Holy Ghost

[Guest ApostleKnight]

In my opinion, the theory that Adam was already a god when he came to Eden does not hold up when compared with the standard works. There are a few contradictions that crop up on closer examination.

First, we are taught that after our resurrection and exaltation, our bodies and spirits will be inseparably connected, or never to be subject to death again (D&C 88:116), which is the separation of our spirit from our physical body. Yet we are to believe that Adam supposedly came to Eden with an exalted, resurrected body, which body eventually became mortal and subject to death after his spirit and body had already been inseparably joined? If Adam was truly resurrected and exalted, he would not have been subject to death again, according to the scriptures. This is of course assuming that resurrection is the same among all of God's worlds and children. I think it reasonable to suppose that it is.

Second, we are taught that those who are exalted will be "made perfect" or conformed to the perfect goodness of God and Christ (Moroni 10:32-33; D&C 76:69). Yet Adam transgressed or disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. Is it possible for a god who is made perfect through Christ's grace, to transgress God's law and in so doing forfeit perfect goodness and obedience? If Adam had received salvation on another world, he would've already sinned, repented and been exalted. Yet we are to believe that Adam discarded his salvation by Falling from God's presence, that Adam needed to be saved a second time after already having been judged worthy of celestial glory on another world? I do not think it reasonable to assume that anyone, even an exalted god (if Adam was such in Eden), can undo the salvation wrought by Christ and administered by God...nor would anyone want to.

These are a few thoughts which make this theory of Adam being a god in Eden highly questionable and likely incorrect. I'm open to any responses though, since this is a discussion, not a lecture.

[JoshuaFKon]

In my opinion, the theory that Adam was already a god when he came to Eden does not hold up when compared with the standard works. There are a few contradictions that crop up on closer examination.

These are a few thoughts which make this theory of Adam being a god in Eden highly questionable and likely incorrect. I'm open to any responses though, since this is a discussion, not a lecture.

Hey AK,

I have a quick question,

(1) I was under the impression that "prophets" could not be wrong....(I don't mean they couldn't ever be wrong about anything but about doctrine which comes from God)

(2) If you dissagree with the God-Adam theory, Which I believe was first mentioned by Brigham Young. Why do you belong to the LDS as opposed to say the RLDS?

No offense intended. :)

Josh B)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Good questions JoshuaK.

1.) I do not believe prophets will ever teach a false requirement for salvation. For example, Brigham Young could have taught in public meetings that he believed Adam was a god in Eden. That's fine with me. He's entitled to his opinions. However, if Brigham Young had taught that we had to pray to Adam, or that we had to believe Adam was a god in order to be saved, then I'd really make it a subject of prayer and counseling with God to discover if those teachings were God's word or Brigham's word. As it is, any prophet can believe whatever they want--even if they're wrong--but I don't believe the Lord will allow any prophet to teach falsehoods requiring what we need to do to be saved. This is a specific distinction, and an important one in my mind.

2.) Because I believe that Brigham Young was approved by God to lead His Church, and that Brigham Young taught accurately the gospel as it pertains to achieving personal salvation. He taught many things which I don't personally agree with, but they were not "Thus saith the Lord: Adam is a god and you'd better believe it or be damned" type affairs. Again, prophets may interpret scripture in a way that makes sense to them, even if they're incorrect. What they can't do is make it mandatory for members to believe as they do unless it's a revelation from God. What we can't do is assume every word spoken by a prophet is spoken in their prophetic calling, as opposed to their personal opinion. When a prophet receives a revelation for the world (and specifically the Church), I believe it will be presented in a "Thus saith the Lord" manner, or "The Lord revealed to me that we must do such-and-such." As for how we'll know if it's a revelation...that's where fasting and prayer come in.

[Dr T]

Quick clarification. If a prophet says something, you can pray about it and if you do not receive confirmation that it is true, then you don't have to belive it? If he says something else (and say it goes against what scripture says) and you pray and feel confirmation then you can accept that as true?

Thanks,

Dr. T

[JoshuaFKon]

Good questions JoshuaK.

1.) I do not believe prophets will ever teach a false requirement for salvation. For example, Brigham Young could have taught in public meetings that he believed Adam was a god in Eden. That's fine with me. He's entitled to his opinions. However, if Brigham Young had taught that we had to pray to Adam, or that we had to believe Adam was a god in order to be saved, then I'd really make it a subject of prayer and counseling with God to discover if those teachings were God's word or Brigham's word. As it is, any prophet can believe whatever they want--even if they're wrong--but I don't believe the Lord will allow any prophet to teach falsehoods requiring what we need to do to be saved. This is a specific distinction, and an important one in my mind.

2.) Because I believe that Brigham Young was approved by God to lead His Church, and that Brigham Young taught accurately the gospel as it pertains to achieving personal salvation. He taught many things which I don't personally agree with, but they were not "Thus saith the Lord: Adam is a god and you'd better believe it or be damned" type affairs. Again, prophets may interpret scripture in a way that makes sense to them, even if they're incorrect. What they can't do is make it mandatory for members to believe as they do unless it's a revelation from God. What we can't do is assume every word spoken by a prophet is spoken in their prophetic calling, as opposed to their personal opinion. When a prophet receives a revelation for the world (and specifically the Church), I believe it will be presented in a "Thus saith the Lord" manner, or "The Lord revealed to me that we must do such-and-such." As for how we'll know if it's a revelation...that's where fasting and prayer come in.

I'm a little confused prehaps you could clear this up for me,

Were you saying that:

(1) Prophets can be wrong about doctrine, as long as its not a requirement for salvation

I do not believe prophets will ever teach a false requirement for salvation. For example, Brigham Young could have taught in public meetings that he believed Adam was a god in Eden. That's fine with me.

or

(2) Prophets can be wrong in their personal opinions, but not if they say "Thus saith the Lord" first.

What we can't do is assume every word spoken by a prophet is spoken in their prophetic calling, as opposed to their personal opinion. When a prophet receives a revelation for the world (and specifically the Church), I believe it will be presented in a "Thus saith the Lord" manner

I could be wrong (I will double check) but I was under the impression that Brigham Young did present the Adam-God theory in a "Thus saith the Lord" manner....

Thanks for your help,

Josh B)

[Maureen]

...I'm on Mod status.

And this is actually my very first time.

It feels kinda strange.

I understand why, though.

It was Strawberry Fields...

No Ray, you did it to yourself. You're going to have to learn to accept the consequences and not blame others for your own actions.

M.

[Princess3dward]

(1) Prophets can be wrong about doctrine, as long as its not a requirement for salvation

Prophets aren't given ALL of the anwsers.

Just what we need to know.

People, including prophets are allowed to have theories,

and they may not be considered doctrine.

I, personally don't believe the Adam-God theory,

but he is intitled to them to.

The doctrine os all true. :)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

(2) Prophets can be wrong in their personal opinions, but not if they say "Thus saith the Lord" first.

That is what I believe. Let me rephrase it. If a prophet teaches anything contrary to the LDS canon (OT, NT, BoM, PoGP, D&C) it is not official LDS doctrine, and not binding on members of the Church. The LDS canon is also referred to as the standard works. They set the standard in matters of doctrine and theology. I do believe it is possible for a prophet to receive revelation changing a practice laid out in the standard works, because I believe the Lord's word is not static but dynamic. In the case of a revelation contradicting or changing something from the standard works, I'd pray and ponder the issue to discern whether the alteration was divinely inspired and approved by God or not.

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

(2) Prophets can be wrong in their personal opinions, but not if they say "Thus saith the Lord" first.

That is what I believe. Let me rephrase it. If a prophet teaches anything contrary to the LDS canon (OT, NT, BoM, PoGP, D&C) it is not official LDS doctrine, and not binding on members of the Church. The LDS canon is also referred to as the standard works. They set the standard in matters of doctrine and theology. I do believe it is possible for a prophet to receive revelation changing a practice laid out in the standard works, because I believe the Lord's word is not static but dynamic. In the case of a revelation contradicting or changing something from the standard works, I'd pray and ponder the issue to discern whether the alteration was divinely inspired and approved by God or not.

I see, hmmm....If you don't mind me asking.

(1) Why do you believe that Joseph Smith's "authority" went from Joseph to Brigham if you believe Brigham was wrong about a doctrinal belief that he claimed was from God?

I can't say I'm very knowlegeable about the LDS position vs. the RLDS position. But, why do you believe in the LDS rather then the RLDS or any of the other splinter fractions? What is the major difference between the LDS and the RLDS?

(2) The D&C, that is written by the prophets correct? does it change often? or ever? is it considered a "finished work" or is it added to by each prophet?

Thanks for your help,

Josh B)

[Dr T]

Oh, yeah. Ray, "OUCH MY EYE!" :)

[LionHeart]

I would just like to say that this is LionHeart's opinion. There is some truth, and some misunderstandings.

And I don't want you to believe what I'm saying about this.

You should all just ask God for yourselves... and look to those who you know God has sent.

On the contrary,Ray, this is not my opinion. As I said, it was Brigham Young who taught this. Did you ever read the discourse on it? If not, then how do you know I misunderstood?

L.H.

[LionHeart]

In my opinion, the theory that Adam was already a god when he came to Eden does not hold up when compared with the standard works. There are a few contradictions that crop up on closer examination.

First, we are taught that after our resurrection and exaltation, our bodies and spirits will be inseparably connected, or never to be subject to death again (D&C 88:116), which is the separation of our spirit from our physical body. Yet we are to believe that Adam supposedly came to Eden with an exalted, resurrected body, which body eventually became mortal and subject to death after his spirit and body had already been inseparably joined? If Adam was truly resurrected and exalted, he would not have been subject to death again, according to the scriptures. This is of course assuming that resurrection is the same among all of God's worlds and children. I think it reasonable to suppose that it is.

Second, we are taught that those who are exalted will be "made perfect" or conformed to the perfect goodness of God and Christ (Moroni 10:32-33; D&C 76:69). Yet Adam transgressed or disobeyed God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. Is it possible for a god who is made perfect through Christ's grace, to transgress God's law and in so doing forfeit perfect goodness and obedience? If Adam had received salvation on another world, he would've already sinned, repented and been exalted. Yet we are to believe that Adam discarded his salvation by Falling from God's presence, that Adam needed to be saved a second time after already having been judged worthy of celestial glory on another world? I do not think it reasonable to assume that anyone, even an exalted god (if Adam was such in Eden), can undo the salvation wrought by Christ and administered by God...nor would anyone want to.

These are a few thoughts which make this theory of Adam being a god in Eden highly questionable and likely incorrect. I'm open to any responses though, since this is a discussion, not a lecture.

You're right A.K. There are many contradictions with this theory. But just to clear up some understanding about it, Adam and Eve didn't need to re-earn their salvation, they merely made the sacrifice of coming back to another world to make it possible for us to gain our salvation. Assuming this theorey is true, since they already earned their salvation on another world, they did not need earn it again on this one. The purpose of their coming here was simply to set in motion the plan of salvation for this world.

This is why Brigham Young said that Adam is God; because who else would be in a position to take that responsibility for us other than the God over this world? If it is His world, it is His responsibility to get it going. This is where the purpose and the willingness comes in.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I understand the reasoning behind the theory LH. I just don't buy it. The scriptures--I'm talking canonized revelations, not journal of discourses--identify Adam as Michael the Archangel. I don't think a god would be called any sort of angel, but again this is just my opinion. There are alot of other reasons why I don't believe the Adam-god theory. I've given the most basic already.

Do you also buy that Adam is the Father of our spirits, the God we pray to? Or just that he was a god when he came to Eden.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

I would just like to say that this is LionHeart's opinion. There is some truth, and some misunderstandings.

And I don't want you to believe what I'm saying about this.

You should all just ask God for yourselves... and look to those who you know God has sent.

On the contrary,Ray, this is not my opinion. As I said, it was Brigham Young who taught this. Did you ever read the discourse on it? If not, then how do you know I misunderstood?

L.H.

I agree that Brigham Young taught much of what you said in your post, LionHeart.

I disagree with your interpretation of what he said, or what you think he meant.

And yes, I have read that discourse. I've read every discourse he wrote or had written.

And if you would like me to share my thoughts, then just simply let me know.

And FYI, I'm on Mod status, which may interfere with our communications.

[Princess3dward]

(2) The D&C, that is written by the prophets correct? does it change often? or ever? is it considered a "finished work" or is it added to by each prophet?

Thanks for your help,

Josh B)

I AM LEARNING ABOUT THIS IN SEMINARY!

Someone, translate for me when I am done!!!!

The D&C can and has change.

It is not yet finished, and will continue to be added onto.

My dad says (I only gave him 10 words)...

"Yes.

Every general conference.

No (Dez: not finished work.. ps. I am going to say this for him, because he doesn't have enough words... he said Elder Boyd K. Packer refers to it as "the book that never closes".... if someone wants to help me by looking that up that would be great).

Yes...

Anyway.. I hope I didn't confuse you too much.

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

(2) The D&C, that is written by the prophets correct? does it change often? or ever? is it considered a "finished work" or is it added to by each prophet?

Thanks for your help,

Josh B)

I AM LEARNING ABOUT THIS IN SEMINARY!

Someone, translate for me when I am done!!!!

The D&C can and has change.

It is not yet finished, and will continue to be added onto.

My dad says (I only gave him 10 words)...

"Yes.

Every general conference.

No (Dez: not finished work.. ps. I am going to say this for him, because he doesn't have enough words... he said Elder Boyd K. Packer refers to it as "the book that never closes".... if someone wants to help me by looking that up that would be great).

Yes...

Anyway.. I hope I didn't confuse you too much.

So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...

Do you have to buy a new copy every year?

Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?

Who can make changes too it?

Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?

Thanks,

Josh B)

[Serg]

I understand the reasoning behind the theory LH. I just don't buy it. The scriptures--I'm talking canonized revelations, not journal of discourses--identify Adam as Michael the Archangel. I don't think a god would be called any sort of angel, but again this is just my opinion. There are alot of other reasons why I don't believe the Adam-god theory. I've given the most basic already.

Do you also buy that Adam is the Father of our spirits, the God we pray to? Or just that he was a god when he came to Eden.

Although this is true Apostle, and there seems to be no reason to call a God an angel, it is yet true also that Jesus in His premortal state, though a Great God, was also called "the ANGEL of the Lord"(the best correlations to justify this angel's identity with christ's is found in the passage of Joshua and the one of Sampson's birth-see "my name is Wonderful").

Also, in D&C Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are called "Gods"(in PRESENT tense), ans more obviously stresses "and they are NOT angels, but Gods", yet we know that even if they were resurected, they have no scriptural reason to be already enjoying the fruits of exaltation, as the Judgement has not yet ocurred and Gods are to rule in this earth, most likely this has to do with the Lord's assurance to Joseph smith, that in terms of knowledge and power-and salvation assurance-these saints are already counted as Gods(as they SURELY will be so).

Of course, my point here is not to justify LH's belief, but to show you how weak this argument(against it) can be. Sure, i dont believe a single word pronounced by ANY of our leaders unless they are found ALSO in Scripture, so thats a point to you(when you stressed the fact of talking about CANNON and not Journal of D.).

Otehr arguments ought to arise to contradict the plausability of Adam being a God BEFORE his "birth".

And there are many others more stable.

In fact, some are:

1) If Adam and eve were already resurected beings(for in order to have been exalted in a previous earth, they must have been dead and resurected), what hapened to the Lord's assurance in Scripture, that those who are exalted(and counted as Gods) shall not "taste death no more" but will enjoy an "everlasting offspring" and "eternal life", hence, would be like today's Elohim, CHANGELESS in terms of death and decayment?

2)Why so selective a view of brigham teachings? Did he not teach many other things strongly related to this special topic that cannot be correlated to Scripture? Like the issue of Adam's other many wives, Adam's previous relationship to Elohim? If Adam isindeed a son of Elohim, an angel, a spirit(at least at first), what happened to Joseph Smith's word in D&C concerning that "every angel that has ministered(or will at any time) on this earth, PERTAINS to it? If so, Adam had to have come unembodied, and got his body here(his first and only), for if he was from another world he would have not been permitted to be part of THIS plan.

3) The only instance in which Scripture tells us and assures us that a GOD is coming to earth to take the form of a man, is in relation to Christ, as Abinadi's word's that "God Himself shall come among the children of men and take flesh upon Him", why not mention Adam?

[Maureen]

So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...

Do you have to buy a new copy every year?

Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?

Who can make changes too it?

Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?

Since I don't really know but don't want you to wait too long for your questions to be answered; here's some good stuff to read in the meantime from (of course) Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants

M.

[JoshuaFKon]

<div class='quotemain'>

So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...

Do you have to buy a new copy every year?

Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?

Who can make changes too it?

Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?

Since I don't really know but don't want you to wait too long for your questions to be answered; here's some good stuff to read in the meantime from (of course) Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants

M.

Thanks :)

Josh B)

[Ray]

You can also check our (LDS) official website to see that the latest addition to the book of Doctrine & Covenants was in 1918... about 88 years ago.

[Princess3dward]

So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...

Do you have to buy a new copy every year?

Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?

Who can make changes too it?

Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?

Thanks,

Josh B)

I am not 100% sure what my dad was trying to say, (you can see where I learned to communicate from).

I know for a fact that the last section wasn't added recently, but prophets can add to it whatever they want.

It is the doctrine of our church ment for today!

[LionHeart]

I understand the reasoning behind the theory LH. I just don't buy it. The scriptures--I'm talking canonized revelations, not journal of discourses--identify Adam as Michael the Archangel. I don't think a god would be called any sort of angel, but again this is just my opinion. There are alot of other reasons why I don't believe the Adam-god theory. I've given the most basic already.

Do you also buy that Adam is the Father of our spirits, the God we pray to? Or just that he was a god when he came to Eden.

Here is my standing on the matter: I do believe that Adam was and is someone who earned His salvation on another world before He came to this one. However, I am doubtful that He is the literal Father of our spirits; nevertheless, I am still open minded to the idea.

L.H.

[LionHeart]

So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...

Do you have to buy a new copy every year?

Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?

Who can make changes too it?

Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?

Thanks,

Josh B)

The D&C does change, mainly by being added to, for example, it only contained 137 sections for a long time. Then in 1918, President Joseph F. Smith had a revelation concerning the three days between Jesus' crucifixion to the time He was risen which was added to the D&C. Other than that, the only additions were the official declarations 1&2. 1 stating the abandonment of plural marriage and 2 stating the eligibility of blacks to hold the priesthood. To my knowledge, nothing else has been added since the '80s; when official declaration 2 was added. However this does not mean more cannot be added.

L.H.

[Princess3dward]

General conference is when the prophet speaks and gives us guidance on whatever we should improve on.

The D&C does change, mainly by being added to, for example, it only contained 137 sections for a long time. Then in 1918, President Joseph F. Smith had a revelation concerning the three days between Jesus' crucifixion to the time He was risen which was added to the D&C. Other than that, the only additions were the official declarations 1&2. 1 stating the abandonment of plural marriage and 2 stating the eligibility of blacks to hold the priesthood. To my knowledge, nothing else has been added since the '80s; when official declaration 2 was added. However this does not mean more cannot be added.

L.H.

My dad said that theory was totally taken out of context, so when I asked him about it, he just pretty much said he wasn't going to respond to something like that.

In my opinion, with how hard my dad studies the doctrine, and prays about what is true or not, he would have a good idea of the Adam-God theory... and basically, there is no way that can be true.

God would have made that more clear in the bible I think.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

So it is changed every "General Conference" (Which is what?) and Then considered "Scripture"...

Do you have to buy a new copy every year?

Do they vote on the changes or does the President decide?

Who can make changes too it?

Can they change what has been put into it before, or only add to it?

Since I don't really know but don't want you to wait too long for your questions to be answered; here's some good stuff to read in the meantime from (of course) Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_and_Covenants

M.

Once again, wikipedia gets most of it right, just not all of it.