"? Think about it, whatever the response, it makes him not so omnipotent. LOL. So summerizing, God has only to have the greatest CONCEIVABLE power, and the greatest power as to let no room for any else to have more power than he does(so no other could ever restrict His wishes or obstruct His plans), also, God must be able just to bring about those state of afairs that go along with His attributes(intrinsec)(as in, he cant lie, etc...) and along with eternal rules(be them instituted by Him or others) as physics. Surely, God cant have water if not with H2O, nor can he have ice if not with at least 32 degrees, He does not need to be able to do anything illogical or stupid in order to be conceived as all powerful.

Sounds fair enough.... What about this quote: Vol. I, p. 113, Joseph Smith, July 1839. See also HC 3:385-391. The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Gen. i:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven. The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority. Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, My understanding is that "Ancient of Days" refers to God...what is your understanding? Also, are you LDS? or RLDS? Something else? Josh B) Josh If you honestly look at the quote you'll find that it does not link Adam to God, rather it distinguish them radically: 1) Adam is stated as "having received the priesthood", God in th eothetr hand "always possesed it" 2) Adam is stated as having been 'apointed by God", interestingly, "Robert"cannot be appointed by Robert", it goes against logic, and anything else Smith preached. 3) Ancient of days, is just a superlative for Adam(a semi-divine name-to give him status as our prince-) that plainly and simply(contrary to sectarian belief) adresses Adam as a being VERY OLD, indeed, he is, as he was our FIRST> As you see, nothing of the adam-godtheory can be traced to smith. Oh, i am lds. regards, D&C 27: 11 11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days; There are also a few more places in the D&C but let this suffice. L.H. Adam was not created from the dust of the Earth, he was sustained by the dust of another Earth; where he earned His resurrection. I might also point out that the word "Eloheim" is commonly interpreted as the name of God the Father. However, a direct Hebrew translation renders it as God in a plural sense; or "The Gods." L.H. Clever enough, but assist more often to the Temple sessions, and as you swear to the Living God, you will listen how we call Him, "Eloheim". So in scriptures and Church history(specially Smith) we join both. Of course, Smith used it very contingently, for he used it as a WORD to defend our cosmogony but used it as a NAME(i.e.title) to defend teh Father's identity, now, although that is a bad exegesis, lets stick to the later definition to make our chat more coherent.

LH; The issue is 1) you have no aparent trustworthy answer for my three questions 2) the principles you establish are too weak. For example, you quote Joseph Smith when he spoke of "the son without a Father and a Father...",but this he spoke in refference to Jesus and Elohim, not concerning those who were after them. Let me get it straight: He was saying that our claim for a cosmogony(a trace of endless genealogical gods) makes more sense to the biblical revelation of Jesus than the current christian notion of a simple God, not compound and eternal. Why did he alluded to this? Because he wanted to establish the principle of deification of people, and in order to do so, he had to establish that God Himself(as the Three) is a corporeal Man, etc...so it can serve as our prototype. Now, as far as we can state it by Joseph's teachings and Scripture, this is the plausible cycle of God's progression: To Gods, woman and man, exalted, attained a level of glory that allowed(as far as we know) the male to participate in a Particular Quorum(i.e.a Godhead), to rule planets, universes, etc... These two, have children(not stated how but it must have something to do with sex), but these children are born spirits(now that is a different issue, one that brings one of the most difficult questions to our belief, but that is not important now), these babies(of spirit) grow, progress, until they reach adulthood, are aqquainted with the Gods, with God's plan, with every aspect of universal truth, they are indeed, semi-gods. But in order to progress they need a body, but not just a body(for that, God Himself would boldly create bodies and give them such), but also experience of opposites, and finally a Redeemer(the only way to get back after participating of such moral mess). Here we find that one of the sons of elohim, Michael(i.e.Adam), a SPIRIT child, helped(and assisted Jesus probably) along with OTHERS(Abr,3:22-26), to create an earth. Now, there is no need as to this particular son, Michael, to pocess a body(material one), when he was born a spirit child, nor is it any needful for him to be begotten again at the start of the creation, nor is it needful for him to had been begotten and died, and resurected to start humanity, for his body MUST be a matter of matter not birth. If Jesus Himself, all God even before attaing a body, had to (being the FIRSTBORN of elohim) wait for a body(as in being in line), why would a second order son have a gloruous thing over his Brother who not only supervices him but is HIS GOD ALSO!!! For Jesus is greater than Adam, He is teh second and better Adam, God himself manifest in flesh, but you want to put Adam over Him? The problem i see here, is that you link(as you earthly see) body to birth. Birth, logically, goes to point to gestation(and sex). Obviously, then, you trace "body"(Adam's) to "parents"(who begat him). This of course, is not neccesary, for you just start the ongoing and endless cycle of tracing back th eprinciple of procreation, this is, you just start saying; Adam had a material body, hence, he had a material parent who produced him(and jumped all the stages of being first a spirit baby-thus maknig Adam an exception to universal procreation over Jesus himself), but i ask you, After you trace all that back and back, HOW did the GODS obtained their bodies??? Tell me! It must follow that after you are tired of tracing th eendless chain, at some point, a creation of a body out of teh dust had to have occured. Low level matter(i.e.corrupting matter) is not essential(or birth-related) to the gods, they TAKE bodies upon them to later sanctify them, but they are not born in such, for the two illogical would follow: a) such bodies then , after proceding from eternal and powerful beings can be subject to death again, thus, leaveing nothing to assure us(contrary to Scripture) that resurected beings can and will probably die again. B) if not, then it makes not any sense the adam-god-theory c) if a is true, then birth(that includes a body) in the preexistence is selective, and respects not the rights of the firstborn(for it chose to give a body to Adam and not Jesus before earthly birth) d)Definetively, it cant follow that God's "media" of procreation(if natrural to Him-be it sex or otherwise) is a tool in his hands, from which he can decide, how to have babies this time, with bodies or plainly spirit ones, because we in earth do not select how to procreate, just go along with it, we cant ündo'a baby, just as elohim cannot just select in which essential state(corporeal or not) the Mother(s) will deliver such creatures. This and a lot more of complications arise, just proceding from your assertion based on Joseph Smith's teaching of the 'son without a father". How then, will we justify this LH? regards,

Maybe Adam is Michael and God.... Eliza R. Snow (one of Joseph Smith's wives) "Adam is the great Archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ--the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man--Adam!" Consider also an old Mormon hymn: There was also a Mormon hymn published in 1856 entitled "We Believe in Our God", that stated: We believe in our God the great Prince of His race, The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days, Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain, Who'll counsel and fight for his children again. We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ..." (Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 375) (Liverpool, 1856). From Wikipedia Josh Eliza Snow's statement, thoughj very important cannot be equated to this Work's author, Joseph Smith, who made the plainest assertions differentiating Adam from Elohim and Jesus, in fact, in one of his discourses he said: It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (JD 1:51; see also Heber C. Kimball in JD 10:235.) The dust from which Adam was made was this one Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him [Adam] forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from when he was taken. (Moses 4:29. See also Alma 42:2.) Also "for, behold, the devil was before Adam,"(D&C29:35-37) How can Adam be teh Father of Jesus if teh Father of Jesus spoke to him? : And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever; (Moses 6:64-66.) So Joseph never taught that, Eliza knew that, but as she became wife of Young, and he(under his totalitarian will) promoted(out of nothing) such "revelation"or new "knowledge" she just accepted it as a supplement to what Joseph had taught her(instead of taking it as contrary to it). For more check this out http://www.mormonfundamentalism.com/OldAdamGod.htm

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I think this doctrine is true, I'm just saying I am keeping an open mind on it. But again, it is my personal belief that Adam was a ressurected being before He came here. Nobody else needs to believe it; and I'm not trying to convince any one of it either. To me, it just makes sense. L.H. We know Lion Heart, but we want to understand also, WHY do you believe that. Cause you dont "just believe'that without any base(reasoning, scripture, etc...), we are just providing you with the questions and enviroment you need to let such doctrine be tested. Dont you agree? After all, it was you who introduced that into this thread, and we are glad you did, but lets not stop it now just because a feeling of awkardness may arise as you(or anybody)can't satisfy all questions concerning this theory, lets just accept then(if you or us are not gonna persue this any longer) that this is where the head hits the wall :) LOL.

He certainly did, but i preffer B.H.Roberts by a mile. :) regards,

So far, none of the Adam-God theory defenders has alluded greatfully our claims(also my three), why is that brothers? Come on Lion heart, if such a theory is valid it should stand ON something(other than the words of a single authority-which Kimball declared "false"in terms of this teaching-and of who you only take THIS particular teachings and not the rest. Regards,

Although this is true Apostle, and there seems to be no reason to call a God an angel, it is yet true also that Jesus in His premortal state, though a Great God, was also called "the ANGEL of the Lord"(the best correlations to justify this angel's identity with christ's is found in the passage of Joshua and the one of Sampson's birth-see "my name is Wonderful"). Also, in D&C Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are called "Gods"(in PRESENT tense), ans more obviously stresses "and they are NOT angels, but Gods", yet we know that even if they were resurected, they have no scriptural reason to be already enjoying the fruits of exaltation, as the Judgement has not yet ocurred and Gods are to rule in this earth, most likely this has to do with the Lord's assurance to Joseph smith, that in terms of knowledge and power-and salvation assurance-these saints are already counted as Gods(as they SURELY will be so). Of course, my point here is not to justify LH's belief, but to show you how weak this argument(against it) can be. Sure, i dont believe a single word pronounced by ANY of our leaders unless they are found ALSO in Scripture, so thats a point to you(when you stressed the fact of talking about CANNON and not Journal of D.). Otehr arguments ought to arise to contradict the plausability of Adam being a God BEFORE his "birth". And there are many others more stable. In fact, some are: 1) If Adam and eve were already resurected beings(for in order to have been exalted in a previous earth, they must have been dead and resurected), what hapened to the Lord's assurance in Scripture, that those who are exalted(and counted as Gods) shall not "taste death no more" but will enjoy an "everlasting offspring" and "eternal life", hence, would be like today's Elohim, CHANGELESS in terms of death and decayment? 2)Why so selective a view of brigham teachings? Did he not teach many other things strongly related to this special topic that cannot be correlated to Scripture? Like the issue of Adam's other many wives, Adam's previous relationship to Elohim? If Adam isindeed a son of Elohim, an angel, a spirit(at least at first), what happened to Joseph Smith's word in D&C concerning that "every angel that has ministered(or will at any time) on this earth, PERTAINS to it? If so, Adam had to have come unembodied, and got his body here(his first and only), for if he was from another world he would have not been permitted to be part of THIS plan. 3) The only instance in which Scripture tells us and assures us that a GOD is coming to earth to take the form of a man, is in relation to Christ, as Abinadi's word's that "God Himself shall come among the children of men and take flesh upon Him", why not mention Adam?

The tradition of Adam as an elevated spiitual being(both saved and powerful in Heaven-although not commonly-but indeed-recognized as Michael specifically) is found in apocaliptic jewish writtings and those of New testament apocrypha. Also, the Talmud makes interesting remarks concerning Adam. This tradition(that of the Patriarchs)also includes the notion of the garments and the secret codes in the priesthood.

what is that?

If no outside organization helps, please, talk to your bishop(even if it is only as last resource do it). Sometimes, only humiliating oneself will do, maybe your husband's feelings ought to notice they are wrong(and should hurt a little), its part of the healthy circle. Make him share his problems, accept them, humiliate himself in prayer, and try as hard as you can.

4. Concerning where we came from . . . _____ You didn’t suddenly spring into existence the moment you were born. You were happy in Heavenly Father’s presence . . . So He sent you to Earth, hoping that you would return to Him and receive everything He has to offer you. _____ God is Creator and Adam was the first human created. We sometimes say that God created the world, including humanity out of nothing. Literally, however, humanity was created, “out of the dust of the earth.” That is a catch(or at least sound like it). If the purspose of these questions is supposed to be mingled with the idea that they freely choose an answer from among the options, then the options should not be biased. I mean this : The structure of the options given in this one is so different as to make it impossible for any member of the Assemblies of God to choose number 1. Look: Premise A:You didn’t suddenly spring into existence the moment you were born Premise B:God is Creator Here it starts by adressing th enature of man's intrinsic origin(primal formation-whether exnihilo or molded by preexistance), but the is not fair how the premises start so differently. In A, it is given as obvious(to people that are not aquainted with such a view) the question of existing prior to birth,also, within an expression much biased "You didn’t suddenly", as in a joke or a comment by someone who is ammused to believe in such a thing. While in the second one the heading is GOD and Creator, two things to which the theist will quickly identify himself, and, there is no reason as to why not starting the premise A with the same expression of "God" the Creator9as we DO believe it is an obvious truth), we may believe in a different way of creation, but CREATION nonetheless, but in the construction of these premises, the word "creation" is used as to reffer to exnihilo, in which case, if you were not created exnihilo(a belief universal to the less prepared of theists) you are hence created otherwise, and thus you are on the mormon side. Who will pick this one in an Asembly of God? Next Premise A:You were happy in Heavenly Father’s presence . . . Premise B:Adam was the first human created This is also bad technique. the next point in the premises goes to a who(not a how of the first half of the sentence), in which the theist finds the obvious biblical answer "Adam' in B, but finds the rather rare proposition in A of "You lived there"... This is unnecesary as we also believe Adam to be the first human being. NONE of us were human beings in Heaven, but Spirits. So the theist will ultimately choose with eyes closed premise B as he relates to Adam and not the other "You". next Premise A:So He sent you to Earth, hoping that you would return to Him Premise B:God created the world, including humanity out of nothing. Now it goes as to man's origin in terms of a redundant "comunity"(i.e.humanity), and the first you notice in A, is the assertion that He SENT YOU(hence, you were already a human being that lived before earth), while in B you find humanity as created out of the dust of the earth(so God didn't send them here). Why this one's also bad? Cause we alsos believe that man was created out of the dust of the earth(at least his body). So there is no need to hide that expression from A and put it in B, so the theist will recognize "dust of the earth" and obviously choose it over A. Finally, the problem here, is not of ill intentions, or deceit, but of structure. If the question was "Concerning where we came from", the options(possible answers) should adress the matter of ORIGIN(both the author of it, and its methods). We find that in premise A, you dont mention the origin or process, just the fact "you" existed(see closely, this answer does not say anything concerning Adam). While in B, it goes to quickly forget the 'you" and go after "he" or adam. These are two different ways of putting it. Whether you adress origin as "you" in both premises(in which case premise B would say nothing of adam but specifically about "you"-birth-conception), or BOTH should adress the matter as a "he" or adam's origin(in which case both would look uwfully similiar)and will make it tough to the ordinary theist. hence, my solutiopn is this prisonchaplain, put it this way: Concerning Man's origin... 1)_______ Humans are literal sons of God, created out of the dust of the earth, but their spirits preexisted with Heavely Father, in a state of hapiness, and may live with Him again. 2)_______ Humans are creatures of God, with no literal relationship to Him, created out of the dust of the earth, did not exist prior to birth, and may live some day with Heavenly Father. Here in both cases-should i stress- humans "become" children of God through Christ. But i dont mention it cause is so wide a divide as to put it here. In theism, a human is a mere creature that through Christ becomes "adopted" or elevated and can conseder himself a "son' of God. In Mormonism, although you are literally a son of God, as we become sinful, we lose every right of inheritance, and thus, are no "legal" sons anymore, thus Christ makes us new again, and gives us again(not a state of sonship in terms of nature) but a state of sonship in terms of inheritance(i.e.we are CLEAN again through Him, to reclaim every right of children to inherit with Father, as He is pleased that we do). This is a necessary statement, but not neccesary in anyway to include in the options. regards,