Holy Ghost

[JoshuaFKon]

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.

"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 helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him. He brought one of his wives with him. Who is he? He is Michael…He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren brought it into existence. Then he said: 'I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle, or a dwelling place as mine has' and where is the mystery?" (Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873)(emphasis added)

I could quote Brigham several times on this subject....

I am also curious that you said "God would have made that more clear in the bible I think."

I don't remember anything (or at the very least it's not clear) in the Bible about:

(1) Eternal progression, (and that God was once a man)

(2) The continuation of the priesthood

(3) The "levels" in heaven

Why would such a thing need to be clear in the Bible?

Josh B)

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

What did wikipedia get wrong?

Josh B)

[Serg]

So far, none of the Adam-God theory defenders has alluded greatfully our claims(also my three), why is that brothers? Come on Lion heart, if such a theory is valid it should stand ON something(other than the words of a single authority-which Kimball declared "false"in terms of this teaching-and of who you only take THIS particular teachings and not the rest.

Regards,

[Dr T]

Spencer Kimball spoke out against that thought? What did he say?

Thanks

Dr. T

[JoshuaFKon]

Spencer Kimball spoke out against that thought? What did he say?

Thanks

Dr. T

Spencer W. Kimball — Heading: Teaching the truth "We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1-3, 1976)

Josh B)

[Dr T]

Wow. Thanks Josh.

[JoshuaFKon]

Wow. Thanks Josh.

No problem. :)

Josh B)

[Ray]

Fairwiki also has some good information on this topic, which you can see by clicking on this, and while I agree with some of what are called “Apologetic approaches”, you can think how and what you want to think.

Edit: I first said Wikipedia, but it was actually Fairwiki. I searched Wikipedia first, and then found that. :)

[Princess3dward]

Spencer W. Kimball was amazing.

He delivered some of the best talks.

[Serg]

He certainly did, but i preffer B.H.Roberts by a mile. :)

regards,

[Maureen]

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

allmosthumble - Wikipedia is a self/community-editing type Encyclopedia, so if you know corrections and have a source to back up the corrections, you can edit the information yourself. :)

M.

[LionHeart]

So far, none of the Adam-God theory defenders has alluded greatfully our claims(also my three), why is that brothers? Come on Lion heart, if such a theory is valid it should stand ON something(other than the words of a single authority-which Kimball declared "false"in terms of this teaching-and of who you only take THIS particular teachings and not the rest.

Regards,

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I think this doctrine is true, I'm just saying I am keeping an open mind on it.

But again, it is my personal belief that Adam was a ressurected being before He came here. Nobody else needs to believe it; and I'm not trying to convince any one of it either. To me, it just makes sense.

L.H.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

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

allmosthumble - Wikipedia is a self/community-editing type Encyclopedia, so if you know corrections and have a source to back up the corrections, you can edit the information yourself. :)

M.

In this case, I found that Wikipedia's claim that the lecture's on faith, came from the school of the Prophet's was wrong. The lecture's on faith were a major study class all by themselves. Not a big diff.

My problem is that, I will read something, in my Church history and know it, but because I read it years before, it takes me day's to find were I read it. By then, you all have moved off subject. Proving once again that I am to slow for this crowd (lol).

I want you to all know that I would spend the hours finding the quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, on the subject of Adam as god, if I could in any way improve your faith and not just satisfy your curiosity. I want you all to know how much I love you. And to all you "non-members", as Joseph Smith put it, keep all the goodness that your church has now and come and get some more, untill you are full with the complete Gosple of Jesus Christ (not an exact qoute but very close).

Your Friend - allmosthumble

[JoshuaFKon]

I want you to all know that I would spend the hours finding the quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, on the subject of Adam as god, if I could in any way improve your faith and not just satisfy your curiosity. I want you all to know how much I love you. And to all you "non-members", as Joseph Smith put it, keep all the goodness that your church has now and come and get some more, untill you are full with the complete Gosple of Jesus Christ (not an exact qoute but very close).

Your Friend - allmosthumble

I'm sorry, I don't remember if you believe the Adam-God Theory or not....but I found some quotes for you...

And also with Michael or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days. (D&C 27:11, August 1830) Joseph Smith

Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet. (D&C 116, May 19, 1838) Joseph Smith

Both of those verses are reinforced in D&C 138:38 when LDS President Joseph F. Smith wrote:

Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all. (October 3,1918)

Untill I reasearched It I was unaware that Joseph Smith Himself ever said anything to this effect...

Josh B)

Oh wait! Joseph Smith didn't believe in the Adam-God Theory...He just thought "Ancient of Days" refered to Adam ( )

Vol. I, p. 113, Joseph Smith, July 1839. See also HC 3:385-391.

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Gen. i:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority.

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael,

This might been the Joseph F. Smith quote you were looking for....

"The Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all declare that Adam's body was created from the dust of the ground, that is, from the dust of this ground, this earth…We hear a lot of people talk about Adam passing through mortality and the resurrection on another earth and then coming here to live and die again...Adam had not passed through a resurrection when he was in the Garden of Eden... "- Joseph Fielding Smith (Tenth Church President), Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, pp.90-91.

Maybe Adam is Michael and God?!

Eliza R. Snow (one of Joseph Smith's wives)

"Adam is the great Archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ--the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man--Adam!"

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

So far, none of the Adam-God theory defenders has alluded greatfully our claims(also my three), why is that brothers? Come on Lion heart, if such a theory is valid it should stand ON something(other than the words of a single authority-which Kimball declared "false"in terms of this teaching-and of who you only take THIS particular teachings and not the rest.

Regards,

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I think this doctrine is true, I'm just saying I am keeping an open mind on it.

But again, it is my personal belief that Adam was a ressurected being before He came here. Nobody else needs to believe it; and I'm not trying to convince any one of it either. To me, it just makes sense.

L.H.

We know Lion Heart, but we want to understand also, WHY do you believe that. Cause you dont "just believe'that without any base(reasoning, scripture, etc...), we are just providing you with the questions and enviroment you need to let such doctrine be tested. Dont you agree? After all, it was you who introduced that into this thread, and we are glad you did, but lets not stop it now just because a feeling of awkardness may arise as you(or anybody)can't satisfy all questions concerning this theory, lets just accept then(if you or us are not gonna persue this any longer) that this is where the head hits the wall :) LOL.

[boyando]

<div class='quotemain'>

I want you to all know that I would spend the hours finding the quote from Joseph Fielding Smith, on the subject of Adam as god, if I could in any way improve your faith and not just satisfy your curiosity. I want you all to know how much I love you. And to all you "non-members", as Joseph Smith put it, keep all the goodness that your church has now and come and get some more, untill you are full with the complete Gosple of Jesus Christ (not an exact qoute but very close).

Your Friend - allmosthumble

I'm sorry, I don't remember if you believe the Adam-God Theory or not....but I found some quotes for you...

And also with Michael or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days. (D&C 27:11, August 1830) Joseph Smith

Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet. (D&C 116, May 19, 1838) Joseph Smith

Both of those verses are reinforced in D&C 138:38 when LDS President Joseph F. Smith wrote:

Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all. (October 3,1918)

Untill I reasearched It I was unaware that Joseph Smith Himself ever said anything to this effect...

Josh B)

Oh wait! Joseph Smith didn't believe in the Adam-God Theory...He just thought "Ancient of Days" refered to Adam ( )

Vol. I, p. 113, Joseph Smith, July 1839. See also HC 3:385-391.

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Gen. i:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures. Then to Noah, who is Gabriel; he stands next in authority to Adam in the Priesthood; he was called of God to this office, and was the father of all living in his day, and to him was given the dominion. These men held keys first on earth, and then in heaven.

The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority.

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael,

This might been the Joseph F. Smith quote you were looking for....

"The Book of Mormon, the Bible, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price all declare that Adam's body was created from the dust of the ground, that is, from the dust of this ground, this earth…We hear a lot of people talk about Adam passing through mortality and the resurrection on another earth and then coming here to live and die again...Adam had not passed through a resurrection when he was in the Garden of Eden... "- Joseph Fielding Smith (Tenth Church President), Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, pp.90-91.

Maybe Adam is Michael and God?!

Eliza R. Snow (one of Joseph Smith's wives)

"Adam is the great Archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ--the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man--Adam!"

Very interesting.

Here is a hint, the qoute I was looking for is three pages long and can be found in Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1. If you are really interrested, I'm sure you will find what I'm talking about.

Seems to me you have not tried to do any up lifting here. That is your choice. You can choose to confuse and be confused or you can find what my religion is really all about. It is up to you. What you sow, so shall you reap.

allmosthumble

[JoshuaFKon]

Very interesting.

Here is a hint, the qoute I was looking for is three pages long and can be found in Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1. If you are really interrested, I'm sure you will find what I'm talking about.

I'll be sure to take a look at it....

Seems to me you have not tried to do any up lifting here. That is your choice. You can choose to confuse and be confused or you can find what my religion is really all about. It is up to you. What you sow, so shall you reap.

Well....I guess that depends on your definition of "uplifting" I think Adam was Adam.

I actually find this disscussion very interesting...Although I am confidant that Adam is not God...I guess it is within reason that he could be michael.

Barely, but it's a possibility.

I just don't understand one thing. Really this is the only qusetion I have left about the whole "Adam/God/Micheal" theories.

If I understand Mormon doctrine and history correctly,

Joseph Smith "restored" the church. The "authority" was given to him, and he was to pass it on to the next prophet.

And after Joseph Smith died the Mormon faith broke up into different fractions. Each claimed that they had the next "true" prophet, and all the others were almost as bad as any other church.

The LDS followed Brigham Young and moved west.

However, the majority of the people on here seem to disagree with Brigham Young's teaching on The Adam is God concept. Yet you still believe he was the true prophet? Even though he claimed that this teaching came from God.

So my question is, In light of later prophets disagreeing with Brigham Young that he heard from God, What makes your claim stronger than any of the other fractions?

I hope this question does not offend...I really don't know much about any of the other fractions...

Thanks,

Josh B)

[LionHeart]

We know Lion Heart, but we want to understand also, WHY do you believe that. Cause you dont "just believe'that without any base(reasoning, scripture, etc...), we are just providing you with the questions and enviroment you need to let such doctrine be tested. Dont you agree? After all, it was you who introduced that into this thread, and we are glad you did, but lets not stop it now just because a feeling of awkardness may arise as you(or anybody)can't satisfy all questions concerning this theory, lets just accept then(if you or us are not gonna persue this any longer) that this is where the head hits the wall :) LOL.

Fair enough, I will see what I can do.

The reason I believe it, is like I mentioned before, it makes sense. For example, in a discourse, delivered by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, it says, " Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?"

Although he did not come right out and say that Adam already had a body when he came here, he neither said anything to refute the idea.

It appears to me that Brigham young expanded on this idea by saying that there was never a time of creation for anything; that it was all there already. Gods have been in existence from eternity to eternity. If Gods are exalted men, one must assume that men have existed from eternity to eternity as well. And there is no creation about it. This being said, Adam must have had a mortal father. It would be against the laws of eternity for him not to. Because things that have a beginning must have an end. And since mankind has existed, and will exist for eternity, it will not have an end. If Adam was the beginning, mankind must therefore have an end.

The reason I believe that Adam must have earned his salvation before he came here is because those shoes were some very big shoes to fill. No average Joe could have done it. Adam had to know how to become a God in order for him to teach his children the same.

So to put it in a nutshell, a little of Joseoh Smith, a little of Brigham Young, combined with my own reasoning, and it makes sense. That is why I believe it.

I hope I explained it in an understandable way.

L.H.

[LionHeart]

Very interesting.

Here is a hint, the qoute I was looking for is three pages long and can be found in Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1. If you are really interrested, I'm sure you will find what I'm talking about.

I'll be sure to take a look at it....

Seems to me you have not tried to do any up lifting here. That is your choice. You can choose to confuse and be confused or you can find what my religion is really all about. It is up to you. What you sow, so shall you reap.

Well....I guess that depends on your definition of "uplifting" I think Adam was Adam.

I actually find this disscussion very interesting...Although I am confidant that Adam is not God...I guess it is within reason that he could be michael.

Barely, but it's a possibility.

I just don't understand one thing. Really this is the only qusetion I have left about the whole "Adam/God/Micheal" theories.

If I understand Mormon doctrine and history correctly,

Joseph Smith "restored" the church. The "authority" was given to him, and he was to pass it on to the next prophet.

And after Joseph Smith died the Mormon faith broke up into different fractions. Each claimed that they had the next "true" prophet, and all the others were almost as bad as any other church.

The LDS followed Brigham Young and moved west.

However, the majority of the people on here seem to disagree with Brigham Young's teaching on The Adam is God concept. Yet you still believe he was the true prophet? Even though he claimed that this teaching came from God.

So my question is, In light of later prophets disagreeing with Brigham Young that he heard from God, What makes your claim stronger than any of the other fractions?

I hope this question does not offend...I really don't know much about any of the other fractions...

Thanks,

Josh B)

I know exactly what answer you're going to get: "Yes he was a prophet but at the same time he was still a man. Men are subject to making mistakes."

I believe the reason this doctrine was never accepted is because to most people, it belittles God. I know that's how I felt when I first heard it. And I honestly didn't think there was any possibility to it until I actually read the discourse on it. I can plainly see why Brigham Young came to that conclusion. Therefore, I am keeping an open mind to the possibility.

Joseph Smith, along with others, taught that God exists. Gordon B. Hinckley, along with others, teaches that Jesus is our savior. And why do people believe it? Because for the most part, they want to. But give them something they don't want to believe, regardless of whether it's true or not, or who it came from, and see how many believers you get.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I don't see how Adam's body having a "beginning" or being created means it has to have an end. My body didn't always exist, but it will live forever through Christ's atonement. We also know we are spirit children of God, and that our spirit bodies had a beginning, but they too will persist eternally just like our physical body.

As for Adam having to be a great man to go before us all into mortality, I agree. I believe he was second only to Jesus in authority before coming to this earth. That suggests a mighty and noble spirit indeed. However, I don't see how he had to be a god to learn the gospel from angels after the Fall, nor why he needed to be a god to teach his posterity the gospel. Noah was essentially Adam #2 after the Flood, starting over and being responsible for spreading God's word through all his posterity. Yet he didn't need to be a god to do that. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with the idea that Adam attained godhood while still a spirit waiting to enter mortality. After all, Jesus was a God before his mortal birth and the Holy Ghost is personage of spirit who's also a God so I guess it's possible that Adam could have become one too. However, I can't see why he'd need to have been saved and resurrected already on another world to fill his role as the Ancient of Days and the first man of all men on our earth.

I'm not attempting to disprove your reasons for keeping an open mind about the Adam/God Theory, LH. I'm just saying for me those reasons aren't compelling. But I do appreciate you taking time to share your reasons with us so we can understand better where you're coming from.

[Princess3dward]

Very interesting.

Here is a hint, the qoute I was looking for is three pages long and can be found in Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1. If you are really interrested, I'm sure you will find what I'm talking about.

I'll be sure to take a look at it....

Seems to me you have not tried to do any up lifting here. That is your choice. You can choose to confuse and be confused or you can find what my religion is really all about. It is up to you. What you sow, so shall you reap.

Well....I guess that depends on your definition of "uplifting" I think Adam was Adam.

I actually find this disscussion very interesting...Although I am confidant that Adam is not God...I guess it is within reason that he could be michael.

I agree with you!

My cold is worse than I thought!

Well.. I do find this thread starting to get dry though.

Barely, but it's a possibility.

I just don't understand one thing. Really this is the only qusetion I have left about the whole "Adam/God/Micheal" theories.

If I understand Mormon doctrine and history correctly,

Joseph Smith "restored" the church. The "authority" was given to him, and he was to pass it on to the next prophet.

And after Joseph Smith died the Mormon faith broke up into different fractions. Each claimed that they had the next "true" prophet, and all the others were almost as bad as any other church.

The LDS followed Brigham Young and moved west.

However, the majority of the people on here seem to disagree with Brigham Young's teaching on The Adam is God concept. Yet you still believe he was the true prophet? Even though he claimed that this teaching came from God.

So my question is, In light of later prophets disagreeing with Brigham Young that he heard from God, What makes your claim stronger than any of the other fractions?

I hope this question does not offend...I really don't know much about any of the other fractions...

Thanks,

Josh B)

My dad was actually talking to me about this...

But I wast to read the other posts before I say anything possibly confusing.

I believe he was a true prophet from God.

He helped the church move forward a lot.

I don't know a lot about a lot of the prophets,

but he was good.

My dad said he was "hard-nosed", and people didn't always agree with him, but he definitly god revelation from God.

I still do not agree with the Adam/God theory.

[Outshined]

However, the majority of the people on here seem to disagree with Brigham Young's teaching on The Adam is God concept. Yet you still believe he was the true prophet? Even though he claimed that this teaching came from God.

We also believe that prophets are men, and sometimes speak as men. The Adam-God theory was never submitted to be canonized as doctrine, as was never accepted as such. If you like, I can provide some good articles about it.

So my question is, In light of later prophets disagreeing with Brigham Young that he heard from God, What makes your claim stronger than any of the other fractions?

See above. He didn't say that God told him this, nor was it ever submitted as doctrine. Later prophets simply answered the question about whether it was doctrine. You only find it in the Journal of Discourses, which was never a doctrinal source.

Although I am confidant that Adam is not God...I guess it is within reason that he could be michael.

This is the LDS position as well. B)

[Princess3dward]

I really like this post outshined!

[JoshuaFKon]

He didn't say that God told him this, nor was it ever submitted as doctrine. Later prophets simply answered the question about whether it was doctrine. You only find it in the Journal of Discourses, which was never a doctrinal source.

Yes, He did. You may not consider it "doctrine" but Brigham Young claimed the Adam/God concept was given to him from God.

"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…(Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873) (emphasis added)

Josh B)

[Outshined]

You again seem confused as to how LDS doctrine is established. I suggest you read some of the links I provided; they will enlighten you as to why Adam-God has never been considered LDS doctrine. It has little to do with what I "consider"; it has never been recognized as such by the Church. Does it not make you wonder why the quotes you dig up for your criticisms are usually from non-doctrinal sources?

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai002.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adam_god.htm

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm

[JoshuaFKon]

You again seem confused as to how LDS doctrine is established. I suggest you read some of the links I provided; they will enlighten you as to why Adam-God has never been considered LDS doctrine. It has little to do with what I "consider"; it has never been recognized as such by the Church.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai002.html

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adam_god.htm

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/answers/isgodadam.htm

Ok, I'm not disagreeing with you.

The Adam-God Theory is not an LDS doctrine.

Prehaps, it never was.

But That's not what we were talking about.

You said:

He didn't say that God told him this, nor was it ever submitted as doctrine.

Prehaps it was not considered "doctrine" but he did say God told him the Adam-God Concept.

"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…(Brigham Young, Deseret News, June 18, 1873) (emphasis added)

Josh B)