Jesus as the Father

[bmy-]

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'm quite confident that Joseph Smith is said to have received revelation before the LDS church ever constructed a temple. This alone dictates that the temple is not the only place one can receive revelation (it is an excellent place, or so I am told). Do not act like the temple ceremonies are currently in their original form. It was condensed, had parts removed, and is a shadow of it's former self. This is both a good thing and a bad thing.

It is good because it is less time consuming (and easier to fit into our busy schedules). It is bad because in any translation.. pieces are lost. This was necessary, perhaps.

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.

I have. I could just as easily say you are the one who is missing something in this discussion and my claim would be worth just as much as yours. All knowledge is the same.. there is no distinction between matter and spirit.

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.

And perhaps you have more epiphanies to go through (and the eventual end would be that Michael is both a/our God the Father). The KFD does not introduce any concepts that are strange, unusual, or difficult to comprehend in any way.

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.

Your idea of 'current citations' is rather odd. Does the Church not use the 8 witnesses as an evidence of Joseph Smiths validity as a prophet? The point is that evidence is evidence.. and that unless the Church has undergone major doctrinal changes.. a quote from 1900 is just as valid as a quote from 2009. Having only one scripture with God and Michael in the same verse could be taken as evidence for the theory as well. (If they were the same person it would be silly to mention them both in a single verse, so that point falls also).

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.

I said that Michael took sin upon himself when he ate from the fruit. He had a celestial body that became mortal again only after he had eaten of the fruit.

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.

Again.. simply because your interpretation differs does not make yours more correct than mine. Also.. Brigham claimed that he learned of the theory from Joseph Smith (if journals and the like can be trusted).

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.

Again.. I understand that you believe that speculation is bad. Not everyone shares your view. I've posted a few scriptural verses and your response is that I misinterpret it. My response to you (in this thread) is that you are the one misinterpreting it.

I begin to feel like i'm beating a dead horse here. I've said multiple times that those quotes were not meant to be taken as evidence for the Michael/God theory. They are simply to show that Michael is a previously exalted being. The discussion has moved on.

Edited June 1, 2009 by bmy-

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

Yeah:D

He really had me going:rolleyes: there for a while:confused:

Thank you;)

Bro. Rudick

[the Ogre]

. . . All knowledge is the same.. there is no distinction between matter and spirit . . .

Oh my . . .

Your idea of 'current citations' is rather odd. Does the Church not use the 8 witnesses as an evidence of Joseph Smiths validity as a prophet?

The church does and the witnesses to the BoM are revalidated quite often by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in print and in conference. I want you to find such revalidation for your theory.

He had a celestial body that became mortal again only after he had eaten of the fruit.

BTW: there is something new on this. Best get searchin'.

I do not think you are able finding current citation. I however challenge you do at least try. Most of your quotes have been outdated by a century. The church thrives on the teachings of living prophets today. The prophet today teaches about the needs of today. If your theory is current church doctrine, you will support every point with modern citation.

[JohnnyRudick]

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.

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.

I am sorry but I can't help but wonder where this might have gone if we had not been so resolute in this on the side of the reviled Scripture?

Sorry:mellow:

Just wondering out loud:huh:

Bro. Rudick

[JohnnyRudick]

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

, ,

Bro. Rudick

[bmy-]

Oh my . . .

I don't buy the 'spiritual' and 'material' knowledge deal. Knowledge is knowledge.. simple. Spirit is matter, matter is spirit. They are simply measured by different tools (and some of those more exact than others).

The church does and the witnesses to the BoM are revalidated quite often by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve in print and in conference. I want you to find such revalidation for your theory.

There is none. Much like polygamy, no? That does not mean that it was wrong.. it simply means that it's taught differently now.

I do not think you are able finding current citation. I however challenge you do at least try. Most of your quotes have been outdated by a century. The church thrives on the teachings of living prophets today. The prophet today teaches about the needs of today. If your theory is current church doctrine, you will support every point with modern citation.

I've already admitted that there are no recent (within 10 years) citations in favor of the situation. That does not change what was said/taught in the past. I think it's time to change the direction of this discussion..

Why was it taught in the past? Why was it presented as doctrine by Brigham? Why did he claim that he learned of this 'theory' from Joseph Smith.

If he was a prophet of God.. there must be something to it. He laid it out very plainly with little room for wiggle (which fits his personality, haha).

[the Ogre]

I think it's time to change the direction of this discussion..

I think it is time to drop the topic entirely.

[JohnnyRudick]

I don't buy the 'spiritual' and 'material' knowledge deal. Knowledge is knowledge.. simple. Spirit is matter, matter is spirit. They are simply measured by different tools (and some of those more exact than others). . .

True;)

Bro. Rudick

[mikbone]

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

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

/facepalm

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,

…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,

………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,

……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\

….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\

…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,

…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,

…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)

……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../

……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\

……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\

…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,

…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,

……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-

…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\

…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\

……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…

Edited June 2, 2009 by mikbone

[bmy-]

/facepalm

It speaks on angels, sir. I'm not sure if you read that part of those quotes. Michael the archangel. Joseph explained that angels with bodies were glorified/translated beings.

[the Ogre]

/facepalm

………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,

…………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,

………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,

……,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\

….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\

…..\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,

…...\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,

…….\llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-\..*`*;..)

……..\,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../

……...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.\

……../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...\

…….|.../…/…/.*`...\...……………………)….)¯`~,

…….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,

……/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...\…./…../..|……...¯```*~-

…...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………\

…….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…...\

……….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…

DUDE! You are totally an angelic artist!!! Is this Michael or Adam? Oop, it has to be Adam. Michael didn't have a body, so how could he need glasses.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . . Is this Michael or Adam? Oop, it has to be Adam. Michael didn't have a body, so how could he need glasses.

Bro. Rudick

[the Ogre]

ps.. Michael didn't have a body until he was born as Adam. Sorry the practical answer always wins.

[JohnnyRudick]

ps.. Michael didn't have a body until he was born as Adam. Sorry the practical answer always wins.

Ooops:D

Right.

I was thinking of the post Adam, Michael who came to Daniel.

Revealing His role in the Last Days of this system of things.

Had no thought of pre-Earth . . .

Bro. Rudick

Edited June 2, 2009 by JohnnyRudick
Spelling;(

[Hemidakota]

Adam was born and not created...then yes. In concurrence with President Young statement that both Adams were brought to the Earth.