Adam-Ondi-Ahman

[NoGreaterLove]

For anyone that is interested in learning more about Adam-Ondi-Ahman I wrote a short unedited book on the subject referencing various apostles prophets and scriptures. It is free for any who would like to read it.

I feel AOA is of most importance and many of the signs point to it.

One of those signs I believe to be Adam or Michael coming to AOA. I believe this is the description of it.

Revelation

CHAPTER 18

Babylon is fallen—Voice from heaven to the saints—The destruction of the wicked—The saints rejoice.

1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Here is the site:

https://sites.google.com/site/fromheretoadamondiahman/

[NoGreaterLove]

Orson Pratt commented further on the Prophet's statement:

We are told by this Prophet that the Ancient of days is the most ancient personage that ever had an existence in days here on the earth. And who was he? Why, of course, old father Adam, he was the most ancient man that lived in days that we have any knowledge of. He comes, then, as a great judge, to assemble this innumerable host of which Daniel speaks. He comes in flaming fire. The glory and blessing and greatness of this personage it would be impossible even for a man as great as Daniel to fully describe. He comes as a man inspired from the eternal throne of Jehovah himself. He comes to set in order the councils of the Priesthood pertaining to all dispensations, to arrange the Priesthood and the councils of the Saints of all former dispensations in one grand family and household.

What is all this for? Why all this arrangement? Why all this organization? Why all this judgment and the opening of the books? It is to prepare the way for another august personage whom Daniel saw coming with the clouds of heaven, namely the Son of Man, and these clouds of heaven brought the Son of Man near before the Ancient of days. And when the Son of Man came to the Ancient of days, behold a kingdom was given to the Son of Man, and greatness and glory, that all people, nations and languages should serve him, and his kingdom should be an everlasting kingdom, a kingdom that should never be done away.(Gerald N. Lund, The Coming of the Lord [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971], 167.)

1. Adam comes as a judge

2. Adam comes in a flaming fire of glory as Daniel testifies

3. He comes from the eternal throne of Jehovah

4. Adam sets in order the Priesthood pertaining to all dispensations

5. The books are opened and a we are judged

6. All these events occur to prepare for Christ’s coming in the clouds

7. The clouds bring Adam before Christ

8. Christ receives the kingdom

[NoGreaterLove]

some more interesting comments about Adam made Joseph Smith talking about the vision Daniel had when he saw AOA.

Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the 'Ancient of Days,' or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times; i.e. the dispensation of all the times that have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed."—Joseph Smith, the Prophet (History of the Church 4:207-8.)(Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 3: 52 - 53.)

He is Michael, Adam, Father of all, the prince, the ancient of days.

He sits on a throne of fiery flame with wheels like a burning fire.

His garment is white as snow.

His hair is like pure wool.

A fiery stream issues from before him

Thousands upon thousands stand before him to be judged as the books are opened.

First to hold spiritual blessings

Learned the ordinances pertaining to salvation

Holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times.

He will reveal the dispensations of all times that have existed or will exist.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

This is a question i would like to ask...

Why ye saints, do you think Adam has dominion over these things? Judgement, Priesthood? Could it be that he is the Father in very seed and spirit? Perhaps Jesus the son of God is son after the order of flesh?

If God wasnt mortal how does he have a body, or how is it that we can become like him?

[HiJolly]

Still proselyting for the Adam-God doctrine, eh?

HiJolly

[ConvinceTheWorld]

haha..if thats how you want to word it.

I look at it like proselyting Mormonism - Which I know to be of God.

[skippy740]

Could it be that he is the Father in very seed and spirit? No.

Perhaps Jesus the son of God is son after the order of flesh? No.

If God wasnt mortal how does he have a body?

Who said God wasn't mortal?

[john doe]

This is a question i would like to ask...

Why ye saints, do you think Adam has dominion over these things? Judgement, Priesthood? Could it be that he is the Father in very seed and spirit? Perhaps Jesus the son of God is son after the order of flesh?

If God wasnt mortal how does he have a body, or how is it that we can become like him?

Adam-God theory is just that, a theory. It is not doctrinal in the LDS Church.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

Adam-God theory is just that, a theory. It is not doctrinal in the LDS Church.

If you call the teachings of Joseph Smith "theories"....

[Vort]

If you call the teachings of Joseph Smith "theories"....

Please. Adam-God was put to rest long, long ago. Even if you believe that your interpretations of Brigham Young's and Joseph Smith's teachings are correct -- indeed, even if the doctrine is in very fact correct -- it is still FALSE DOCTRINE. It is NOT the doctrine of the LDS Church. That has been well-established by those who duty and right it is to proclaim the doctrine.

Please, get in line with current teachings and join the wagon train. Stop trying to proclaim your supposedly superior understanding. It's a vanity thing, and will only get in the way. Stop now, while you're still on the right side of the membership line.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

Please, get in line with current teachings and join the wagon train. Stop trying to proclaim your supposedly superior understanding. It's a vanity thing, and will only get in the way. Stop now, while you're still on the right side of the membership line.

A vanity thing? - If i plead and name you as brothers and sisters you will call me over zealous or a hypocrite but the very truth is that I have no other motive in mind, save it be; to show unto my fellow man the true nature of man and their very own divinity, that we are literally sons and daughters of God! The purpose being to strengthen our understanding and faith in God. The reason we send missionaries around the world is to have them preach something that you & I, invididually; know to be true. The same principals apply here. If one cant come unto a LDS board with a pure motive and talk about LDS doctrine that they know to be true, then what purpose exactly does it serve?

What is to be understood about your comment "while your on the right side of the membership line".

These beliefs certainly should not be the line on which our membership lies. For if that was to be so, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and countless other saints would have been excomunicated and labeled imposters from the beginning!

This would be along the lines of...Tatoos, or something taboo of that nature. Are tatoos a membership deal breaker in our church? We are consoled to treat our bodies as temples* but on the other hand we would not shun a partaker of such who came upon us seeking the truth***

**if we talk about Polygamy or blacks and the priesthood are we excomunicated?? **

If an investigator goes to their bishop, and sincerely asks questions of this nature seeking the earnest truth* They would not be cast out!!!

Edited September 12, 2011 by ConvinceTheWorld

[skippy740]

Polygamy is revealed doctrine whose practice has been stopped.

Blacks in the Priesthood... is a practice of withholding the priesthood from those of African descent that was never doctrinal.

Adam-God theory.... is theory and not doctrinal.

The difference between AG Theory and the other points you mentioned is that the church and investigators have never had any questions about the AG theory preventing them from coming unto Christ.

Polygamy and racial issues have.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

Polygamy is revealed doctrine whose practice has been stopped.

Blacks in the Priesthood... is a practice of withholding the priesthood from those of African descent that was never doctrinal.

Adam-God theory.... is theory and not doctrinal.

The difference between AG Theory and the other points you mentioned is that the church and investigators have never had any questions about the AG theory preventing them from coming unto Christ.

Polygamy and racial issues have.

Polygamy - Indeed, a whole nother subject.

The black seed & Priesthood - Also, some heavy stuff.

The Adam-God Theory - "Theory not doctrinal" is exactly right!! Therefore (I & any other seeker of truth) can use our godly right of CHOICE and believe in something supposedly revealed through our prophets - Until the THEORY can be proven wrong.

It is sincerely just another topic up for discussion* The likes of which shouldnt cause as much as a uproar as it seems to do.

[ConvinceTheWorld]

The difference between AG Theory and the other points you mentioned is that the church and investigators have never had any questions about the AG theory preventing them from coming unto Christ.

.

Skippy, brother; listen. That is a very broad statement! you are denying any possibility that the "AG theory" would prevent somebody from coming unto Christ?

I lie not, my very good friend who is serving his spanish speaking mission in St. Louis, Missouri just emailed me on his P-DAY saying that one of their investigators was researching the church online and brought the "AG theory" up to them during a discussion. Regardless of the fact that everything I say is regarded as "vanity", this friend sincerely was asking me for advice on how to answer this young woman! Sure, there was more to it but the point being, this is a very logical, well documented teaching of the early church and the discussion caused by it should NOT be treated as anything but it is --WORDS!

Edited September 12, 2011 by ConvinceTheWorld

[skippy740]

Okay, there's very few where the AG Theory is a stumbling block in comparison to those who are concerned about racial or polygamy issues.

[Vort]

A vanity thing? - If i plead and name you as brothers and sisters you will call me over zealous or a hypocrite but the very truth is that I have no other motive in mind, save it be; to show unto my fellow man the true nature of man and their very own divinity, that we are literally sons and daughters of God!

Your motive should be to build the kingdom of God by sustaining the anointed leaders and preaching the gospel as they do. I don't hear any of them -- not one -- preaching Adam-God. Not one.

If you truly care about building the kingdom of God and proclaiming salvation, you will do so within the bounds the Lord has set. By proclaiming the heresy of Adam-God, you are operating outside the bounds of propriety.

Short version: You have no authority to proclaim doctrine contrary to what the leaders TODAY proclaim.

If one cant come unto a LDS board with a pure motive and talk about LDS doctrine that they know to be true, then what purpose exactly does it serve?

It makes no difference how much I KNOW that God is a fish. I should not be proclaiming the gospel truth that God is a fish, even if I think I can prove it out of scriptures, and even if I think I can marshal previous prophetic teachings to buttress my supposed point. Today's leaders do not proclaim that God is a fish, any more than they proclaim that God is Adam. You are preaching false doctrine, no matter how sincerely you believe it.

What is to be understood about your comment "while your on the right side of the membership line".

I assume you are a member of the LDS Church. If you openly preach Adam-God, you will eventually be instructed by your leaders to shut up. If you do not, you stand to lose your membership in the Church. So stop now, before that choice lies before you.

These beliefs certainly should not be the line on which our membership lies. For if that was to be so, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and countless other saints would have been excomunicated and labeled imposters from the beginning!

You may believe that God is a fish, if you choose. Your membership will not be at issue. You may not, however, preach that God is a fish.

**if we talk about Polygamy or blacks and the priesthood are we excomunicated?? **

If you talk about how polygamy should be lived today or how blacks ought not to hold the Priesthood, you are preaching false doctrine. If you refuse to stop your preaching after being instructed to do so, you may indeed lose your membership.

If an investigator goes to their bishop, and sincerely asks questions of this nature seeking the earnest truth* They would not be cast out!!!

No. They will be told that Adam-God is heresy.

[NoGreaterLove]

Oh brother! This thread was meant to educate us about Adam coming to AOA and what happens there and someone comes in and hijacks it in order to promote his own doctrine on Adam-God theory.

Can be get back to the OP?

[NoGreaterLove]

Anyone know how to block unwanted posts from folks we just do not want to hear from?

[skippy740]

Anyone know how to block unwanted posts from folks we just do not want to hear from?

http://www.lds.net/forums/how-do-i-questions-forum/40635-little-known-feature-ignore-list.html

[john doe]

If you call the teachings of Joseph Smith "theories"....

I had a big long response last night and it got lost. So I'll just make this quick. Adam-God is a theory not recognized by the LDS Church as doctrine. And while Joseph Smith may have alluded to some portions of the idea, it was Brigham Young who brought it up. In the end though, it was never accepted or introduced as binding doctrine on the church.

[Seminarysnoozer]

1. Adam comes as a judge

2. Adam comes in a flaming fire of glory as Daniel testifies

3. He comes from the eternal throne of Jehovah

4. Adam sets in order the Priesthood pertaining to all dispensations

5. The books are opened and a we are judged

6. All these events occur to prepare for Christ’s coming in the clouds

7. The clouds bring Adam before Christ

8. Christ receives the kingdom

What is "flaming fire" as opposed to regular fire?

[Dravin]

What is "flaming fire" as opposed to regular fire?

In this case it's, I suspect, a, somewhat dyslexic, reference to Dan 7:9. Less specifically it's a phrase found in the scriptures ( Scriptures Search Results ), while I'm not sure how applicable to the original Hebrew, flaming can be used as an intensifying adjective for fire. Much like how one might talk about soaking wet rain ( which inevitably leaves the smarmy among us wanting to ask, "As opposed to soaking dry rain?").

Edited September 12, 2011 by Dravin

[Vort]

What is "flaming fire" as opposed to regular fire?

Fire vs. Flaming fire:

vs.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Vort

[Guest mysticmorini]

I always thought it was just a flowery way to add discription to the event.

[Seminarysnoozer]

In this case it's, I suspect, a, somewhat dyslexic, reference to Dan 7:9. Less specifically it's a phrase found in the scriptures ( Scriptures Search Results ), while I'm not sure how applicable to the original Hebrew, flaming can be used as an intensifying adjective for fire. Much like how one might talk about soaking wet rain ( which inevitably leaves the smarmy among us wanting to ask, "As opposed to soaking dry rain?").

Thanks, I didn't know if it meant there is something shooting off the fire or had some other meaning. ... I take it this is all metaphoric anyways.