LionHeart

One thing I like about it is the fact that he knows the bible well enough that he can jump around between bible passages to answer questions that might come up from insufficient information given through a particular passage. For example: The great flood. Why was Noah's family the only one spared? Chuck Missler pointed out, through other passages, that the other inhabitants of the Earth were 'Nephilim.' Or the result of the angels mixing with the daughters of men. Noah's family was the only ones left who were not Nephilim. Chuck Missler is also a scientist (who opposes evolution) so he offers many possibilities that help us to better understand biblical events. I find it very fascinating. L.H.

Does he have a reputation for having wild ideas?

Yeah, it was actually. L.H.

Emm kay, Whatever man.

Here's how I see it: When Adam fell, he subjected mankind to sin and death. This was a result of His doing, not ours. The atonement of Jesus Christ redeems us from that death by offering us a resurrection in the next life. Hence the term "Our Redeemer." But that's not all. Jesus lived a perfect life of pure innocence and was brutally tortured and crucified as the result of a deal made with the Father to pay the price for our sins. This price, however, does not purchase Celestial glory for everyone. It buys our admission into one of the three degrees of glory; namely the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial; assuming we don't commit the unpardonable sin. If we do this, we will suffer spiritual death as well as temporal death. The glory we attain to depends on what we 'qualify' for. However, in this particular situation, I percieve 'qualifying' and 'earning' very closely intertwined. For example, the captian of a war vessel: What qualified him for that position? First of all, it was within him. But this was made manifest through his works. And the reason it was in him in the first place was due to the experiences and the effort put forth to 'earn' that position. But regardless of how well he followed orders, he would have never recieved that position if he was not capable of making the proper executive decisions required for that position. But how would his superiors know he was capable of such? By his previous works. The term 'saved' can be taken in many different contexts, but for the following statement I will use it as meaning 'attaining to a Celestial glory'. We cannot be saved by faith alone. For faith without works is dead. One claiming to have faith and does not have works is a deciever, because if he truly had faith, works would naturally follow. The two go hand in hand because one builds upon the other. Jesus said: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength. This is the greatest commandment." He also said later on: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." I understand this to mean that the degree of our love for Him will be made manifest by the degree to which we keep His commandments. L.H.

I recently listened to part of an audio book by a certain bible scholar who is also up to speed on the Hebrew language. Among the fascinating things he pointed out was this translation of the genealogy from Adam to Noah. This genealogy can be found in Genesis chapter 5. Another improtant thing he pointed out is that the characters of Hebrew literature are not like English where the characters represent a certain sound. The Hebrew characters represent a certain expression. Some may have multiple meanings depending on the context; which is established by the characters before and after them. For example: one character could represent the expression 'he ran quickly' etc. So here it is: The name 'Adam, translated directly from Hebrew, means 'Man'. Adam begat Seth, which means 'Appointed' Seth begat Enos, which means 'Mortal' Enos begat Cainan, which is a mistranslation; it is supposed to read 'Keenan' which means 'Sorrow' Keenan begat Mahalaleel, which means 'Blessed God' Mahalaleel begat Jared, which means 'Shall come down' Jared begat Enoch, which means 'Teaching' (intersting because Enoch was a great teacher) Enoch begat Methusaleh, which means 'His death shall bring forth' (Also interesting because he is the oldest man in the bible. The same year he died was the year the great flood commenced; which fulfilled a prophecy made about him) Methusaleh begat Lamech, which means 'despair' And Lamech begat Noah, which means 'Comfort or rest" So to put the names together like this: Adam Seth Enos Keenan Mahalaleel Jared Enoch Methusaleh Lamech Noah, you are actually saying this sentence: Man shall be appointed mortal sorrow but the blessed God shall come down teaching that His death shall bring forth despair, comfort, or rest. Which is the essence of Christainity. L.H.

Except salvation doesn't necessarily mean admittance into the Celestial Kingdom. Salavtion would be, as Traveler said, saved from the fall. From there, we would enter into whatever kingdom we were worthy of. This is known as our 'exaltation' L.H.

But you see, this is reasoning from a finite perspective. First of all, the scripture you quoted doesn't say that the Holy One is Jesus. It merely says "The Holy One". Now let's consider this in an eternal perspective: Who would appoint God the Father as ruler over this world and all others He presides over? Of course the answer would be: His Father. From this point of view, God the Father could be considered a prince. In fact from this point of view, all the Gods in Heaven could be considered kings and princes. But again, I'm not trying to prove it correct, because that would be impossible. I am merely pointing out that if one takes into consideration the doctrine of the eternities of the Gods, then this theory is plausible. And, I will say it again: the fact that Brigham Young taught that Adam was a son of God does not cancel out the fact that he also taught that Adam was God. But again, looking at it from an eternal perspective, even if Adam was God, He would still be a son of God. I have no doubt that Brigham Young realized this. L.H.

Does anyone remeber that ruby ridge incident? That Randy Weaver character had some wild ideas; that the end of the world was coming and that everyone should hoard an arsenal of weaponry to defend what's theirs. It sure is sad how that turned out. L.H.

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.

author unknow psh... Thats really good, your very talented

Don't you see what's happening here Ray? You are turning a blind eye to the truth simply because the truth is inconvenient for you. This doesn't say much for one who is always claiming to know the truth. Brigham Young did teach the doctrine. You would have to be blind not to see that. Again, he was not speaking in some kind of code language; and the assumption that his scribes mis-quoted him is the most pathetic excuse I ever heard. However, it is also clear that he taught the account found in the book of Genesis as well. If I was to make a guess as to why, I would say that he knew that the main body of the church would reject the Adam/God theory. Therefore, rather than give up on them, he continued to teach them something they would accept. He did say, in the discourse, that the things he was going to advance were not for the world, as well as for many of the people who were present. L.H.

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.

If I understand you correctly, it appears we have a different understanding of the Adam/God theory. First of all, it would not be doing an injustice to the first born (Jesus) because Adam would be His Father. Therefore, Adam would have the right to recieve a body first first. In fact the very existence of Jesus would depend on it. Secondly, the mortal realm and and the heavenly realm are entirely different. People are born in spirit first and then in the flesh. Adam would have been born on another world, earned His salvation there, and recieved a ressurection. He would not have been born, primarily, into a mortal body. Then, when He had a large enough population of spirit children, and a world prepared for them, He then would have came down to this Earth to commence mankind on it. This is why Brigham Young came to conclusion that Adam must be God. Because fulfilling that position would be His responsibilty. To take a resurrected being from another world and con him into coming to this world as a favor and subjecting him to sin and death again would be an injustice to the other being, and would have been dumping his responsibilty on another. 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. And now, regarding where, in eternity mankind commenced, all I can say is: to my comprehension, never. Mankind has existed from eternity to eternity. If we are to believe the scriptures when they say that God has existed from eternity to eternity, we must also believe the same about mankind. Because the Gods cannot beget spirit children without bodies; bodies which they recieved when they were born into a world. As we know it, this second estate is where we earn our Godhood. One must conclude that the Gods in Heaven earned theirs the same way. I would also like to point out that I am not trying to prove anything right or wrong, but merely attempting to help people to understand the nature of the Adam/God theory; the origins, and why such conclusions were reached. L.H.

By both. Like was mentioned before, faith without works is dead. We must start out by planting the seeds of faith; which, through our exercise of it, will grow. It does not truly grow without our exercising it through our works. This faith is a requirement to gain our salvation. Many people think they only need to confess Jesus as their Savior and they are saved; but Jesus himself says: "Matt. 7: 21 21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." L.H. So what you're saying is that a believer has no choice but to work to get salvation? So you have to work, not should work? Yes. Said work being living the Lord's commandments. Living the Lord's commandments is the path to perfecting our character. Jesus instructed us in how to live, now we must show our faith by living accordingly. Herein is salvation. L.H.

This is a very good question. Jesus said: "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? For your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things." So one might ask: "If the Lord already knows what we need, then why must we pray for them?" A saying that can partly answer this question is this: "God helps those who help themselves." True; He knows what we need, but He also expects us to figure it out as well. We must put forth an effort on our part to find out what we need. Then we pray for it. If it is line with what our Heavenly Father has planned for us, He will grant it; providing our prayer is sincere and faithful. Only then can we truly appreciate it when we recieve the things we pray for. Another purpose of prayer, according to my experience, is that it is an excellent way to get close to God. When my father passed away, my prayers were my only comfort. The opportunity to pour my heart out to the Lord and in return, recieve his spirit in such an abundance was a great comfort; and was very helpful in pulling through that time of hardship. As far as growing the arm back, it is likely that the person's arm was ripped off for a purpose; likely an experience that person needed to go through. So growing it back might not be what the Lord has in mind. L.H.

I suppose it would be possible, but not likely. True, Jesus attained GodHood before He came here, but mankind was already established on this Earth. There was no question of where his body would have come from. Michael/Adam, on the other hand was the first to inhabit this Earth. People could accept that he was created from the dust of the Earth, and that Eve, or "family" was created from one of his ribs, but that would not be following the principle of procreation that was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. L.H.

Because of this quote: "Then, can you by process of reasoning or argument, tell whether it was an apple that bore the first seed of an apple, or an apple seed that made the first apple? Or, whether it was a seed of a squash that made the first squash, or a squash that bore the first squash seed? Such abstruse questions belong to the philosophy of the world; in reality there never was and never will be a time when there was not both the apple and the apple seed." This principle was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. This is partly what is meant by the saying "My course is one eternal round." To accept this, one must accept that Adam had a father in the flesh. True, our lives have a beginning here, but they also have an end here. They had a beginning, therefore they must have an end. When considering this principle on an eternal basis, if mankind as a whole had a beginning, it must have an end. If mankind in the flesh has been in existence from eternity to eternity, would it not be reasonable to conclude that it continues according to the laws set forth by the eternity of Gods for procreation? Where was there ever a son without there first being a father? Or where was there ever a father without there first being a son? One other thing I might throw into the equasion is the fact that the bible went through many languages before being translated to english. Even then it was selectively compiled to give the message intended by the compilers. As a result of this, many things were lost or mistranslated. But in the original hebrew text, according to a certain biblical scholar, the word Adam, is not a name. His name is Michael. The word Adam actually translates to "First man" And the word "Eve" translates to either "Many" or "Family"; depending on the context in which it is being used. I don't know if this helps you to understand my point of view better, as there are many things to be understood about it before one can grasp the whole picture of the concept. L.H.

According to my understanding of the Adam-God theory, these quotes do not contradict it. These quotes seem to assert that God created Adam in His own image. The Adam-God theory that Brigham Young taught adopts the concept of God having a Father in Heaven. Thus His children would be in his own image. Further, in the literal translation from the Hebrew text, the word "create" was actually supposed to be "organized." One cannot draw the conclusion that because he made these statements, he did not teach or believe the Adam-God theory. Although, it is clear that Brigham Young taught the bible account, there is absolutely no doubt that he also taught, and believed the Adam-God theory; concerning which, he also said that the things he was about to reveal to the people was not for most of them and the Lord would shut up the ears and block the understanding of those who would not accept it. For those who did not gain an understanding of it, it would make sense to continue to teach them the version they could understand; which version he said was given to the people of Israel because they also could not understand the other. It is possible that it was never included in the canon due to the number of people who did not agree with it. As far as doctrinal sources go, one could also argue that the teaching "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become."is not doctrinal, and therefore of no relevance, because that was derived from a discourse given by Joseph Smith which was never included in any "official canon". I imagine in Brigham Young's days, the people held him in much the same regard as they hold Gordon B. Hinckley today. This being said, and considering the fact that most LDS I talk to say they believe that Gordon B. Hinckley communes with the Savior face to face on a daily basis, if he was to come out in general conference and say "God told me such and such doctrine. I know it is true because God told me so." I'll bet people would not be sayng things like "He's only a man, he makes mistakes." but they would take him very seriously. But if said doctrine was not very agreeable, people would begin to shoot it down as soon as he died. L.H.

By both. Like was mentioned before, faith without works is dead. We must start out by planting the seeds of faith; which, through our exercise of it, will grow. It does not truly grow without our exercising it through our works. This faith is a requirement to gain our salvation. Many people think they only need to confess Jesus as their Savior and they are saved; but Jesus himself says: "Matt. 7: 21 21: Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." L.H.

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.

I wish I would have known about this sooner. I recently removed a wart using brute force. (A knife and pliers) L.H.

I'll be sure to take a look at it.... Well....I guess that depends on your definition of "uplifting" I think Adam was Adam. I actually find this disscussion very interesting...Although I am confidant that Adam is not God...I guess it is within reason that he could be michael. Barely, but it's a possibility. I just don't understand one thing. Really this is the only qusetion I have left about the whole "Adam/God/Micheal" theories. If I understand Mormon doctrine and history correctly, Joseph Smith "restored" the church. The "authority" was given to him, and he was to pass it on to the next prophet. And after Joseph Smith died the Mormon faith broke up into different fractions. Each claimed that they had the next "true" prophet, and all the others were almost as bad as any other church. The LDS followed Brigham Young and moved west. However, the majority of the people on here seem to disagree with Brigham Young's teaching on The Adam is God concept. Yet you still believe he was the true prophet? Even though he claimed that this teaching came from God. So my question is, In light of later prophets disagreeing with Brigham Young that he heard from God, What makes your claim stronger than any of the other fractions? I hope this question does not offend...I really don't know much about any of the other fractions... Thanks, Josh B) I know exactly what answer you're going to get: "Yes he was a prophet but at the same time he was still a man. Men are subject to making mistakes." I believe the reason this doctrine was never accepted is because to most people, it belittles God. I know that's how I felt when I first heard it. And I honestly didn't think there was any possibility to it until I actually read the discourse on it. I can plainly see why Brigham Young came to that conclusion. Therefore, I am keeping an open mind to the possibility. Joseph Smith, along with others, taught that God exists. Gordon B. Hinckley, along with others, teaches that Jesus is our savior. And why do people believe it? Because for the most part, they want to. But give them something they don't want to believe, regardless of whether it's true or not, or who it came from, and see how many believers you get. L.H.

Fair enough, I will see what I can do. The reason I believe it, is like I mentioned before, it makes sense. For example, in a discourse, delivered by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, it says, " Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?" Although he did not come right out and say that Adam already had a body when he came here, he neither said anything to refute the idea. It appears to me that Brigham young expanded on this idea by saying that there was never a time of creation for anything; that it was all there already. Gods have been in existence from eternity to eternity. If Gods are exalted men, one must assume that men have existed from eternity to eternity as well. And there is no creation about it. This being said, Adam must have had a mortal father. It would be against the laws of eternity for him not to. Because things that have a beginning must have an end. And since mankind has existed, and will exist for eternity, it will not have an end. If Adam was the beginning, mankind must therefore have an end. The reason I believe that Adam must have earned his salvation before he came here is because those shoes were some very big shoes to fill. No average Joe could have done it. Adam had to know how to become a God in order for him to teach his children the same. So to put it in a nutshell, a little of Joseoh Smith, a little of Brigham Young, combined with my own reasoning, and it makes sense. That is why I believe it. I hope I explained it in an understandable way. L.H.

For more information on these scams, check out this link: http://www.scambusters.org/NigerianFee.html