Gaia

GAIA NOW: First as i've said several times, i'm not "promoting" anything; i was ASKED A QUESTION about this teaching, and i answered it. Secondly, i have already shown how this teaching was consistent with and taught in both Biblical and Book of Mormon scripture; Thirdly, that is not the only definition of "scripture" in official LDS thought: I respectfully remind you of D&C 68:4 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation. First, I was blessed to be a research assistant to some of the best (BYU) Religion Profs and experts in LDS history and doctrine -- I had access to the Church Historian's office and even the Archives/ Vault, so i do have some materials not readily available to others, but i try to limit my use of them on boards like this. GAIA: Yup -- i heartily reccomend to you the following scriptures: (John 14:26.) 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118.) 118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith ~Gaia

GAIA: So true, Moksha -- EVERYONE's opinion is important and deserves to be heard -- as long as they express it respectfully, i think. As far as "special knowledge" is concerned, i'll quote Joseph Smith: "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 149). Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hello Dear Sister Dove -- Thank you so very much for your kind words, you'll never know what they mean to me. Blessings to you -- ~Gaia

GAIA: OH THANK YOU, Hatter -- I needed a good laugh!

Hi All -- I just wanted to let ya'll know that i address Tiancum's questions here -- http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...10005&st=45 POst # 49.

GAIA: Hi There, Checkerboy -- I certainly think you have an absolute, inalienable right to determine what you will and won't read -- But how does that translate into telling OTHER people what they can and cannot post about? I've been a poster on LDS boards for a very long time, and in my experience, the way ADULTS choose to handle it when they dislike (or have no use for) a particular thread is -- they don't bother to read it. They skip it or "twit" it (and maybe its poster) and get on with reading what they DO want to read, rather than telling other people what topics they should post on. This thread was very clearly marked with its topic -- that topic was NOT hidden or "sprung" on you; there was NO "bait and switch" here. So if you think the topic is so useless and inappropriate, why did you bother to read it anyway, KNOWING what it was about? Wtih all due respect, it sure seems to me you're not quite being honest with yourself or us, Checkerboy. Two suggestions: 1. Read whatever you want; but once you decide to read, it becomes YOUR responsibility -- not somebody else's to "protect" you from your own choices. 2. Please don't presume to tell others what they can and cannot post on or talk about - at least until you're a Moderator (All due respect and appreciation to the Mods!) Blessings -- ~Gaia

Bruce R McKonkie.He further explains Brigham's other assertions in context. It makes sense to me. could you let that be a possibility for you also gaia? I could be mistaken, but it seems like a stumbling block for you...as well as other recent topics. Could that be correct? GAIA: I wanted to be sure to address this because you asked it so respectfully. First -- there aer many who do accept this explanation. I'm afraid that i personally don't think it holds much water because it certainly wasn't the only quote on Adam-God -- there were hundreds, perhaps thousands -- of others, from not just Brigham but nearly all the GA's, over a very long period of time; furthermore, there is the testimony of those who were actually at those meetings and heard the sermons, and their records of what was said -- hundreds of them, really -- that all report the very same thing. To say that "Brigham was misunderstood", or "the sermon was mis-transcribed" or any of that level of "explanation" is to completey ignore the vast historical record we have, from literally hundreds of different sources. Now, regarding Elder McConkie: There are many things i appreciate about Elder McConkie, but to be very honest, there are a few things about doctrine that i honestly differ with him about -- as did some BYU Religion professors who were my mentors, and other experts in LDS history and doctrine -- for example, BH Roberts. For example, he supported his Father-in-Law's postion on the progression of God, saying that God "progressed" ONLY in glory and dominion, but not Truth or KNowledge -- and that anybody who said differently was foolish and heretical -- pretty much anybody who disagreed with him was foolish and heretical -- but there are other ways of understanding the idea of God's progressing in Glory, Truth and knowledge (in addition to dominion) that are completely consistent with LDS teachings/ doctrines. GAIA: I get my material from LDS sources. First, I was blessed to be a research assistant to some of the best (BYU) Religion Profs and experts in LDS history and doctrine -- I had access to the Church Historian's office and even the Archives/ Vault, so i do have some materials not readily available to others, but i try to limit my use of them on boards like this. Secondly and probably more important and relevant to these discussions -- Well, i'll give you my secret, but don't tell *g* -- I have a special program....Since you asked so nicely , I'm sending you more information on it in email, ok? I don't generally visit "anti-Mormon" sites (like the Tanners) because i don't much trust them, but more than that, i don't like their motives or tactics, and i don't want to support them. And yes, you may ask me questions :) Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Not necessarily -- I think in LDS thought at least, it's more accurate to say that they are companions - works come as a RESULT of the Grace of God working in one's life to effect the "rebirth of the Spirit", which then brings forth "works" as a manifestation of that Spirit (of God and of Rebirth) working in/on us .... Here are two good quotes: FRom "Building Faith With the Book of Mormon" by Reed Bankhead and Glenn Pearson: "Some Church members, after the days of Joseph Smith have gone so far as to deny that we are saved by grace at all. Rather, they have taught, we are saved by our works. They have gone even further: they have quoted Paul’s statement in Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of words lest any man should boast," and have said that this salvation refers to the resurrection only. We know that is incorrect for two reasons: (1) Paul stated that this salvation he was talking about came through faith; and faith is not required for a resurrection. (2) Nephi taught exactly the same thing in 2 Ne. 25:23. President David O. McKay, referring to Eph. 2:8, said "That statement is absolutely true." (CR, April 1957, p. 7.) But he also taught the necessity of works and ordinances along with faith and grace. The key to understanding this statement of Paul’s is in the tenth verse: "for we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." It is the rebirth which creates a creature who has good works. It is not the good works of the creature which creates the rebirth. The confusion can be laid to rest if we always remember that our good works do not pay the demands of justice for our evil deeds. Only Christ can do this. From "Are Mormons Christians" by Stephen Robinson: "Fourth, we are saved by grace and condemned without it, no matter what else we might have or do. Grace is a sine qua non, an essential condition, for salvation. Nephi, son of Lehi, testifies, "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do" (2 Ne. 25:23). ...Our comparative righteousness is secondary in importance to our humbling ourselves, admitting our weaknesses, striving to live the gospel, and having faith in our Savior. In fact the final plea of the prophet Moroni in the last chapter of the Book of Mormon is: Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. (Moro. 10:32-33.) I hope that helps clarify -- Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: It's really good -- May i have your permission to quote you in the future, with it?

GAIA: That's really very good, Doctor -- May i ask, did you come up with it, or is it a quote from someone?

GAIA: Brigham Young: Moses said Adam was made of 'the dust of the ground,' but he did not say of WHAT ground. I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of THIS earth, but he was made of the dust of THE EARTH WHERE HE LIVED, where he honored his calling, believed in HIS Savior or elder brother, and by his faithfulness was redeemed and got a glorious RESURRECTION. ... I will tell you more: ADAM IS THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS. He lived upon AN earth, he did abide His creation and did honor to His calling and priesthood and obeyed HIS master or lord, and probably MANY of his wives did the same; and THEY LIVED AND DIED UPON AN AN EARTH AND THEN WERE RESURRECTED again to immortality and eternal life. (Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec.) Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. He had received the priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had gained his resurrection, and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he became through his faithfulness. (Brigham Young quoted in the Journal of L. John Nuttall, Feb 7, 1887)

GAIA: Rosie, i think you may have misinterpreted. I already gave several reasons why that (above) is an INCORRECT reading / interpretation of this teaching. Let's try again: In the Church, "Brother Smith" can hold several positions at different times, or even at the same time. He can be a HomeTeacher, a Husband and Father, and an Apostle -- at all the same time (although generally, Apostles probably are not called as Home teachers!) but stay with me on this, please. When Brother Smith goes to Conference, he may participate in several different ways: He might drive the family to the Taberacle -- thereby acting as a Father; He might hold the door open for his wife -- thereby acting as a good Husband; He might say the opening prayer -- thereby acting as a member of the Church; He might give an address -- thereby acting as an Apostle. EAch of these roles has different responsbiilites, authority, power, and obligations attendant with them. It is wrong to say that as a part of his duties as an apostle, he gave the opening prayer, or held the door open or drove the family car. Apostle is not the same thing as Home TEacher -- but those positions/ offices / callings might be held by the same person! Similarly, "Michael-Adam" is NOT the name of an individual, it's an OFFICE in the Priesthood - -like "Christ". NOw, what the Adam-God principle is saying, is that it's pssible the same person might fulfil the role of "MIchael-Adam" who at another time and place, fulfilled the role of "Heavenly FAther". But they are NOT "the same thing." They have DIFFERENT roles, responsibilities, obligations, authoriy and power. It is NOT correct to say that "Adam is God" anymore than it is to say, "Members are apostles" -- Do you see what i mean? ~Gaia

I meant to add this: These (Brigham Young, Heber C Kimball, John Taylor and others who taught this "Adam-God" doctrine ) were plain-spoken men, they said what they meant, and meant what they said. In the literally hundreds -- perhaps thousands of quotes relative to this teaching, over the quarter-century or more that it was taught -- they were very clear about what they meant. When you actually go back and read the original statements, it is very difficult to misunderstand or misinterpret, no matter how much some might want to. I strongly recommend actually reading the quotes for yourself, and (through prayer and study) making up your own mind in the matter. That's pretty much all i have to say about it. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Ohpuhleez. Go back and read this entire exchange and it becomes very clear who has done the "attacking" and who has NOT. * * * Hi Rosie -- You make a very good point about this doctrine being relevant to "knowing who we worship" -- and in fact, that's exactly what Brigham YOung said about it: Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That will be a curse to many of the elders of Israel because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven. Yet the world holds it in derision. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct 8, `1861) Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken. HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the Only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation. (Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51, 1854) How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me--namely that Adam is our father and God...Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth . . . We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "go ye and make an earth." . . . Father adam came here, and then they brought his wife . . . Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh. (Deseret News, June 18, 1873) INterestingly, Joseph Smith said something very similar, and quite relevant to and consistent with this theory/doctrine: If men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves..... Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you,--namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one,--from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. GAIA: LOL -- Funny you should say that -- Joseph Smith said just the opposite. IN the King Follet Discourse - -which many say goes hand-in-hand with the Adam-God theory/doctrine, Smith said: Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took in hand to save the world of spirits. This is good doctrine. It tastes good. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit and principles of eternal life, and so can you. I know it is good and that when I tell you of these words of eternal life that are given to me by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the revelations of Jesus Christ, you are bound to receive them as sweet. You taste them and I know you believe them. I rejoice more and more. (The King Follett Discourse: a Newly Amalgamated Text by Stan Larson Fn, BYU Studies, vol. 18 (1977-1978), Number 2 - Winter 1978 204.) GAIA: Oh, let's look at the REST of that story, and make sure that we accurately portray its meaning/ implication: Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: "There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people." [brigham Young first met Joseph Smith in September, 1832 in Kirtland, Ohio. He said: "Here my joy was full at the privilege of shaking the hand of the Prophet of God, and I received the sure testimony, by the spirit of pro-phecy, that he was all any man could believe him to be, a true prophet." (Mill Star July 11, 1863, p. 439.) During this visit a meeting was held in which Brigham spoke in tongues. After this manifestation Joseph prophesied: "The time will come when brother Brigham Young will preside over the Church." (See History of the Church 1:297; Mighty Men of Zion, p. 16; Mill Star 21:439; Journal of Discourses 3:51; 4:54; 5:332; 8:206; 9:89, 332; They Knew The Prophet, Hyrum L. Andrus, p. 34.)] GAIA: So when a prophet says, "This was a REVELATION to me, and it is a REVELATION to you", and "this is SCRIPTURE", he culd actually be teaching FALSE DOCTRINE or even be "listening to the WRONG Spirit"? And by "wrong spirit", you mean exactly who -- the Devil? So just to be clear: You are actually suggesting that Brigham Young, sustained as "Prophet Seer and Revelator" was actually listening to the DEVIL (or a "wrong" spirit) when he claimed he had received revelation? If you can't be sure who your prophets are actually getting their revelation from, why bother to HAVE prophets? ~Gaia

GAIA: Perhaps part of the trial is to survive the loss of status and opportunity (including advancement, wealth, etc -- even the opportunities to bless other lives with that wealth) that was once part of that job... and to find ways to succeed and thrive, despite that loss. It's the same with serious, chronic illness -- it makes no sense when the losses (of opportunity and all) are viewed from a mortal perspective; but when viewed from an eternal perspective, it teaches many lessons (not the least of which are the kind of humility, compassion, patience and wisdom, that those who have never had such trials, can never -- well, seldom -- understand. ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi Rosie --I think you've raised some good and important points. I think there are several reasons why many good people are concerned about discussing it: 1. They feel there is confusing, conflicting or insufficient information on it, to discuss it wisely; 2. They feel that raising it might confuse, trouble or offend those new in the Gospel; 3. Current Church leaders have very strongly and firmly condemned it and ( it seems to many) even discussion about it, so they fear they may be in opposition to the Prophet or God by even discussing or thinking about it. 4. There are so many clear doctrines that they consider esential to salvation and worth discussion, that they feel they cannot justify the time and effort spent on something so unclear, questionable, and which seems totally INessential to their salvation. (Though Brigham and others said it would eventually prove essential to salvation, they can rationalize his comments away somewhat) I think these certainly are understandable, reasonable concerns. Taken all together, they can put a strong negative "spin" on the entire subject, and most people want to avoid negativity, or "the appearance thereof" -- and focus on what they feel is safe, essential, and approved. I just wish they would try to understand that not everyone feels constrained to do so; that some people have a different view and that there is room for different perspectives, attitudes, interests, gifts and talents in the Church -- that simply thinnking or talking about something does not necessarily mean you are "guily" of anything, and that those of us who are different are no less children of Heavenly FAther and Mother. Thanks for your effort to understand. Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hi Everyone -- I thought it might be agood idea to come back to some basic, essential Gospel principles -- Anyone want to start a discussion on the relationship between Grace and Works, in LDS thought? Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hello Everyone -- Since we've gotten into some pretty far-out disusisons, i thought it might be a good idea to come back to some good, basic and essential gospel doctrine -- Would anyone like to start this discussion on How the Father and Son are "One"? Blessings -- ~Gaia

Hello Everyone -- Since we've gotten into discussions on some pretty far-out (non)doctrine / ideas, i thought it might be a good idea to come back to some good, basic Gospel doctrine -- Would anyone like to start this discussion? In what ways is Jesus "the Father and the Son"? ~Gaia

That seems like a terribly personal question. Did you used to ask people what their Patriarchal Blessing said? In what possible way is it personal? I'm not asking if anyone is committing arson or watching porn. I am asking how a Church authority responds to not only holding heretical put promoting heretical views. Some of the questions in such an interview speak to sypathizing with apostates and sustaining the Brethren. Gaia has openly shared her feelings on such. GAIA: Gaia also made it clear when she was quoting (past vs present) doctrine, and when something was merely speculation -- or did you miss that part? And with all due respect -- insistently inquiring about what goes on in private interviews with a Bishops is -- in case you didn't realize -- completely inappropriate. If you still have trouble understanding that, i suggest you ask your Bishop about it. ~Gaia

Our discarded history or outmoded doctrines really do not need to be denied nor referred to as anti-mormon. What was was. It is best to own our mistakes so that we can learn from them. What is up with the constant use of large size bolded type? GAIA: Hi Moksha -- Well, i know i occasionally use bold or caps to emphasize or clarify a thought or quote -- especially if someone has tried to negate or question it. However i think it's also true that some people get pretty heated in their defensiveness over these topics.... I've said elsewhere that the more you see caps, large size type and all (online), the more likely it is that someone's "Shadow" is being activated.... and i think that's certainly true here, with all the accusations of "anti-Mormon" being hurled about Ironically, these are probably the very same folks who will rhapsodize in Suday School about how America is the "only country where the Truth of the Gospel could have been restored and taken root" because of its principles of Freedom, especially freedom of thought and freedom of Religion.... LOL! ~Gaia

GAIA: With all due respect, that is simply WRONG ; In fact, in General Conference, (President and Prophet) Brigham Young specifically called the doctrine "SCRIPTURE" -- See Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec. (The quote is a long address, so be sure to read it entirely) - and in another (see below) he referred to it as revelation. Therefore, If you have an issue with it, your issue is with Brigham, and the other GA's who taught the doctrine over a quarter century. GAIA: I deliberately quoted LDS sources. If you have any doubts about that, i suggest you consult the sources yourself -- i provided the references so you could do so. I also think i made myself quite clear that the "anti-Mormons" have it completely WRONG, and MISunderstand what is essentially (and was thought by the GA's who taught it) "one of the most glorious revealments of....heaven -- " I think one of the best ways to respond to those who ridicule it and cast aspersions on the character and motives of those who merely repeat it, is to quote President (and Prophet) Brigham Young: "Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God, That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold it in derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until doomsday. But they are ignorant and stupid as the dumb ######." (Brigham Young, 8 Oct 1861, Ms sermons of Brigham Young, Church Archives.) And here's another: "Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true". (Brigham Young, 7 Oct 1857, Journal of Discourses, 5:331.) And another from Apostle and Counselor in First Presidency, Heber C Kimball: "The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God and Father of all the inhabitants of this earth." (Heber C. Kimball, Memorandum, 30 April 1862; Sacred History, Soloman F. Kimball papers, Church Archives.) I hope nobody thinks THEY are "anti-Mormons" . I also hope that everyone remembers i have made it very clear that it is NOT a *currently* accepted doctrine or teaching of the Church. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Y'know, there's a HUGE difference between (on the one hand) saying, "This thing just doesn't make sense, heart or spirit to me, and i don't expect it ever will...."; - And (on the other hand) saying something like, "And you have evil/ unworthy / suspicious motives for raising, talking or thinking about it in the first place!" Unfortunately, That's the sort of hostility that some folks seem to harbor about many of these "controversial" issues....I think that sort of defensiveness is rather sad; -- And ilt's precisely what i was talking about with my "few personal notes" at the end of that previous post - allowing the Church's enemies to define those issues in negative and troubling terms, which then have to be defended against. Hopefully, we'll get beyond that, some day. Blessings -- ~Gaia

GAIA: Hi There, Traveler -- Great Question! In my experience, at least some "trials" are things that would normally be good and righteous for us to desire and work toward, but which are withheld from us, or required for us to SACRIFICE -- for higher reasons. Consdier for example, Abraham's Trial: Abraham had been promised the "son of the Promise" -- the son of Sarah who would be the one to continue to bless the whole earth with the Priesthood, which had to have been one of Abraham's greatest hopes and desires; but as time went by, it must have seemed that his hopes were in vain. Then the miracle! -- The child is concieved and born sucessfully, grows somewhat.....and Abraham is presented with a commandment to sacrifice him. Can we possibly try to imagine what must have gone through his mind: How could the promises be fulfilled if the child is sacrificed? And Abraham himself had barely escaped being a VICTIM of child sacrifice in his youth; could there have been anything more heinous to him, more offensive? He had to have wondered, Could this really be God who is requiring this horrific, horrendous thing, and if not, who exactly is it that Abraham has been lisltening to, trusting in, all this time? I dunno, but i have to wonder whether these aren't some of the thoughts that must have gone through his mind.... But Abraham met the challenge, and obeyed -- and of course, we know the rest of the story: he was blessed. I think an Abrahamic Trial is one that cuts right to the quick of your most righteous, honorable and deepest heartfelt desires and hopes; it requires you to offer up those desires and hopes upon the Altar to God -- and causes you to question everything, everything ..... and yet, if you make it through, God withholds nothing from you. I think that's at least part of the meaning of "Sacrifice brings forth the Blessings of Heaven...." ~Gaia

GAIA: Well, here's how i would explain it, and address some of the objections to it: ADAM-GOD Explanations & Rationales: Here are a couple of HINTS that some people use, for solving some of the problems, dilemmas, confusions and contradictions often raised around this doctrine: 1. Confusion around the terms, Michael-Adam, Elohim, Gods, etc: The term "Elohim" is actually a plural which means literally "Gods" and it's frequently used that way in LDS theology; so it is a term which, precisely speaking, refers NOT to an individual, but to an OFFICE or to a plurality. It is also occasionally used in general LDS discussion to refer to God the Father. b. 'Michael-Adam' is a term that refers to an OFFICE in the Priesthood, although it (or its constituent parts "Michael" and "Adam") are often used as proper names, they are NOT. "Adam" means literally, "red clay" or "red earth." "Michael" means literally, "who is like God". IN LDS doctrine, "Michael" refers to that pre-mortal being who assists the Elohim (or "Gods" in creation. In LDs theology, the term "Gods" can apply to those "noble and great" pre-mortal spirits; they were considered "Gods".) In LDS doctrine, "Adam" refers to that being who enters the Garden of Eden and *becomes* mortal, in order to open up mortality and earth life in general, for all. 2. LDS doctrine as taught by Joseph Smith, says that even the Earth itself is enduring a "probationary period" -- it has obeyed the Law of Sacrifice, it has been baptized, it will eventually be sanctified, glorified and exalted. Therefore, Adam's "fall" referred not just to human beings, but to the Earth itself as well. (More on this if anybody wishes) 3. The terms "Elohim" "Michael-Adam", "Jehovah", and "Christ" are all PRIESTHOOD OFFICES , not proper names of people. This is important to keep straight because in LDS practice, one single person may hold many different Priesthood offices; or an office may be filled by different people at different times. So according to the Adam-God doctrine, The being we refer to as Heavenly Father participated in the Creation and in the early establishment of this earth, in MORE THAN ONE WAY, and in more than one office -- It's a bit like saying, "Brother Smith participated in General Conference in three different contexts and roles: 1) as an individual (giving the opening prayer or sustaining the authorities), 2) as an Apostle, (giving an address), and finally 3) as a father, (bringing his family and taking the baby out to be changed when necessary). However, "father", "Apostle" and "Brother Smith" are all very *different* things, with different roles, responsibilities, obligations, authorities, power, roles, etc. It would be as wrong to say that "Father" is an apostle, as it would be to say that "father runs the church", or "apostle" changes diapers as part of his official responsibilities. Thus, it is NOT (doctrinally) correct to say that "Adam is God," or that "LDS worship Adam" -- So Brigham and other GA's could very truthfully deny that "Adam is God" (as they did) withOUT negating the principles of the so-called "Adam-God" doctrine. 3. Regarding Adam's supposed "death" : First, while the scriptures use the words "Adam died" (Genesis 5:5) we don't really know exactly what they might mean by this. The scriptures (Deut. 34:1-8) also refer to the "death" of Moses, yet according to LDS doctrine he did NOT die, but was translated, in order to appear on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus: (Robert J. Matthews, Behold the Messiah : "Although it is recorded in Deuteronomy that Moses died and supposedly was buried by the hand of the Lord (Deut. 34:1-8), it is certain that he did not die but was translated. If it were not so he could not have appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration to lay on hands and bestow keys of the holy priesthood. Since this event took place before the resurrection of Jesus, and since Moses had lived thirteen centuries before Christ, it follows that in A.D. 33 Moses was a translated being, even as Elijah. Perhaps this is why "no man knoweth of his sepulchre" and why it was assumed that he "was buried by the hand of the Lord" in Moab (Deut. 34:5-6; Alma 45:19) for since he was translated, there was no place of burial." (Robert J. Matthews, Behold the Messiah [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1994], 245.) Thus, scripture has elsewhere reported the "death" of someone when in fact, we know differently. 4. The being who fufilled the OFFICE of "Michael-Adam" would have returned from Whence he came, but the responsibilities of the Office have not yet been completed. Eventually Michael-Adam, as the head of all dispensations, will gather the keys of each dispensation from each leader, then, we're told scripturally and doctrinally, Adam-Michael will turn over the keys to Jesus, who will present the completed Work of 'an Eternity' to his Father, God the Father -- another example of someone participating in something in multiple ways, roles, and Offices. 5. "Adam walked in the Garden with the Father..." This brings up another question regarding statements like, "Adam walked in the Garden with the Father"..... There are several possibilities to explain this: 1) Jesus is often referred to as the Father by virtue of His position as the "Father" of those who are born again. 2) But many people feel that a more likely explanation is found in the scripture: (Revelation 1:5-6.) ... Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen." God the Father has a Father, Who has a Father, Who has a Father.....and so on. Adam may well have been walking and talking with HIS father -- our "Grandfather", so to speak. It's important to realize that LDS doctrine affirms the unending line of Exalted Beings -- As the hymn, "If you could Hie to Kolob" says: If you could hie to Kolob, In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward, With that same speed to fly, D'ye think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be ? Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend ? Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end ? Me thinks the Spirit whispers, "No man has found 'pure space,' "Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound; Improvement and progression Have one eternal round. There is no end to matter, There is no end to space, There is no end to spirit, There is no end to race." - We have not merely a Heavenly Father and Mother, but a Heavenly Grandfather and Grandmother, and so on back, and back and back -- no end to Heavenly parents who can "stand-in" for each other, if necessary, in various contexts. 6. Also -- remember, "Adam" is NOT "the God that we worship" even according to the Adam-God doctrine -- any more than "Home Teacher" is head of the Elder's Quorum -- But Elder Smith may fill both positions at the same (or different) time(s). Here's a poem from one of my favorite poets -- Eliza R Snow Smith -- a plural wife of Joseph, who was known as "Zion's High Priestess", "Zion's Poetess" and "Presidentess Snow" most of her life -- THE ULTIMATUM OF HUMAN LIFE by Eliza R. Snow (Smith)* "The sun had set, and twilight's shady mood Spread a brown halo--ting'd the solitude As days last glimmer flitted down the west; Life's stirring scenes demurely sank to rest-- Soft silence lent its contemplative charm, And all conspir'd the mental pulse to warm-- From world to world, imagination wander'd, While thought, the present, past, and future ponder'd. "As I was musing the desire intense That some kind guardian angel might dispense Instruction; lo! a seraph-form appeared-- His look---his voice my anxious spirit cheer'd. It was the Priesthood-- he who holds the key T' unlock the portals of Eternity; And with o'erflowing heart, I took my seat, An enter'd student at th' Instructors feet. "What would'st thou me?" The seraph gently said: "Tell me, and wherefore hast thou sought my aid?" "I then replied: Long, long I've wish'd to know What is the cause of suff'ring here below-- What the result of human life will be-- Its ultimatum in Eternity. "With deep, attentive mind-- with list'ning ear, I watch'd and waited ev'ry word to hear; As thus he said; 'Tis not for you to pry Into the secrets of the worlds on high-- "To seek to know the first, the moving Cause, Councils, decrees, organizations, laws-- Form'd by the Gods, pertaining to this earth, Ere your great Father from their courts came forth, The routine of his ancestors to tread-- Of this new world, to stand the royal head. "The more immediate cause of all the woe And degradation in your world below, Is disobedience: Sorrow, toil and pain, With their associates, follow in its train. This life's an ordeal, and design'd to prove Fraternal kindness and parental love. Earth is your Father's workshop. What is done-- All that's attain'd, and what achievements won, Is for the Parents: All things are their own-- The children now hold nothing but by loan. Whatever some may claim in proud pretense; No one has yet obtain'd inheritance; E'en Abraham has no possession gain'd Of what by promise he thro' faith obtained: And all that greedy hands accumulate, Is yet the Father's, not the child's estate. Then shame, O shame, on all the strife you see Here in the cradle of life's nursery-- The green-ey'd jealousies--the frosty hate Which carnal, avaricious thoughts create! How vain that phantom of mortality, The mimic-form of human dignity! 'Tis soon enough for infant lips to talk Of pow'r and greatness, when they've strength to walk-- 'Tis soon enough for children to be great, When they can boast a self-possess'd estate. "It will not matter whatsoe'er is gained, Or what on earth may seem to be obtained; But 'tis important that each one prepare To be with Christ, a joint, an equal heir: Faith, and obedience, and integrity, Will the grand test of future heirship, be. If true and faithful to the Father's will, It matters not what station here you fill; As you prepare yourself on earth, will be Your place, your portion in eternity. "As disobedience fill'd the world with pain, Obedience will restore it back again. The base perversions of my pow'r produce All the strong engines satan has in use; And qualify the sons of men to dwell With his dark majesty, the prince of hell. All that obey the pow'rs of darkness go With those they follow-- to the world below, Then list to me--my precepts all obey-- The Gods have sent me in this latter-day, Fully commissioned upward all to lead, Who will my councils and instructions heed- Who seek in ev'ry circumstance and place, To benefit and bless the human race-- Who seek in their Father's interests to enhance-- His glorious cause upon the earth advance-- Whether below, they much or little claim, If they exalt and magnify his name; And in his service labor faithfully, They'll have a fullness in his legacy. Each faithful saint is an acknowledg'd heir, And as his diligence, will be his share, When god a patrimony shall bestow Upon his sons and daughters here below. "Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been Subject to sorrow in a world of sin: Through long gradation he arose to be Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty. And what to him in his probative sphere, Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer? Whate'er his offices and callings were, He magnified them with assiduous care: By his obedience he obtain'd the place Of God and Father of this human race. "Obedience will the same bright garland weave, As it has done for your great Mother, Eve, For all her daughters on the earth, who will All my requirements sacredly fulfill. And what to Eve, though in her mortal life, She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife? Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great? 'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth-- She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth. "Life's ultimatum, unto those those that live As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive; Is still the onward, upward course to tread-- To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth, And to their spirt-race, give mortal birth-- Give them experience in a world like this; Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss, Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy Where full perfection dwells, without alloy. "Thus said the Seraph.--Sacred in my heart I cherish all his precious words impart; And humbly pray, I ever may, as now, With holy def'rence in his presence bow. The field of thought he open'd to my view, My wonder rous'd--my admiration too: I marvel'd at the silly childishness Of saints, the heirs of everlasting bliss, The candidates for Godheads and for worlds, As onward time, eternities unfurls. I felt my littleness, and thought, henceforth I'll be myself, the humblest saint on earth; And all that God shall to my care assign, I'll recognize and use as His, not mine. Wherever he appoints to me a place, That will I seek, with diligence, to grace, And for my Parents, whatso'er my lot, To work with all my might, and murmer not, I'll seek their interest, till they send or come, And as a faithful daughter take me home. "As thus I mus'd, the lovely queen of night, 'Neath heav'n's blue canopy, diffus'd her light: Still brighter beams o'er earth's horizon play-- A cheering prelude to approaching day, When truth's full glory will o'erspread the skies, And the bright "Sun of Righteousness" arise." ~End. (The "ULTIMATUM OF HUMAN LIFE" was published in Salt Lake City, printed at the Latter-day Saints' Printing and Publishing Establishment in 1877. in "Poems, Religious, Historical, and Political by Eliza R. Snow. Vol. II, Compiled by the Author" It is found on pages 5-10) SO WHAT HAPPENED? First, The doctrine was no longer taught publicly after about 1898 when Apostle and Counselor in the First Presidency, George Q. Cannon, gave a talk before the first Sunday School conference entitled "Things which Should not be Taught in Sunday School." In this talk Cannon says he thinks it "not wise" to advocate the Adam God Doctrine, Multiple Mortal Probations, and certain other teachings formerly taught openly from the stand. Secondly, There was a REFORM of LDS Doctrine, between 1890-1915, during which several doctrines -- including, but not limted to: - polygamy - eternal progression - Multiple Mortal Probations (Reincarnation, transmigration of souls) - Doctrine of Adoption (Adopting men who were unrelated by birth, to leading Priesthood leaders) - Priestesshood of women - Doctrine of Literal Gathering of Israel -- and several others) - were 'dropped', or severely revised, for various reasons -- Many feel it was to a large extent, because the church was taking so many "hits" from the secular world for doctrines they could neither understand, nor countenance. But there are many who feel that these doctrines -- including "Adam-God" -- are powerful, beautiful and profound doctrines on their own, but understood TOGETHER they create an amazing, coherent, unified whole which reveal some of the most profound truths of the universe. FINALLY (if anybody is still reading! *g*) -- a few personal notes: 1. I don't necessarily personally accept this doctrine as absolute truth; but i do think it has some real beauty and wisdom. 2. IMO, it does fit beautifully, with several other "controversial" but profound doctrines. 3. If i have any "goal" in posting this, it is to encourage LDS to: a) Give it some time, think and pray about these things, and see whether they prompt you to any whisperings of the Spirit that are valauble to you. If not, fine. But if so -- finer *g*. B) stop permitting the Church's enemies to define this doctrine as something to hate, fear, argue against, deny, suppress, demonize or ignore. IOW, stop reacting to the REACTIONS TO it, and consider it on its own -- consider it as if you had NO preconceptions about these topics, these words; consider it as if it MIGHT just have something to teach you of importance and value. Consider it is if it may just be a *beautiful* doctrine with profound spiritual significance and implications. I hope LDS will someday stop allowing the church's enemies to define it, and use it against the church and Prophet from whose brilliance it sprung, -- this makes no sense, heart or spirit to me. At the very least, i think it's possible for (some) LDS to stop groaning whenever someone raises the issue and proudly reply (some version of) "yeah, so what!" *g* -- well, maybe more like -- "This just might be a beautiful spiritual truth which you are evidently incapable of comprehending -- so much the sadder for you." Blessings to all - ~Gaia