Holy Ghost

[Serg]

LH;

The issue is

1) you have no aparent trustworthy answer for my three questions

2) the principles you establish are too weak. For example, you quote Joseph Smith when he spoke of "the son without a Father and a Father...",but this he spoke in refference to Jesus and Elohim, not concerning those who were after them. Let me get it straight:

He was saying that our claim for a cosmogony(a trace of endless genealogical gods) makes more sense to the biblical revelation of Jesus than the current christian notion of a simple God, not compound and eternal. Why did he alluded to this? Because he wanted to establish the principle of deification of people, and in order to do so, he had to establish that God Himself(as the Three) is a corporeal Man, etc...so it can serve as our prototype.

Now, as far as we can state it by Joseph's teachings and Scripture, this is the plausible cycle of God's progression:

To Gods, woman and man, exalted, attained a level of glory that allowed(as far as we know) the male to participate in a Particular Quorum(i.e.a Godhead), to rule planets, universes, etc... These two, have children(not stated how but it must have something to do with sex), but these children are born spirits(now that is a different issue, one that brings one of the most difficult questions to our belief, but that is not important now), these babies(of spirit) grow, progress, until they reach adulthood, are aqquainted with the Gods, with God's plan, with every aspect of universal truth, they are indeed, semi-gods. But in order to progress they need a body, but not just a body(for that, God Himself would boldly create bodies and give them such), but also experience of opposites, and finally a Redeemer(the only way to get back after participating of such moral mess). Here we find that one of the sons of elohim, Michael(i.e.Adam), a SPIRIT child, helped(and assisted Jesus probably) along with OTHERS(Abr,3:22-26), to create an earth. Now, there is no need as to this particular son, Michael, to pocess a body(material one), when he was born a spirit child, nor is it any needful for him to be begotten again at the start of the creation, nor is it needful for him to had been begotten and died, and resurected to start humanity, for his body MUST be a matter of matter not birth. If Jesus Himself, all God even before attaing a body, had to (being the FIRSTBORN of elohim) wait for a body(as in being in line), why would a second order son have a gloruous thing over his Brother who not only supervices him but is HIS GOD ALSO!!! For Jesus is greater than Adam, He is teh second and better Adam, God himself manifest in flesh, but you want to put Adam over Him?

The problem i see here, is that you link(as you earthly see) body to birth. Birth, logically, goes to point to gestation(and sex). Obviously, then, you trace "body"(Adam's) to "parents"(who begat him). This of course, is not neccesary, for you just start the ongoing and endless cycle of tracing back th eprinciple of procreation, this is, you just start saying; Adam had a material body, hence, he had a material parent who produced him(and jumped all the stages of being first a spirit baby-thus maknig Adam an exception to universal procreation over Jesus himself), but i ask you, After you trace all that back and back, HOW did the GODS obtained their bodies??? Tell me! It must follow that after you are tired of tracing th eendless chain, at some point, a creation of a body out of teh dust had to have occured. Low level matter(i.e.corrupting matter) is not essential(or birth-related) to the gods, they TAKE bodies upon them to later sanctify them, but they are not born in such, for the two illogical would follow:

a) such bodies then , after proceding from eternal and powerful beings can be subject to death again, thus, leaveing nothing to assure us(contrary to Scripture) that resurected beings can and will probably die again.

B) if not, then it makes not any sense the adam-god-theory

c) if a is true, then birth(that includes a body) in the preexistence is selective, and respects not the rights of the firstborn(for it chose to give a body to Adam and not Jesus before earthly birth)

d)Definetively, it cant follow that God's "media" of procreation(if natrural to Him-be it sex or otherwise) is a tool in his hands, from which he can decide, how to have babies this time, with bodies or plainly spirit ones, because we in earth do not select how to procreate, just go along with it, we cant ündo'a baby, just as elohim cannot just select in which essential state(corporeal or not) the Mother(s) will deliver such creatures.

This and a lot more of complications arise, just proceding from your assertion based on Joseph Smith's teaching of the 'son without a father".

How then, will we justify this LH?

regards,

[LionHeart]

LH;

The issue is

1) you have no aparent trustworthy answer for my three questions

2) the principles you establish are too weak. For example, you quote Joseph Smith when he spoke of "the son without a Father and a Father...",but this he spoke in refference to Jesus and Elohim, not concerning those who were after them. Let me get it straight:

He was saying that our claim for a cosmogony(a trace of endless genealogical gods) makes more sense to the biblical revelation of Jesus than the current christian notion of a simple God, not compound and eternal. Why did he alluded to this? Because he wanted to establish the principle of deification of people, and in order to do so, he had to establish that God Himself(as the Three) is a corporeal Man, etc...so it can serve as our prototype.

Now, as far as we can state it by Joseph's teachings and Scripture, this is the plausible cycle of God's progression:

To Gods, woman and man, exalted, attained a level of glory that allowed(as far as we know) the male to participate in a Particular Quorum(i.e.a Godhead), to rule planets, universes, etc... These two, have children(not stated how but it must have something to do with sex), but these children are born spirits(now that is a different issue, one that brings one of the most difficult questions to our belief, but that is not important now), these babies(of spirit) grow, progress, until they reach adulthood, are aqquainted with the Gods, with God's plan, with every aspect of universal truth, they are indeed, semi-gods. But in order to progress they need a body, but not just a body(for that, God Himself would boldly create bodies and give them such), but also experience of opposites, and finally a Redeemer(the only way to get back after participating of such moral mess). Here we find that one of the sons of elohim, Michael(i.e.Adam), a SPIRIT child, helped(and assisted Jesus probably) along with OTHERS(Abr,3:22-26), to create an earth. Now, there is no need as to this particular son, Michael, to pocess a body(material one), when he was born a spirit child, nor is it any needful for him to be begotten again at the start of the creation, nor is it needful for him to had been begotten and died, and resurected to start humanity, for his body MUST be a matter of matter not birth. If Jesus Himself, all God even before attaing a body, had to (being the FIRSTBORN of elohim) wait for a body(as in being in line), why would a second order son have a gloruous thing over his Brother who not only supervices him but is HIS GOD ALSO!!! For Jesus is greater than Adam, He is teh second and better Adam, God himself manifest in flesh, but you want to put Adam over Him?

The problem i see here, is that you link(as you earthly see) body to birth. Birth, logically, goes to point to gestation(and sex). Obviously, then, you trace "body"(Adam's) to "parents"(who begat him). This of course, is not neccesary, for you just start the ongoing and endless cycle of tracing back th eprinciple of procreation, this is, you just start saying; Adam had a material body, hence, he had a material parent who produced him(and jumped all the stages of being first a spirit baby-thus maknig Adam an exception to universal procreation over Jesus himself), but i ask you, After you trace all that back and back, HOW did the GODS obtained their bodies??? Tell me! It must follow that after you are tired of tracing th eendless chain, at some point, a creation of a body out of teh dust had to have occured. Low level matter(i.e.corrupting matter) is not essential(or birth-related) to the gods, they TAKE bodies upon them to later sanctify them, but they are not born in such, for the two illogical would follow:

a) such bodies then , after proceding from eternal and powerful beings can be subject to death again, thus, leaveing nothing to assure us(contrary to Scripture) that resurected beings can and will probably die again.

B) if not, then it makes not any sense the adam-god-theory

c) if a is true, then birth(that includes a body) in the preexistence is selective, and respects not the rights of the firstborn(for it chose to give a body to Adam and not Jesus before earthly birth)

d)Definetively, it cant follow that God's "media" of procreation(if natrural to Him-be it sex or otherwise) is a tool in his hands, from which he can decide, how to have babies this time, with bodies or plainly spirit ones, because we in earth do not select how to procreate, just go along with it, we cant ündo'a baby, just as elohim cannot just select in which essential state(corporeal or not) the Mother(s) will deliver such creatures.

This and a lot more of complications arise, just proceding from your assertion based on Joseph Smith's teaching of the 'son without a father".

How then, will we justify this LH?

regards,

If I understand you correctly, it appears we have a different understanding of the Adam/God theory.

First of all, it would not be doing an injustice to the first born (Jesus) because Adam would be His Father. Therefore, Adam would have the right to recieve a body first first. In fact the very existence of Jesus would depend on it.

Secondly, the mortal realm and and the heavenly realm are entirely different. People are born in spirit first and then in the flesh. Adam would have been born on another world, earned His salvation there, and recieved a ressurection. He would not have been born, primarily, into a mortal body. Then, when He had a large enough population of spirit children, and a world prepared for them, He then would have came down to this Earth to commence mankind on it. This is why Brigham Young came to conclusion that Adam must be God. Because fulfilling that position would be His responsibilty. To take a resurrected being from another world and con him into coming to this world as a favor and subjecting him to sin and death again would be an injustice to the other being, and would have been dumping his responsibilty on another.

As you said, this idea would infer that our bodies can become subject to death again after the resurrection, however, not everyone. Only those who attain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Keep in mind, in Brigham Young's days, it was believed that the standards to attain to that glory and have the ability to beget spirit children and become the God of their own world, were set so high that very few people would make it. Therefore, those who did not attain to this glory would not be subject to death again; which would be about 99.99999% of everyone who ever lived.

And now, regarding where, in eternity mankind commenced, all I can say is: to my comprehension, never.

Mankind has existed from eternity to eternity. If we are to believe the scriptures when they say that God has existed from eternity to eternity, we must also believe the same about mankind. Because the Gods cannot beget spirit children without bodies; bodies which they recieved when they were born into a world. As we know it, this second estate is where we earn our Godhood. One must conclude that the Gods in Heaven earned theirs the same way.

I would also like to point out that I am not trying to prove anything right or wrong, but merely attempting to help people to understand the nature of the Adam/God theory; the origins, and why such conclusions were reached.

L.H.

[boyando]

Brigham Young both taught the Adam-God theory, and the correct relation of Adam to our Father in Heaven as recorded in holy writ. As Elder McConkie once wrote, the question becomes one of which Brigham Young will we believe? The answer:

We will believe the teachings that are in harmony with the standard works.

They're called the standard works because they determine the standard against which all doctrines are to be measured and tested. Wishing it were not so will not change those facts. Period. I can't remember the last time God had a revelation or truth to teach mankind, but decided to hold it back from the canon because "too many people disagreed with it." Perhaps people weren't worthy (as in Sinai and the golden calves), but truth is not dispensed according to its acceptability or popularity among mankind.

I personally believe that Brigham Young was either misquoted, misunderstood, mistaken, or a combination of all three. I do not find that the standard works support the contention that Adam was either a God, or our God. Adam was Michael, that is established in the D&C explicitly. As for the Adam-God theory, it contradicts so many passages of scripture that it cannot possibly be true as we understand Brigham Young to have taught it.

I like what McConkie say's.

May I add high lights from Doctrines of Salvation? I suggested to Josh to look it up on his own but now have it in front of me, and would like to quote it, not for Josh, but for those who, because of Josh, are confused by what Brigham Young was trying to say.

D of S, vol 1, page 96 - SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted ~ in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed ~ as having said:"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wifes, 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."

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the god whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in the same discourse, President Young said:"It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah and Michael." Here he places places Adam or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam or Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scripture plainly indicate.

I cant type everything that it says in the next nine pages, so I will give you some highlights.

Because Adam was the first, we are subject to him.

There are hundreds of times that Brigham Young taught to worship the Father, through Jesus Christ, and yet they go back to the Adam - God theory to malign and misrepresent.

Daniel speaks of Adam as the Ancient of Days.

It also points out how Adam was called a God. see John 10:34-36, Romans 8:14 and Galatians 4:6 then read D.&C. 132:17, 19-25, 29-32, 37, 49.

I personally feel that President Young gave this sermon, because of a rumour that was, and is, sadly, still going around inside the Church, that the Father did not create Adams body, but was a product of resurrected beings from a previous world.

I hope this helps, and editfies - untill we all come to understand the Gospel better - your friend - allmosthumble

[JoshuaFKon]

I like what McConkie say's.

May I add high lights from Doctrines of Salvation? I suggested to Josh to look it up on his own but now have it in front of me, and would like to quote it, not for Josh, but for those who, because of Josh, are confused by what Brigham Young was trying to say.

D of S, vol 1, page 96 - SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted ~ in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed

I believe McConkie later recounted this theory:

"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This [i.e., Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." (p. 6 of McConkie's letter)

This despite earlier claims by church leaders to the contrary. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the 10th President of the church, claimed concerning the source of the Adam-God theory in the church's own Journal of Discourses, that:

"...in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed". (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 96)

Josh B)

[Outshined]

I like what McConkie say's.

May I add high lights from Doctrines of Salvation? I suggested to Josh to look it up on his own but now have it in front of me, and would like to quote it, not for Josh, but for those who, because of Josh, are confused by what Brigham Young was trying to say.

McConkie also addressed it in Mormon Doctrine:

Cultists and other enemies of the restored truth, for their own peculiar purposes, sometimes try to make it appear that Latter-day Saints worship Adam as their Father in heaven. In support of their false assumptions, they quote such statements as that of President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam is our father and our god and the only god with whom we have to do. This statement, and others of a similar nature, is perfectly consistent and rational, when viewed in full gospel perspective and understood in the light of the revelations relative to the patriarchal chain binding exalted beings together. Full and detailed explanations of all important teachings on these points are readily available. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 96-106.)Faithful members of the Church worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and view Adam in his proper high place as the first man and presiding high priest (under Christ) over all the earth for all time, and as the one who will again lead the armies of heaven in the final great war with Lucifer. There is a sense, of course, in which Adam is a god. But so also, in the same sense, are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Moses and all the ancient prophets; Peter, James, and John; and all the righteous saints of all ages, including those of both high and low degree.All exalted beings become joint-heirs with Christ and inherit the fulness of the Father's kingdom. Having entered in at the gate of celestial marriage, and having pressed forward in righteousness, overcoming all things, they pass by the angels and the gods "to their exaltation and glory in all things. . . . Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, Because they have all power, and he angels are subject unto them." (D. & C. 132:19-20.) Of all these Adam is the chief, presiding (under Christ and the Father) in the patriarchal order over all the rest. There is no mystery about this doctrine except that which persons ignorant of the great principles of exaltation and unfriendly to the cause of righteousness have attempted to make.

[LionHeart]

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the god whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

This statement is wrong. If one wishes to understand why, look up these verses:

Daniel 7:9,13,14,22; and D & C 27:11,

116:1, 138:38

Furthermore, I find it rediculous that people try to claim that Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God theory. I have read the discourses on it; the entire discourses. Unless he was speaking in some sort of code language, he was unmistakably teaching that theory. People can try to pick the discourses apart to prove that he wasn't teaching it, because he said so and so, but those same people can pick the bible apart in the same manner and prove that Jesus never existed; and that all the prophets of old actually taught doctrines of little-bo-peep who lost her sheep.

A little lame; wouldn't you say?

I don't see what's to be so ashamed of. Brigham Young beleived a certain thing, and he taught it to the people; Which teaching was later denounced a few presidents down the line. So what? Why make up stories about how it never happened?

L.H.

[Princess3dward]

This is a topic I think we will never agree on, I think.

I, personally, don't think it matters.....

[Serg]

<div class='quotemain'>

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the god whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

This statement is wrong. If one wishes to understand why, look up these verses:

Daniel 7:9,13,14,22; and D & C 27:11,

116:1, 138:38

Furthermore, I find it rediculous that people try to claim that Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God theory. I have read the discourses on it; the entire discourses. Unless he was speaking in some sort of code language, he was unmistakably teaching that theory. People can try to pick the discourses apart to prove that he wasn't teaching it, because he said so and so, but those same people can pick the bible apart in the same manner and prove that Jesus never existed; and that all the prophets of old actually taught doctrines of little-bo-peep who lost her sheep.

A little lame; wouldn't you say?

I don't see what's to be so ashamed of. Brigham Young beleived a certain thing, and he taught it to the people; Which teaching was later denounced a few presidents down the line. So what? Why make up stories about how it never happened?

L.H.

Oh, at least I dont say Young didnt teach it, I just say that i dont believe him for teh many reasons that have not been met in this thread.

As McConkie put it, "what is revelation" "Revelation is whatever prophet Smith said unless president Kimball says otherwise" , lol. So in light of tradition, history, Scripture, logic, and many more things, i choose not to believe a word that came out of the mouth of Young concerning this particular topic.

Now Young is a very interesting fellow, one may argue(against those who propose that Young " prophetically" expanded this "knowledge" ) that Young himself didnt consider himself a prophet, indeed he said : "I am not too given to prophecying...whenever I want prophecy i call brother Kimball, he is my prophet...". LOL.

You say LH:

As you said, this idea would infer that our bodies can become subject to death again after the resurrection, however, not everyone. Only those who attain the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. Keep in mind, in Brigham Young's days, it was believed that the standards to attain to that glory and have the ability to beget spirit children and become the God of their own world, were set so high that very few people would make it. Therefore, those who did not attain to this glory would not be subject to death again; which would be about 99.99999% of everyone who ever lived.

1) If then Adam died after he was resurected, according to your scale of worthiness, then he never made it to be a Great Elohim, for he could die again here!

2) The Scripture says that every soul on this earth, whether an exalted God or a son of perdition will never die again, for "body and spirit shall be never separate" in any respect in any one's body.

I like what McConkie say's.

May I add high lights from Doctrines of Salvation? I suggested to Josh to look it up on his own but now have it in front of me, and would like to quote it, not for Josh, but for those who, because of Josh, are confused by what Brigham Young was trying to say.

D of S, vol 1, page 96 - SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted ~ in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed

I believe McConkie later recounted this theory:

"Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This [i.e., Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel." (p. 6 of McConkie's letter)

This despite earlier claims by church leaders to the contrary. For example, Joseph Fielding Smith, who became the 10th President of the church, claimed concerning the source of the Adam-God theory in the church's own Journal of Discourses, that:

"...in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed". (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 96)

Josh B)

I wouldnt put a bet on Fielding Smith's corroborating "witness" for he himself in such a book promoted his son in law's teachings(McConkie's) that " negroes"(racist word) were " unworthy" in the preexistance, a teaching that McConkie himself regreted later, as he wrote " forget everything I have said, forget everything any prophet of the past has said...we spoke without th elight that has now come into the world(Kimball's revelation)...it is time you believe in a living prophet"(not a textual quote)LOL.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the god whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

This statement is wrong. If one wishes to understand why, look up these verses:

Daniel 7:9,13,14,22; and D & C 27:11,

116:1, 138:38

Furthermore, I find it rediculous that people try to claim that Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God theory. I have read the discourses on it; the entire discourses. Unless he was speaking in some sort of code language, he was unmistakably teaching that theory. People can try to pick the discourses apart to prove that he wasn't teaching it, because he said so and so, but those same people can pick the bible apart in the same manner and prove that Jesus never existed; and that all the prophets of old actually taught doctrines of little-bo-peep who lost her sheep.

A little lame; wouldn't you say?

I don't see what's to be so ashamed of. Brigham Young beleived a certain thing, and he taught it to the people; Which teaching was later denounced a few presidents down the line. So what? Why make up stories about how it never happened?

L.H.

I am not ashamed of the fact that Brigham Young taught us something about Adam. I am ashamed when members of the Church teach other people what they think President Young was teaching when it was not what he actually taught... when it is a false interpretation... when they don't know that he was teaching the truth.

And the reason I feel ashamed when I keep seeing that happen is because it makes the whole Church look bad... when people keep arguing about what he was saying and I know we can't all have it right.

I would rather we understood that he was a true prophet and not teaching a false doctrine or his opinion, but I know I am asking a little too much... we are all prone to error. Too bad.

[Snow]

And the reason I feel ashamed when I keep seeing that happen is because it makes the whole Church look bad... when people keep arguing about what he was saying and I know we can't all have it right

Atta Boy - way to feel ashamed.

I also feel ashamed ---- when I go out in public having forgot to apply my mascara. The horror.

[Jason]

I somehow doubt that Ray has actually read Brigham Youngs sermons on the Adam-god stuff. Perhaps he read JD 1:50, but he apparently hasn't read the other dozen sermons where he explained or infered the teaching.

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! 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. . . . Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." (JD 1:50)

"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." (JD 4:217 on February 8, 1857)

"Jesus should veil His glory and appear before you as a man, and witness of himself as being the image of his Father, would you believe that he was really Jesus Christ and that he told you the truth? And if you believed His words, would you not wonder exceedingly to hear that our Father and God is an organized being after the fashion of man's organization in every respect? Such, however, is the case. One of the prophets describes the Father of us all, saying, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame," etc. The prophet further says, "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him," etc. Again, "and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him." Now, who is this Ancient of days? You may answer this question at your pleasure, I have already told the people." (JD 11:41 on January 8, 1865) Hint: Look in the Topical Guide under "Ancient of Days...

"I know the God in whom I believe, and am willing to acknowledge Him before all men. We have persons in this church who have preached and published doctrines on the subject of the Deity which are not true. Elder Orson Pratt has written extensively on the doctrines of this church, and upon this particular doctrine. When he writes and speaks upon subjects with which he is acquainted and understands, he is a very sound reasoner; but when he has written upon matters of which he knows nothing-his own philosophy, which I call vain philosophy-he is wild, uncertain, and contradictory. " (JD 11:122 on June 18, 1865) Hint: Elder Pratt opposed the Adam-god teaching.

As a matter of fact, the teaching of the Adam-God doctrine was at one time included in the Temple Ceremony itself, only to be removed by 1905. The “Lecture at the Veil” discussing the Adam-God doctrine was first introduced at the dedication of the St. George Temple in 1877. Here is the discourse as recorded by President Young’s personal secretary, Leonard John Nuttall:

"We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. How they were formed and some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. For we read, ‘From dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.’ Well, he was made of the dust of the earth, but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. ‘Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had lived on an earth similar to ours, he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he became through his faithfulness;’ and had begotten all the spirits that were to come to this earth, and Eve, our common mother, who is the mother of all living, bore those spirits in the celestial world. . . . Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. . . . .Adam and Eve, when they were placed on this earth, were immortal beings with flesh, bones, and sinews, but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden, and cultivating the ground, their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings, with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. . . . Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Savior), who is the heir of the family, is Father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world."

What's most interesting was that President Gordon B. Hinckley admitted knowing about the Adam-God doctrine in a recent interview:

"When I asked him to characterize God’s connubial relationship, he replied, ‘We don’t speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don’t know what he meant by that.’ Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, ‘There he is, right there. I’m not going to worry about what he said about those things.’ " (Lawrence Wright, “Lives Of The Saints,” The New Yorker, 21 Jan. 2002, 44.)

What say you now Ray?

[LionHeart]

I am not ashamed of the fact that Brigham Young taught us something about Adam. I am ashamed when members of the Church teach other people what they think President Young was teaching when it was not what he actually taught... when it is a false interpretation... when they don't know that he was teaching the truth.

And the reason I feel ashamed when I keep seeing that happen is because it makes the whole Church look bad... when people keep arguing about what he was saying and I know we can't all have it right.

I would rather we understood that he was a true prophet and not teaching a false doctrine or his opinion, but I know I am asking a little too much... we are all prone to error. Too bad.

Don't you see what's happening here Ray? You are turning a blind eye to the truth simply because the truth is inconvenient for you. This doesn't say much for one who is always claiming to know the truth.

Brigham Young did teach the doctrine. You would have to be blind not to see that. Again, he was not speaking in some kind of code language; and the assumption that his scribes mis-quoted him is the most pathetic excuse I ever heard.

However, it is also clear that he taught the account found in the book of Genesis as well. If I was to make a guess as to why, I would say that he knew that the main body of the church would reject the Adam/God theory. Therefore, rather than give up on them, he continued to teach them something they would accept.

He did say, in the discourse, that the things he was going to advance were not for the world, as well as for many of the people who were present.

L.H.

[LionHeart]

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?

He doesn't say anywhere in the scriptures anything about doing so of one's own free will and choice. I would assume that if a God wished to transgress back over to mortality in order to commence the plan of salvation for His children, He would be allowed to do so.

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.

Assuming Adam is God this would be HIS plan. He would say who is permitted to be a part of it. True, D&C says "Every angel that has ministered(or will at any time) on this earth, PERTAINS to it." But it doesn't say they cannot have pertained to another world previously.

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?

Because why prophesy of something that has already came to pass? Furthermore, Brigham Young, in his discourse, said that the account given in Genesis was such that the people of Israel would accept it. Assuming this is correct, the scriptures would not mention anything about Adam being our Father in Heaven.

One thing that is clear is that Adam is referred to as "The Ancient of Days" in the D&C. So who is the ancient of days? A quick look at the above reference given in Daniel would lead one to believe that the ancient of days is God. It is things like this that causes me to keep an open mind on the subject.

But this is a very dangerous thing to point out indeed. Heaven forbid Joseph Smith also believed Adam was God. I'm sure many of you will now order a warrant for my crucifixion.

L.H.

[Dr T]

Uh oh.

[Outshined]

And how do you reconcile this with the fact that Brigham Young so often taught that Adam was a son of God, not God Himself?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

LH, I really can appreciate all the reasons you have for believing what you do. I also appreciate the scriptural contradictions between our scriptures and BY's doctrine.

D&C 78:16 teaches:

15 That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman;

16 Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.

So here we have the Holy One directing Adam/Michael who is called a "prince." Two things.

1) IF...Adam were God the Father, He would not be directed by His Son, even in a symbolic sense, let alone regarding the exercise of priesthood keys!

2) IF...Adam were God the Father, His Son would not "appoint" Him to be anything.

As for Daniel 7, I see it as nothing more than a description of Adam delivering the keys of all dispensations to Jesus Christ in Adam-ondi-ahman, prior to the Second Coming.

[LionHeart]

LH, I really can appreciate all the reasons you have for believing what you do. I also appreciate the scriptural contradictions between our scriptures and BY's doctrine.

D&C 78:16 teaches:

15 That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman;

16 Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.

So here we have the Holy One directing Adam/Michael who is called a "prince." Two things.

1) IF...Adam were God the Father, He would not be directed by His Son, even in a symbolic sense, let alone regarding the exercise of priesthood keys!

2) IF...Adam were God the Father, His Son would not "appoint" Him to be anything.

As for Daniel 7, I see it as nothing more than a description of Adam delivering the keys of all dispensations to Jesus Christ in Adam-ondi-ahman, prior to the Second Coming.

But you see, this is reasoning from a finite perspective. First of all, the scripture you quoted doesn't say that the Holy One is Jesus. It merely says "The Holy One".

Now let's consider this in an eternal perspective:

Who would appoint God the Father as ruler over this world and all others He presides over? Of course the answer would be: His Father. From this point of view, God the Father could be considered a prince. In fact from this point of view, all the Gods in Heaven could be considered kings and princes.

But again, I'm not trying to prove it correct, because that would be impossible. I am merely pointing out that if one takes into consideration the doctrine of the eternities of the Gods, then this theory is plausible.

And, I will say it again: the fact that Brigham Young taught that Adam was a son of God does not cancel out the fact that he also taught that Adam was God. But again, looking at it from an eternal perspective, even if Adam was God, He would still be a son of God. I have no doubt that Brigham Young realized this.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Sure, if doctrines and scriptures are arranged and interpreted in just the "right" way, the Adam-god Theory can seem plausible.

I simply do not find it taught in the scriptures, in plainnes, whereas I do find taught in plainness the correct relation of Adam to God our Father, our Savior, and all of us. I guess you're right in that neither "side" of the issue can convince each other with scripture references (which is sad because how can they be the standard works if they apparently teach different standards?).

Anyway, I just find it interesting that one prophet taught his beliefs about this and nearly every other prophet since has denounced those beliefs as opinion, not doctrine, yet people still cling to the one in spite of the many witnesses to the contrary.

[Dr T]

Insert God of confusion argument here

[Princess3dward]

Insert God of confusion argument here

You know you've been here a while when...

[Dr T]

[Jason]

Anyway, I just find it interesting that one prophet taught his beliefs about this and nearly every other prophet since has denounced those beliefs as opinion, not doctrine, yet people still cling to the one in spite of the many witnesses to the contrary.

Could that not be due to the fact that Brigham Young is perhaps better known than any LDS prophet, including Joseph Smith? Let's face it, some prophets, like US Presidents, will always be better known and held in higher regard. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, Spencer W. Kimball, and possibly Gordon B. Hinckley are much better known and loved than say John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Harold B. Lee or Howard Hunter.

No?

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Fair enough Jason.

I also think some people's minds itch for doctrinal meat that isn't there, and so they spend time looking beyond the mark while reading between the lines. But you have a good point.

[Ray]

I somehow doubt that Ray has actually read Brigham Youngs sermons on the Adam-god stuff. Perhaps he read JD 1:50, but he apparently hasn't read the other dozen sermons where he explained or infered the teaching.

I mentioned this somewhere before, but for your benefit I will now repeat it: I've read all the discourses from Brigham Young... or at least all the ones he wrote or had written after he became a President of the Church.

I simply disagree with some people's interpretation of what he taught. I know what he taught, and meant.

And to put it all in a nutshell for you, Jason, and anyone else who is interesting in hearing what I think, I know Brigham knew Adam was and would be someone with whom all of us have and will have to do... because he was given a position of seniority over all the rest of us... exempting only our Lord and His Father who is in heaven... among all those we know and those we will know are our fatherS who are in heaven.

And that is my story and I'm still stickin to it... regardless of what others may think. :)

[Serg]

Running into difficulties my friend;

<div class='quotemain'>

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?

He doesn't say anywhere in the scriptures anything about doing so of one's own free will and choice. I would assume that if a God wished to transgress back over to mortality in order to commence the plan of salvation for His children, He would be allowed to do so.

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.

Assuming Adam is God this would be HIS plan. He would say who is permitted to be a part of it. True, D&C says "Every angel that has ministered(or will at any time) on this earth, PERTAINS to it." But it doesn't say they cannot have pertained to another world previously.

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?

Because why prophesy of something that has already came to pass? Furthermore, Brigham Young, in his discourse, said that the account given in Genesis was such that the people of Israel would accept it. Assuming this is correct, the scriptures would not mention anything about Adam being our Father in Heaven.

One thing that is clear is that Adam is referred to as "The Ancient of Days" in the D&C. So who is the ancient of days? A quick look at the above reference given in Daniel would lead one to believe that the ancient of days is God. It is things like this that causes me to keep an open mind on the subject.

But this is a very dangerous thing to point out indeed. Heaven forbid Joseph Smith also believed Adam was God. I'm sure many of you will now order a warrant for my crucifixion.

L.H.

1) "I would assume that if a God wished to transgress back over to mortality in order to commence the plan of salvation"

Scripture speaks of a Lord(who happens to be also our father), that proposed a plan, yes, and in contemplation of a most probable fall, also provided a "Redeemer". Now, the reason that the Father didnt come into mortaliy to rescue us, what was it? Oh! He already had a body! Otherwise it makes no sense as to if God the Father could have come into the world and died for us, he had to choose one of his sons, in fact, it is yet more dubious when we accept(what you propose us) that He not only could have died again while being "Adam" here, but also could have come again as a Jesus and die again also(for if He " so wished" He would have been let). Now, we find that He didnt, we find that another had to come instead of Him, why? maybe cause He didnt want to contradict Himself when promised(to us, as it had been to HIM-long before-even "eternities past") D&C 29: 41-43

41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be acast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son.

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his aprobation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;

Wow, now,

a) Here we got one person talking, called the Lord, that is telling us concerning one man, another, Adam. With this, we could say that is self-contradictory to speak of one's self as another person with characteristics so opposed, also, there is not one single thread on the Lord's account as to identify Himself to this Adam, who, not only was in His presence before not being in such, but that also was imparted commandments by Him. This would make absolute no sense, for Adam then(if he was "Elohim") was banned from His own presence, gave commandments to Himself, and saved Himself thropugh His own only begotten son. Interestingly, such a thesis of contradictory personality(as proposed by Morris in Christhology) is opposed by us(mormons) for the same reason! We object to Christ being one person(literally) with the Father, because it makes no sense that(not only there was an absense of God for a time) but because it would involve that he prayed and worshipped Himself, and many other things!

B) moreover, it complicates further, because at least with Christ, such a belief does not encounter the difficulties Adam raises, for example, Adam was spiritually dead, a thing most unspeakable to say of God at any time. Not only that, but He needed to be redeemed and was appointed(by Himself?) a time of Probation(of course, this may be contested, as Christ Himself was subject to it), but as most absurd He not only tasted(as Adam) the first death(spiritual) but also the second(and final) as to have been considered " Cursed" forever, and banned form the Presence of an allmighty God(interestingly, not only never mentioned, but never even inferred). Thus, God Himself(in difference form the two personages perspective in Christ) became mortal, sinned, was saved, and resurected, all by His own hand.

c) Also, look at the explicit content of the inmortality, that it was gonna be ETERNAL, not temporal, or subject to will, but eternal. Now, no precedent(but to the contrary) can be shown that explains how a god's body is subject to death at will. For Christ had no body previous to his birth, why should have Adam! Is not Christ superior than Adam? Does not Scripture says explicitly(in Paul's Corinthinans) that "The second Adam" was far superior to the first?

2)"Because why prophesy of something that has already came to pass? "

Well, my friend, do we NOT have the account concerning how in the preexistance Lucipher contradicted the Father? But that already and long gone happened, do wenot have concurrently, Isaiah, Ezequiel, Enoc, Moses, Zacariah, Jesus, Paul and John(in apocalipsis) telling us about it? Were they then not "prophesying" concerning a thing most worthy to be conceiled as to be forgotten because of how old was?

And many other things!

My question comes, when, you only select this particular teaching of Young. The only president who has said such a thing in all registered dispensations. Why not also his views concerning the divinity of the institution of slavery? Or on divorce?(a very interesting one). Is it not in Scripture(and plain logic) thet if "it be contrary to my doctrine" or "more or less of it" the "doors of Hell shall be opened unto them"? Why does, then, any Scripture not contain it? Oh, you say, Israel received what he wanted to receive, well then, we certainly are different from Israel, as we have morover accepted the difficult concept of a Mother without whinning! Why not also such a truth?!

It only gets complicated as we go on, it lacks the Scriptural, LOGICAL(most of all) and authoritative(tradition) backup it would need.

I dont know L.H., you need more(is all I am saying) to sell it.

Regards