Jesus as the Father

[a-train]

It's the same thing. Michael is the Ancient of Days.

No its not the same thing. That is what the morons preaching that Elohim is Michael can't seem to understand. Elohim can be called "the first man" and so can Michael, but it does NOT mean they are the same being.

-a-train

[the Ogre]

Next you'll be telling us is that you advocate for the Davidic Servant.

What you just said is as dangerous to the church as the list Jim produced in the anti-mormon thread if not more so. Nothing you said is supported by church doctrine. Everything you said is the spew of apologists and speculation. If you want to be believed, you better provide citations for each truth-claim that dates no more than ten years ago. For your citations to be credible, they need to come from the First Presidency or a member of the Twelve.

Dangerous to the Church? Only if they're afraid of speculation, discussion, and intellectual curiosity. We believe all the prophets of this church.. to be .. well.. Prophets. All Prophets carry the same authority, as far as I know. Sometimes I believe the Church is scared of intellectual curiosity.

We can't use Joseph Smith quotes? He lived far more than 10 years ago. The diary of Nutall has temple ceremonies recorded.. it's credible. It's not doctrine.. but it's valid.

I want you to prove what you are saying with current quotes to prove what you are saying is current doctrine. If not, then it is speculation and on the fringe of the church if not outside it. It is dangerous because it teaches false doctrine. Talk to your bishop about your G-d/Michael stuff, but preface your comments that you freely publish it on the internet and see what happens next.

Nothing you say has a foundation in scripture. There is only one scripture that even has G-d and Michael in the same verse (D&C 128.21) and that has nothing to do with your theory. There are no scriptures to show that michael took upon him the sins of the world. As for the keys of the kingdom, everyone that has been given to humanity are currently being exercised by the first presidency. If there is anyone that returns the keys it will be the sitting prophet.

You make truth-claims with no scriptural or current citations. Everything you have said is suspect and to be rejected out of hand.

Edited May 31, 2009 by the Ogre

[JohnnyRudick]

I believe those verses in Moses doesn't prove the Father was speaking. Jehovah is allowed to speak and quote what the Father has said. When Jehovah said, "in the name of my Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ," He was using a quote from the Father inserted into what He was saying.

I know this because these are words spoken after the fall. This is where Jehovah began to preach His gospel to man. But, it was the Father's plan, so it stands to reason Jehovah would quote Him.

Nope:o, I vote with Hemidakota:mellow:

I just know he is right:D

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Adam is the Archangel Michael who is subject to Christ and the Father in authority. The Father through Christ created the Heavens and the Earth. Adam was the first one to be given all the keys because we was the first mortal prophet. the Line of power in the Godhead is, The Father, Christ, Holy Ghost. The sitting of the first presidency in heaven is, The Father (president) Christ (First Councilor) Michael (Second Councilor).

~Angel Palmoni~

web.me.com/angelpalmoni

:), ,

Bro. Rudick

[bmy-]

I want you to prove what you are saying with current quotes to prove what you are saying is current doctrine. If not, then it is speculation and on the fringe of the church if not outside it. It is dangerous because it teaches false doctrine. Talk to your bishop about your G-d/Michael stuff, but preface your comments that you freely publish it on the internet and see what happens next.

Current quotes? Are you saying the Churches doctrine has changed or that this was once taught as doctrine? There are no current quotes in favor of the issue. Either Brigham was a prophet.. or he was not and the Church is not true. It's that simple. An old quote from a prophet is just as useful as a new one. Everything else is supplementary.

Nothing you say has a foundation in scripture. There is only one scripture that even has G-d and Michael in the same verse (D&C 128.21) and that has nothing to do with your theory. There are no scriptures to show that michael took upon him the sins of the world. As for the keys of the kingdom, everyone that has been given to humanity are currently being exercised by the first presidency. If there is anyone that returns the keys it will be the sitting prophet.

It does not?

'Ancient of Days' (Atik Yomin) means God.

Daniel 7:9-14 implies that the Ancient of Days is over Christ. In fact.. an incredibly common interpretation (mainstream) is that the Ancient of Days is God the Father.

Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51, 1854 (spoken on during General Conference that year, unless I'm lied to.. which would make it doctrine)

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. (JoD, as above)

Edited May 31, 2009 by bmy-

[the Ogre]

Are you saying the Churches doctrine has changed or that this was once taught as doctrine? There are no current quotes in favor of the issue. Either Brigham was a prophet.. or he was not and the Church is not true. It's that simple.

It is not that simple. You need to talk to your bishop there buddy. Tell him you think the Michael is G-d theory is correct doctrine and that if it is not then the church is teaching false doctrine.

You really need to have a sit down with your bishop. We have had several posters come forward about sexual sin and everyone said to them to go to their bishop. What you are saying here is as serious an issue and the ramifications are far more dangerous for the church as a whole than the individual sexual-sins discussed on this site. People have been excommunicated for both. The ones that never come back though are the Adam/G-d theorists.

You need to talk to your bishop.

Edited May 31, 2009 by the Ogre

[mikbone]

The diary of Nutall has temple ceremonies recorded.. it's credible. It's not doctrine.. but it's valid.

L. John Nuttall

I don't think I understand where you are trying to go with Nuttall's diary. It is a historical document, agreed. It is not doctrine, agreed. What are you trying to say it is credible and valid at proving?

Even if it was incorrect.. that's alright. It's how I learn. Michael was previously exalted.. was Jesus?

Adam Junior/Michael was not previously exalted.

Adam Senior/Elohim was previously exalted.

I believe that Jehovah was an exalted man during our pre-existence. Many saints may argue that he was not. But it is obvious that Jehovah was the God of the old testament. He is the great I AM.

Jehovah's character and personage during our pre-existence is a much more fruitful discussion to have if you wanna continue having this 'academic debate'.

The Adam-God Theory is a losing battle. Nice attempt though.

Edited May 31, 2009 by mikbone

[bmy-]

It is not that simple. You need to talk to your bishop there buddy. Tell him you think the Michael is G-d theory is correct doctrine and that if it is not then the church is teaching false doctrine.

You really need to have a sit down with your bishop. We have had several posters come forward about sexual sin and everyone said to them to go to their bishop. What you are saying here is as serious an issue and the ramifications are far more dangerous for the church as a whole than the individual sexual-sins discussed on this site. People have been excommunicated for both. The ones that never come back though are the Adam/G-d theorists.

You need to talk to your bishop.

I never said I believe this to be correct doctrine. I believe it has some serious truths in it it.. but I do not subscribe to it.

L. John Nuttall

I don't think I understand where you are trying to go with Nuttall's diary. It is a historical document, agreed. It is not doctrine, agreed. What are you trying to say it is credible and valid at proving?

It's simply a supplement to my argument. Much like using the Journal of Discourses, etc.

Adam Junior/Michael was not previously exalted.

Adam Senior/Elohim was previously exalted.

I believe that Jehovah was an exalted man during our pre-existence. Many saints may argue that he was not. But it is obvious that Jehovah was the God of the old testament. He is the great I AM.

Adam/Michael was previously exalted.

Adam/Elohim was previously exalted.

Jehovah's character and personage during our pre-existence is a much more fruitful discussion to have if you wanna continue having this 'academic debate'.

I agree

[the Ogre]

but I do not subscribe to it.

Then let it die out. The discussion is fuel to already burning fires.

[pam]

I want everyone, especially those who are LDS, to please be careful in speculations and how you post them. Perhaps throwing it out as a question would be more appropriate. We have quite a few investigators on this site. Many of them currently taking the missionary lessons. I by no means want an investigator to start taking as doctrine what some might just be speculating. Put a disclaimer or something along that line.

This is honestly directed at no one in particular, but I have seen several threads lately where this is happening.

[mikbone]

Adam/Michael was previously exalted.

Alright.

Lets get this over with. Prove your point.

Please define your terms succintly. Because I believe that I can easily refute any claim that Adam Junior/Michael was previously exalted.

[bmy-]

Alright.

Lets get this over with. Prove your point.

Please define your terms succintly. Because I believe that I can easily refute any claim that Adam Junior/Michael was previously exalted.

He was Michael before he was Adam. He was Michael after he was Adam. How can this be if he was not previously exalted? We know that a large part of exaltation is the power to lay ones life down and to pick it back up (so that we may pass from exaltation to exaltation). That's not to mention the multitude of quotes on the issue.

Joseph Smith outlined eternal life when he said that.. "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, [3]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" -- Joseph Smith in the KFD

“We say that Father Adam came here and helped 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’…. 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.’” (Deseret News, p. 308 (June 18, 1873)).

I think this link sums everything up nicely.. it's a bit of a long read. But it outlines the different reactions we can have to this theory (and it's just that -- a theory). I would not recommend the average user to browse the site other than this link. Sometimes you have to sift through alot of junk to find something worthwhile.

The Adam-God Theory

It's been a fun discussion. Maybe we can discuss another heavy topic later. Thank you everyone for staying respectful.. I know it's an argument prone to becoming heated.

Edited May 31, 2009 by bmy-

[mikbone]

He was Michael before he was Adam. He was Michael after he was Adam. How can this be if he was not previously exalted? We know that a large part of exaltation is the power to lay ones life down and to pick it back up (so that we may pass from exaltation to exaltation). That's not to mention the multitude of quotes on the issue.

You had a pre-mortal name before you came to this Earth and were named by your mortal parents. You will be known by that name when you return. This does not mean that you were previously exalted. "Laying ones life down and picking it back up" is a wonderful phrase. When Joseph Smith uses this phrase in the KFD I intrepret it to mean Atone and Resurrect ones self. Not simply to die and be resurrected. The only personage that we know has atoned and resurrected himself was Jesus Christ. Many (including myself) subscribe to the idea that Elohim also atoned and resurrected himself, but we do not have a direct witness of this fact. Only Joseph Smiths' discourse which is pretty convincing. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever spoke or inferred that Adam/Michael ever attoned. And Adam obviously could not resurrect himself, he had to wait for Jesus Christ just like everyone else.

“We say that Father Adam came here and helped 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’…. 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.’” (Deseret News, p. 308 (June 18, 1873)).

You can't make an arguement by quoting an obscure document and adding your own ellipses to make the document read the way you want it to. In the original document Brigham Young is speaking about two personages. Father Adam who is obviously Elohim the father of our spirits, and Adam Junior or Michael. The personage who dewlt on an earth previously and recieved a crown and exaltation was Father Adam (Elohim) and not Adam Junior or Michael.

Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom

Is a great short document produced by the LDS Chruch that defines the accepted Doctrine of the Chruch, the following is an excerpt:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted".

It is obvious that the Adam-God theory falls into a category that falls outside of accepted Doctrine.

Now if you could string together a serries of scriptures or official declarations that support the idea that Michael was previously exalted I would be impressed.

Edited June 1, 2009 by mikbone

[bmy-]

Now if you could string together a serries of scriptures or official declarations that support the idea that Michael was previously exalted I would be impressed.

I'll see what I can do It's been a fun discussion.. I think next we should tackle the issue of our prophets not agreeing with each other. (Now that is a touchy subject)

I'm fairly certain there are far more quotes than these lying around. I tried to include all sources, etc. Plenty of these are talks/information given during conferences and the like. It was fun.. and this is nothing more than food for thought. Just a note.. the 3rd quote is in there because of my view that 'Elohim' is a plural term and using it in such a way can change our view of the creation process.

*History of the Church, 4:425, Sunday, October 3, 1841; TPJS, p. 191.

"He [Joseph] explained the difference between an angel and a ministering spirit; the one a resurrected or translated body, with its spirit ministering to embodied spirits---the other a disembodied spirit, visiting and ministering to disembodied spirits. Jesus Christ became a ministering spirit (while His body was lying in the sepulchre) to the spirits in prison, to fulfill an important part of His mission, without which He could not have perfected His work, or entered into His rest. After His resurrection He appeared as an angel to His disciples."

*History of the Church, 6:51, Joseph Smith, Sunday, October 8th 1843; TPJS, p. 325.

"Angels have advanced further, their light and glory being tabernacled; and hence they appear in bodily shape."

*Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372; June 16, 1844. Meeting in the Grove, east of the Temple.

"If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. * * *

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through---Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take that view of the subject, it sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfections of the Gods. "

* B. H. Roberts, Church Historian years later made a copy from Patriarch Whitaker's copy. Joseph Smith; 1840- 1844 (Nauvoo days); c. 1844.

"Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay. . . was made mortal and subject to death."

*J. D. 1:50-51; Friday, April 9, 1852; Sermon delivered by President Brigham Young in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, SLC, Utah

"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."

*Journal of Wilford Woodruff; April 9 1852; Quoting Brigham Young.

"Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his Celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle. And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with."

*Journal of Hosea Stout, Vol. 2:435; Friday, April 9th, 1852.

Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body, etc. More hereafter.

*Journal of Wilford Woodruff; April 10, 1852; Quoting Heber C. Kimball.

"Jesus Christ was his God and the God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam."

*Journal of Samuel H. Rogers, Vol. 1:179; BYU Special Collections, Mss 1134; April 16, 1852. Spelling as in the original.

"We had the best Conference that I ever attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits ware begotten before that Adam came to the Earth and that Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial boddy (sp. body) when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eave (sp. Eve) was allso (sp. also) a Celestial being"

*Journal of Wilford Woodruff, February 19, 1854.

"He (B.Y.) said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ---Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Archangel."

*Journal of Joseph L. Robinson; Oct. 6th, 1854.

"Attended conference, a very interesting conference, for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father"

*John Pulsipher Papers, Mss 1041, p. 35-37; BYU Special Collections; 8 October 1854.. Spelling as in original.

"An Adam & Eve is necesary (sp. necessary) for evry (sp. every) world The oldest Son, if faithful, is the Saviour of the family--There are Lords many & Gods many But the God that we have to account to, is the father of our Spirits--Adam. All the inhabitance (sp. inhabitancy) of the Earth are made of one flesh- whither they are black-white-blue or streaked."

[a-train]

“We say that Father Adam came here and helped 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’…. 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.’” (Deseret News, p. 308 (June 18, 1873)).

This is an example of the many quotes which seem to be confused by advocates of the Michael is Eloheim theory. While they want to point out that Michael is saying ‘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', they seem to overlook the fact that Eloheim is speaking to Michael and giving him commandments: points which demonstrate not only the distinct seperate Person of Eloheim from Michael, but also that Michael receives and is obedient to commandments from Eloheim.

Certainly there must be a fantastic history for Michael which led to his realization of the responsibilities and blessings of his preisthood status as the father of the whole earth. Certainly Brigham Young taught that he received his physical body and lived in a perfected and celestial state on another sphere and caused that body to become mortal through the partaking of the fruit. Additionally, Michael had children in the spirit world, but does this mean he bore them there or was he calling them his because knew he would bring them into this world?

Most importantly, the total effect of these points does not give us any indication that Michael and Eloheim are the same Being, rather that they are seperate distinct Persons: one subordinate to the Other.

-a-train

[bmy-]

This is an example of the many quotes which seem to be confused by advocates of the Michael is Eloheim theory. While they want to point out that Michael is saying ‘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', they seem to overlook the fact that Eloheim is speaking to Michael and giving him commandments: points which demonstrate not only the distinct seperate Person of Eloheim from Michael, but also that Michael receives and is obedient to commandments from Eloheim.

Oh, I know. I was using this as 'proof' that Michael was a previously exalted being. The Michael-God theory doesn't say that Michael is Elohim either though.

Most importantly, the total effect of these points does not give us any indication that Michael and Eloheim are the same Being, rather that they are seperate distinct Persons: one subordinate to the Other.

And the Michael-God theory (for emphasis) doesn't say they are. It says that Michael is Michael.. and that he is God the Father.

[the Ogre]

He was Michael before he was Adam. He was Michael after he was Adam. How can this be if he was not previously exalted? We know that a large part of exaltation is the power to lay ones life down and to pick it back up (so that we may pass from exaltation to exaltation). That's not to mention the multitude of quotes on the issue.

“We say that Father Adam came here and helped 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’…. 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.’” (Deseret News, p. 308 (June 18, 1873)).

Do you want the role Adam, also known as Michael, played in the creation or the earth clarified? Go to the temple. After a lot of temple attendance, the doctrine of the church regarding Adam/Michael and his relationship to El-him and Jeh-va will be obvious. The interdependent roles of the G-dhead will also be explained.

Joseph Smith outlined eternal life when he said that.. "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, [3]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" -- Joseph Smith in the KFD

You are using this section of the KFD out of context. This is merely Joseph restating how we learn every thing "precept by precept". Even after we die, there will be much to do to continue our progress so we can take advantage of Chr-st's atonement and resurrect. It will not be instantaneous. It never has been. We have a lot to learn and plenty of time to do it in.

[mikbone]

bmy in response to your multiple quotes

1,2,3 do not reference Adam

4 Completly discounded --- B.H. Roberts quoting Whitaker copy.

5,6,7 All are records of the BY April 9, 1852 discourse. Which we have previously reviewed.

8 Taken out of context. The following is the entire paragraph

April 10, 1852 Willford Woodruff Journal

[President Kimball] made the following remarks:

Some have said that I was vary presumptuous to say that Brother Brigham was my God & Saviour. Brother Joseph was his God. The one that gave Joseph the keys of the kingdom was his God which was Peter. Jesus Christ was his God & the God & Father of Jesus Christ was Adam.

9 The same BY April 9, 1852 sermon reported a week late

10 I have the Wilford Woodruff Journals and find no Feb 19, 1854 entry...

11 & 12 Joseph L. Robinson & John Pulsipher ???

Edited June 1, 2009 by mikbone

[mikbone]

Wilford Woodruff Journal, September 17, 1854

"Brother Pratt Also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the Earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat children & they were Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were Faithful we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofical reasoning & get Revelation from God... He said his Phylosophy injured him in a measure."

I find it interesting that even Brigham Young's contemporaies began to discount his Adam God theory.

Journal of Discourses 4:217, Brigham Young address, Feb 18, 1857

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species.

You can see Brigham Young here referencing his Adam-God theory and then saying that it really dosent matter.

It seems that he is no longer pushing the idea.

[bmy-]

Do you want the role Adam, also known as Michael, played in the creation or the earth clarified? Go to the temple. After a lot of temple attendance, the doctrine of the church regarding Adam/Michael and his relationship to El-him and Jeh-va will be obvious. The interdependent roles of the G-dhead will also be explained.

I'm well aware of the temple version of the creation story. Very few things in the temple are to be taken literally (symbols).

You are using this section of the KFD out of context. This is merely Joseph restating how we learn every thing "precept by precept". Even after we die, there will be much to do to continue our progress so we can take advantage of Chr-st's atonement and resurrect. It will not be instantaneous. It never has been. We have a lot to learn and plenty of time to do it in.

I disagree. I'm not using it out of context at all.. this is Joseph outlining 'exaltation'. Line upon line and precept upon precept is the way knowledge works (exaltation is knowledge, in essence). We will do what we see our Father do, over and over again until we have reached the next station.

I don't recall implying that it was instant. It's a long and arduous process that I suspect takes place over the course of 'epochs' and should not be measured by periods of time.

[bmy-]

Wilford Woodruff Journal, September 17, 1854

"Brother Pratt Also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the Earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the Earth begat children & they were Earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were Faithful we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosofical reasoning & get Revelation from God... He said his Phylosophy injured him in a measure."

I find it interesting that even Brigham Young's contemporaies began to discount his Adam God theory.

As do I. Again.. this is a topic for a different thread. I just want to clarify that it seems the Church was effectively split down the middle on this theory.

Journal of Discourses 4:217, Brigham Young address, Feb 18, 1857

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species.

You can see Brigham Young here referencing his Adam-God theory and then saying that it really dosent matter.

It seems that he is no longer pushing the idea.

He did not deny it, though. he simply said that it is a considerable mystery to a good many. I'll agree.. it does not matter who God the Father is.. it only matters that he is there. Who he is will be important, but perhaps it's not for us (or everyone) to know yet.

Again.. I posted nearly all of those quotes just to add emphasis to the fact that Adam was previously exalted before he came to this earth. Not to add weight to the Michael/God theory.

[bmy-]

bmy in response to your multiple quotes

1,2,3 do not reference Adam

4 Completly discounded --- B.H. Roberts quoting Whitaker copy.

5,6,7 All are records of the BY April 9, 1852 discourse. Which we have previously reviewed.

8 Taken out of context. The following is the entire paragraph

April 10, 1852 Willford Woodruff Journal

[President Kimball] made the following remarks:

Some have said that I was vary presumptuous to say that Brother Brigham was my God & Saviour. Brother Joseph was his God. The one that gave Joseph the keys of the kingdom was his God which was Peter. Jesus Christ was his God & the God & Father of Jesus Christ was Adam.

9 The same BY April 9, 1852 sermon reported a week late

10 I have the Wilford Woodruff Journals and find no Feb 19, 1854 entry...

11 & 12 Joseph L. Robinson & John Pulsipher ???

Quotes 1-3 do not reference Adam directly. They do however tell us that Adam was a previously ressurected (and glorified) being.

Quote 4 should not be discounted because it's a quote from a copy. It's still useful.

Quotes 5-7 count, still. It's simply a compilation and shows that multiple people heard it said in conference (which is not technically doctrine, but it's darn close)

Quote 8 still outlines the idea that Michael is a previously exalted being.

The point is.. Michael was previously exalted before he came to this world.

Edited June 1, 2009 by bmy-

[the Ogre]

I'm well aware of the temple version of the creation story. Very few things in the temple are to be taken literally (symbols).

I'll take your response (and post #97) to mean you have not been to the temple nor you do not understand what is going on there. The symbols in the temple are there to be understood. I told you that if you wanted to understand the church's doctrine regarding the relationship between Adam and G-d, you need to attend the temple often.

I think you need to consider every aspect of the discussion. So far, you represent a very superficial aspect of the issue. You are missing something and you are not going to understand it until you begin regular temple attendance.

There is more than metaphor and symbology involved in the temple experience. You seriously misunderstand the role of "Adam/Michael".

One trip to the temple is not going to do it. The epiphany is not instantaneous. It took me years. Once I saw it, Brigham Young became very clear and KFD was simple and no longer mysterious.

The temple is the great demystifier.

Late Edit to Restate: You still have yet to provide current citation. The entire discussion is speculation. Speculation is dangerous because it teaches a false-understanding of doctrine. Nothing you say has a foundation in scripture. There is only one scripture that even has G-d and Michael in the same verse (D&C 128.21) and that has nothing to do with your theory.

There are no scriptures to show that Michael took upon him the sins of the world -- there is no LDS doctrine supporting the concept either.

As for the keys of the kingdom, every key that has been given to humanity is currently being exercised by the first presidency. If anyone returns those keys it will be the sitting prophet.

There are also no modern prophets that reiterate your truth-claims claims. No one except Brigham Young ever expounded on it and you have yet to illustrate that you even understand what he said.

You make truth-claims with no scriptural or current citations. Your ideas are nothing more than a long string of speculations. Everything you have said is suspect and to be rejected out of hand.

Edited June 1, 2009 by the Ogre

[JohnnyRudick]

. . . Daniel 7:9-14 implies that the Ancient of Days is over Christ. In fact.. an incredibly common interpretation (mainstream) is that the Ancient of Days is God the Father. . .

Welllll:o

The Common or "mainstream" teaching on this verse is based on an assumption as far as I can tell.

Not a revelation:p

Just a thought:D

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

Current quotes? Are you saying the Churches doctrine has changed or that this was once taught as doctrine? There are no current quotes in favor of the issue. Either Brigham was a prophet.. or he was not and the Church is not true. It's that simple. An old quote from a prophet is just as useful as a new one. Everything else is supplementary. . .

Yup:rolleyes:

I think so too.:)

But there is also the difference between that which is spoken by a man called as a Prophet and that which is set apart as Scripture, the "Word of God".

Just a thought.

And yes, Adam is Michael, the Ancient of Days.

But He is Not Jehovah.

Nor is he Elohim.

Bro. Rudick

Edited June 1, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Too many llllllll's;-(