Adam=michael The Archangel?

[LionHeart]

That doesn't answer my question. As I said, the Holy Ghost hasn't got a resurrected body of flesh and bone, yet is still a God. So why couldn't Michael/Adam have been a god while still a spirit just like Jesus was before his mortal birth?

I suppose it would be possible, but not likely. True, Jesus attained GodHood before He came here, but mankind was already established on this Earth. There was no question of where his body would have come from. Michael/Adam, on the other hand was the first to inhabit this Earth. People could accept that he was created from the dust of the Earth, and that Eve, or "family" was created from one of his ribs, but that would not be following the principle of procreation that was taught by both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.

L.H.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I actually have no problem with the theory that Adam and Eve were born to mortal or immortal parents elsewhere and then placed in Eden to commence the Father's plan of happiness. Saying that Adam was created from the dust of the earth implies--in my own opinion--that his physical body was composed of the same elements that the sanctified earth was composed of before his Fall. A few things about this theory, though:

1) God the Father, the literal Father of our spirits, could not have been the Father of Adam's physical body because the scriptures are explicit that Jesus was God's Firstborn in the Spirit, and Only Begotten in the flesh (sanctified or fallen flesh, it doesn't matter).

2) Adam didn't need to be a god to "get the ball" rolling so to speak as pertains to mortality. He simply needed a physical body that could become subject to sin and death through his own transgression. Everything else could be taught to him by God, Jesus and angels before and after the Fall. We have no record of how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before the Fall, or how much they learned at that stage of their progression.

Those are some of my preliminary thoughts on the matter. I just don't understand where this belief comes from that Adam had to be a god to accomplish his role as the first man of all men on our earth. I understand the belief, just not where it comes from (source text, sermon, etc...).

[Nicole]

Do Mormons worship Adam? Have they ever worshipped Adam?

No. We worship God the Father, the Creator of all, who created the man Adam. The scriptures and the official teachings of the Church are unmistakable on this point. There is a clear process for doctrines to become official, and nothing that could possibly be called an Adam-God doctrine ever went through that process. To understand what is actually official doctrine, please see "What is Official Doctrine?" by Stephen Robinson and "Are Brigham Young's Sermons Scripture?" by John Walsh.

Latter-day Saints grow weary of others trying to tell us what we really believe, and this is a good example. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we explain to them that we don't believe Adam was God, or that we only worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. Many anti-Mormons continue to assert that it is LDS doctrine that Adam was God. This is false, but it certainly serves the anti-Mormon agenda of making Mormons seem like a moronic cult with no connection to biblical Christianity. (See Adam, the Fall, and the Messiah: The LDS Perspective for a discussion of the very biblical LDS view of Adam's Fall and the resulting need for a Savior - something that was planned from the beginning.)

What is the basis for the anti-Mormon charges? Among the many non-canonized, unofficial statements of Brigham Young are several very puzzling quotes that seem - if he is quoted correctly - to indicate confusion about the identity of God and Adam, though in even more quotes from him he clearly speaks of Adam as the human created by God. If the quotes are correct, I can accept their gist by taking "Adam" to be a title meaning "First Father," which can be applied to God the Father as well as the earthly Adam (see Abraham 1:3 and Moses 1:34). It can also apply to Christ, who is the Father of our salvation, the Firstborn, and the Firstfruits of the Resurrection. Use of the title "Adam" is demonstrated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Thus, we have a biblical example where Christ is called by the title "Adam" in a way consistent with the "First Father" concept of the LDS scripture, Abraham 1:3. Adam was the first father for mortality, while Christ is our First Father spiritually.

But we still don't really know what Brigham was trying to say in the puzzling "Adam-God" quotes. Some seem to contradict his own clear and plain teachings about the Godhead and about Adam. Many of these can be resolved by an appeal to confusing grammar and to the concept of Adam being a title (First Father). But in a lecture given in the St. George Temple, for example, he apparently taught the confusing idea that Adam was an immortal, resurrected being who became mortal again in the garden of Eden. If he has been correctly quoted, it just doesn't fit with basic teachings of the Church and the scriptures and of President Young himself on other occasions. Whatever he had in mind, he did not require others to teach such doctrine as official LDS doctrine (e.g., as canonized doctrine) nor put it into official Church materials nor ever present it for consideration as canonized doctrine. In expressing his opinions on this matter, he may have been misunderstood or he may simply have been wrong. Since he never attempted to canonize his theories, however strongly he may have felt about them, we are under no obligation to defend them. If Brigham Young had a wild theory that was inconsistent with canonized doctrine, we can shrug our shoulders and move on. Prophets, like all mortals, can be wrong and make mistakes. But we expect that official, canonized doctrines - those in the scriptures and teachings presented for sustaining votes by the general authorities and membership of the Church - can be relied on.

This point is further explained by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen in "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 109-169 (quoting from p. 141):

A private letter coauthored by President Wilford Woodruff - fourth president of the church and a contemporary of Brigham Young - and Apostle Joseph F. Smith makes clear that the Adam-God theory was never widely held nor accepted by the church as an official doctrine:

President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.

(Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, letter to A. Saxey, 7 January 1897, Family and Church History Department Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

So whatever Brigham Young actually meant when he spoke of confusing doctrines about Adam, those concepts must be relegated to the "personal opinion" file and not to official doctrine. In the Church, official doctrine comes through established, official routes, and is primarily embodied in standard works that have been presented to the Church and ratified for approval. As President Gordon B. Hinckley explained,

When all is said and done, the test of the doctrine lies in the standard works of the Church. These have been accepted in conference and assembled as our doctrinal standards." (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Authority Training Meeting, October 1, 1996, in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 574)

Earlier opinions and writings of Church leaders and their previously published writings do not automatically become official Church doctrine when they later become President of the Church. As Joseph Fielding Smith himself stated,

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.... You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it. If he writes what is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-4).

Claims that Adam is the Almighty Creator or Father of Christ do not have scriptural support. No such concept has ever been presented to the Church membership for their sustaining vote. Given the conflict of the so-called Adam-God with canonized scripture, we are, as Joseph Fielding Smith himself stated, "duty-bound to reject them."

The Adam-God theory is a fundamental issue in the imaginations of anti-Mormon writers, but is largely irrelevant in LDS theology. Anti-Mormon writings refuse to acknowledge that most of the quotes we have from Brigham Young mentioning God, Christ, and Adam correspond with what we all know and understand from the scriptures and leave no room to make LDS doctrine out of the so-called "Adam-God theory." Official LDS doctrine has always been clear that God and Adam are distinct beings and that God was the Creator and Adam was the created. We find that in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, in the teachings of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young. It is unmistakably taught and conveyed in the LDS Temple.

One quote from Brigham Young that has caused much confusion (at least it is commonly cited by anti-Mormon writers) is from a talk given April 9, 1852, as reported in an unofficial and sometimes questionable source, The Journal of Discourses , Vol. 1, p. 51. Here Brigham is explaining that Christ is divine and is the Son of God the Father:

"Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! 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...."

Here Brigham is referring to God the Father when he says "that being who was in the Garden of Eden," for the Bible and other LDS sources indeed teach that God visited Adam in the Garden of Eden and walked and talked with him there, before the Fall.

I will now quote at length on this topic from Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., from Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.102-106:

The statement by President Brigham Young that the Father is the first of the human family is easily explained. But the expression that he was the same character that was in the Garden of Eden has led to misunderstanding because of the implication which our enemies place upon it that it had reference to Adam. Unfortunately President Brigham Young is not here to make his meaning in this regard perfectly clear. Under the circumstances we must refer to other expressions by President Brigham Young in order to ascertain exactly what his views really were in relation to God, Adam, and Jesus Christ.

GOD: FIRST OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. Let me comment first upon the expression that God is the "first of the human family." This same doctrine was taught by Joseph Smith. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the teachings of Joseph Smith, he beheld the Father and the Son in his glorious vision, and he taught that each had a body of flesh and bones. He has expressed it in these words:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

He also taught that, literally, God is our Father; that men are of the same race -- the race called humans; and that God, the Progenitor, or Creator, is the Father of the human race. "In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God."

It is a doctrine common to the Latter-day Saints, that God, the Great Elohim, is the First, or Creator, of the human family.

THE FATHER WAS WITH ADAM IN EDEN. In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, it should be perfectly clear that President Young was not referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden; and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with him, and the Father taught Adam his language. It was not until the fall, that the Father departed from Adam and no longer visited him in the Garden of Eden.

Surely we must give President Brigham Young credit for at least ordinary intelligence, and in stating this I place it mildly. If he meant to convey the thought that the character who was in the Garden of Eden, "and who is our Father in Heaven," was Adam, then it would mean that this expression was in conflict with all else that he taught concerning God the Father, and I am bold to say that President Brigham Young was not inconsistent in his teaching of this doctrine. The very expression in question, "the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven," contradicts the thought that he meant Adam.

BRIGHAM YOUNG'S TEACHINGS ABOUT ADAM. Now let me present one or two expressions in other discourses by President Young -- of course, the critics never think of referring to these:

"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys."

"How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world."

"The human family are formed after the image of our Father and God. After the earth was organized the Lord placed his children upon it, gave them possession of it, and told them that is was their home. . . . Then Satan steps in and overcomes them through the weakness there was in the children of the Father when they were sent to the earth, and sin was brought in, and thus we are subject to sin."

"Our Lord Jesus Christ -- the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [that is Adam and Eve]."

"The Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, who came in the meridian of time, performed his work, suffered the penalty and paid the debt of man's original sin by offering up himself, [they believe he] was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to his Father; and as Jesus descended below all things, so he will ascend above all things."

It is very clear from these expressions that President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He taught that Adam died and that Jesus Christ redeemed him. He taught that Adam disobeyed the commandment of the Father, or God, and was driven from the Garden Of Eden. He said that Adam was conversant with his Father in the Garden of Eden. This is believed by all members of the Church, and also that the Father was in the Garden of Eden until Adam was driven out for his transgression....

We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. We have never worshipped the man Adam, husband of Eve (though Adam or "First Father" can be a title referring to God).

For more details on the Adam-God theory, see Mike Parker's page on the Adam-God theory - something that was never official LDS doctrine and still isn't. And be sure to see my new page, "Adam, the Fall, and the Messiah: The LDS Perspective." As for the possibility that even real prophets can have wrong opinions or make mistakes (something that is obvious if you read the Bible!), please see my page on prophets and also my page on the Bible.

2001 Update: Some anti-Mormon source appears to be citing an 1856 hymn as evidence that the Adam-God doctrine was official LDS theology. Here is an e-mail I received in Sept. 2001 on this topic:

I forgot to mention an interesting fact - what do you do with your Hymns when your teaching is in them and you don't like the teaching.. In your 1856 British hymn book it has the song, "We Believe In Our God." The 3rd line reads:

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord as is plain -

However, your church has chosen to rid this doctrine - it won't happen - too many things of proof that support it. Reminds me of the scripture - nothing will be hidden.....

Ah, another case of Latter-day Saints being attacked for believing in the Bible. Here is my answer to the inquirer:

Adam was our father - at least that's how MY genealogy works out - and was made Lord of the earth. That is Biblical doctrine and LDS doctrine. Gen. 1:26 states that God gave Adam dominion over all the animals of the earth - thus making him lord (supervisor, the one with dominion) over an earthly stewardship. That's not the same as THE Lord who rules in heaven. The doctrine in the line you quote from the 1856 hymn is still with us. The fact that an old song isn't in our modern song book doesn't reflect a cover up, but probably has something to do with the quality of the hymn itself.

Again, whatever Brigham Young may have meant when he made some of his puzzling statements is simply not clear to us today. But the scriptures and official LDS doctrine are clear: the husband of Eve in the Garden of Eden was not God the Father!

sorry this is a long one

just needed to be said

i will not Debate with anyone at all as that does not bring us closer to god and will not have the spirit with us at all so if u never see my post agian then u know why!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is what the latter day saint believe in and there is no point in fighting about it cos it will not change the True Doctrine of god!! plus it will drive the spirit away!

all i see on this Forum is people debating agiansit each other we all have different believes so just let it be

i have seen people attack other people here on this forum who are of the same faith am talking about the whole Forum here we need to do what the lord would do we need to be careful ...............

[Outshined]

I actually have no problem with the theory that Adam and Eve were born to mortal or immortal parents elsewhere and then placed in Eden to commence the Father's plan of happiness. Saying that Adam was created from the dust of the earth implies--in my own opinion--that his physical body was composed of the same elements that the sanctified earth was composed of before his Fall. A few things about this theory, though:

1) God the Father, the literal Father of our spirits, could not have been the Father of Adam's physical body because the scriptures are explicit that Jesus was God's Firstborn in the Spirit, and Only Begotten in the flesh (sanctified or fallen flesh, it doesn't matter).

2) Adam didn't need to be a god to "get the ball" rolling so to speak as pertains to mortality. He simply needed a physical body that could become subject to sin and death through his own transgression. Everything else could be taught to him by God, Jesus and angels before and after the Fall. We have no record of how long Adam and Eve were in Eden before the Fall, or how much they learned at that stage of their progression.

Those are some of my preliminary thoughts on the matter. I just don't understand where this belief comes from that Adam had to be a god to accomplish his role as the first man of all men on our earth. I understand the belief, just not where it comes from (source text, sermon, etc...).

I agree.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Thanks for your thorough and documented post Nicole. I couldn't agree more.

[Serg]

Eliza Snow's statement, thoughj very important cannot be equated to this Work's author, Joseph Smith, who made the plainest assertions differentiating Adam from Elohim and Jesus, in fact, in one of his discourses he said: It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (JD 1:51; see also Heber C. Kimball in JD 10:235.)

Sounds fair enough....

So Joseph never taught that, Eliza knew that, but as she became wife of Young, and he(under his totalitarian will) promoted(out of nothing) such "revelation"or new "knowledge" she just accepted it as a supplement to what Joseph had taught her(instead of taking it as contrary to it).

What about this quote:

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,

My understanding is that "Ancient of Days" refers to God...what is your understanding?

Also, are you LDS? or RLDS? Something else?

Josh B)

Josh

If you honestly look at the quote you'll find that it does not link Adam to God, rather it distinguish them radically:

1) Adam is stated as "having received the priesthood", God in th eothetr hand "always possesed it"

2) Adam is stated as having been 'apointed by God", interestingly, "Robert"cannot be appointed by Robert", it goes against logic, and anything else Smith preached.

3) Ancient of days, is just a superlative for Adam(a semi-divine name-to give him status as our prince-) that plainly and simply(contrary to sectarian belief) adresses Adam as a being VERY OLD, indeed, he is, as he was our FIRST>

As you see, nothing of the adam-godtheory can be traced to smith.

Oh, i am lds.

regards,

<div class='quotemain'>

You won't find it in a doctrinal source, though I see it mentioned occasionally in discussion. And you are mistaken about Adam being God, as well. He was not.

EDIT: Some consider Revelations to be talking about Adam and Michael as the same person, but I heard that in a Baptist church, not an LDS one.

D&C 27: 11

11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

There are also a few more places in the D&C but let this suffice.

L.H.

Michael however will always be God's archangel or master servant. Some will say...then if Michael already was a resurrected being, what happened to his body when he came to Earth to be Adam because we all know Adam was created from the dust of the Earth? This I can't answer....you'll have to ask God or someone more knowledgable than I!

This is pretty much what I have been taught about Michael and where he came from....and please don't ask me for scripture to support it as I am no scriptorian....this is just something I have pieced together from talks, speeches, and asking questions of the Bishopric, and General Authorities....I have no clue how much of this is doctrine or speculation but it sure makes sense to me!

Adam was not created from the dust of the Earth, he was sustained by the dust of another Earth; where he earned His resurrection.

I might also point out that the word "Eloheim" is commonly interpreted as the name of God the Father. However, a direct Hebrew translation renders it as God in a plural sense; or "The Gods."

L.H.

Clever enough, but assist more often to the Temple sessions, and as you swear to the Living God, you will listen how we call Him, "Eloheim". So in scriptures and Church history(specially Smith) we join both. Of course, Smith used it very contingently, for he used it as a WORD to defend our cosmogony but used it as a NAME(i.e.title) to defend teh Father's identity, now, although that is a bad exegesis, lets stick to the later definition to make our chat more coherent.

[Dr T]

Hey Serg,

1) Adam is stated as "having received the priesthood", God in th eothetr hand "always possesed it"

You believe God always had the LDS priesthood?

Dr. T

[Princess3dward]

Hey Serg,

1) Adam is stated as "having received the priesthood", God in th eothetr hand "always possesed it"

You believe God always had the LDS priesthood?

Dr. T

Why not?

(you are going to tell me "why not" now.. ain't ya?)

[Outshined]

You believe God always had the LDS priesthood?

I've personally never thought of God as having "LDS Priesthood". The Priesthood to me is the authority to act in God's name, to do His will. Personally I consider Him above the earthly Priesthood.

[Princess3dward]

Hey! That is what my dad said it was too!

I don't have it though.. so

[Serg]

Hey Serg,

1) Adam is stated as "having received the priesthood", God in th eothetr hand "always possesed it"

You believe God always had the LDS priesthood?

Dr. T

As Brigham Young stated(while sober LOL), "The priesthood is nothing more than a pure government system". So ëarthly"priesthood, is just an authorization to men to represent He(or Those) Higher than Him while here. So "God"as an indevidual or community, does not(do not) posses this later priesthood, for God caannot posses "the authority to represent Himself", but, He indeed posseses the True priesthood, that of Government. Now, when i say that "God"possesed such power since always, i dont mean God as a personal individual, for Elohim did not exist always, just as jesus didnt, they had a birth, a spiritual birth, so they got their priesthood when they achieved(whatever they acheived) to get divinity. But, God as an institution, this is, a Quorum, a Governing Body, a Godhead, always has existed, for although the gods did have a beggining in time(but not an end-just like us-in terms of volition though all opur essense is eternal) this form of universal government has always existed, so there has always been a God, even if it was not Elohim at some given time. That is why this assertion towards adam is worse, for Adam wa snever a God(nor is yet), so he could have not "always"possesed it, that is why such a theory is faulty :)

regards,

[Dr T]

<div class='quotemain'>

Hey Serg,

1) Adam is stated as "having received the priesthood", God in th eothetr hand "always possesed it"

You believe God always had the LDS priesthood?

Dr. T

Why not?

(you are going to tell me "why not" now.. ain't ya?)

Des,

Usually when some asks a question they want an answer unless it is a rhetorical question. You confuse me with your posts sometimes girl. :)

===

OS,

That is what I was thinking.

===

Serg,

I was under the assumption that you believed that God went through a life to become God and therefore would have help the LDS priesthood at some point. Is that wrong?

Thank you all,

Dr. T

[Princess3dward]

Des,

Usually when some asks a question they want an answer unless it is a rhetorical question. You confuse me with your posts sometimes girl. :)

Sorry.

[Dr T]

No problem Des. :)

[LukeAir2006]

What members have to understand is that the title Elohim should be rendered Eloheim, plural. So it would read The Gods, with Michael and Jehovah organized the earth. Elohim could refer to our Father in Heaven or His Father in Heaven or His Father and so on. President Young let the cat out of the bag with his teachings on the identity of our Father and the First Man. The ancient Israelites in Moses day had to be given figurative nursery stories because they couldn't handle the truth and I'm sorry to say that we are no different. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both revealed sacred truths in the belief that the Saints were more spiritually advanced than they were and then later regretted speaking out and even ended up withdrawing their statements. We are babies, spiritually. All we need to know is that we have a Father in Heaven who is the Father of our Spirits and the literal Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. These are the last days. Wickedness and Perversion abound. We are forbidden to teach or quote sacred doctrines. As Brigham said, when we behold the white locks of our Father in Heaven, we will know exactly who He is!

[CrimsonKairos]

Of course we'll know who He is; He raised us as spirit beings before our mortal sojourn.

This adamant belief in a few scattered and unofficial statements of past prophets astounds me.

Michael/Adam is not our Heavenly Father, the Being we pray to, and who fathered Jesus Christ through the virigin Mary.

The canon of LDS scripture proves this (as this thread has shown).

To ask someone to set aside the official LDS scriptures in favor of someone's record of what past prophets supposedly said is absurd.

p.s. Elohim is already the plural form of "god" in Hebrew. What's with the "Eloheim?"

[LionHeart]

What members have to understand is that the title Elohim should be rendered Eloheim, plural. So it would read The Gods, with Michael and Jehovah organized the earth. Elohim could refer to our Father in Heaven or His Father in Heaven or His Father and so on. President Young let the cat out of the bag with his teachings on the identity of our Father and the First Man. The ancient Israelites in Moses day had to be given figurative nursery stories because they couldn't handle the truth and I'm sorry to say that we are no different. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both revealed sacred truths in the belief that the Saints were more spiritually advanced than they were and then later regretted speaking out and even ended up withdrawing their statements. We are babies, spiritually. All we need to know is that we have a Father in Heaven who is the Father of our Spirits and the literal Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. These are the last days. Wickedness and Perversion abound. We are forbidden to teach or quote sacred doctrines. As Brigham said, when we behold the white locks of our Father in Heaven, we will know exactly who He is!

I think you hit the nail right on the head, Luke.

D&C 19: 21-22:

And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me. For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore they must not know these things, lest they perish.

L.H.

[CrimsonKairos]

<Oink, oink!>

Hide your doctrinal pearls, gentlemen. Just a common swine here, nothing to worry about.

<Oink, oink!>

This swine does, however, base doctrinal beliefs on official LDS scriptures. Sue me. B)

[Dr T]

I don't remember this thread and have been so busy recently that I can't go back and read it all. The plurality of God, in my book, has to stand for God's triune nature. I know we disagree about that concept. I don't see it as three (or more) gods, but one God in essence (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

[Sugarbay]

Here's an article from lds.org:

Mark E. Petersen, “Adam, the Archangel,” Ensign, Nov. 1980, 16

…Who was Adam that he was privileged to begin the human race here on earth? Had he been some very special personage in the premortal world?

Indeed, Adam was very special and very important. Before coming into mortality, he was known as Michael. The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly identifies both Adam and Michael as one and the same person, an angel, the chief angel, or archangel, of heaven, the special servant of God and Christ.

When Michael came into mortality he was known as Adam, the first man, but he was still his own self. Although he was given another name, that of Adam, he did not change his identity.

After his mortal death he resumed his position as an angel in the heavens, once again serving as the chief angel, or archangel, and took again his former name of Michael.

In his capacity as archangel, Adam, or Michael, will yet perform a mighty mission in the coming years, both before and after the Millennium. This is startling, but the scriptures declare it.

One important assignment that awaits him is to be the angel to sound the trumpet heralding the resurrection of the dead. The scripture reads, “Behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth” (D&C 29:26).

What a marvelous calling for Adam, or Michael. But note that even in this assignment, which is yet future, he still will be an angel—the archangel, but an angel nevertheless.

Section 107 of the Doctrine and Covenants, dated March 28, 1835, identifies him as an angel as of that date—little more than a hundred years ago—and calls him “Michael, the prince, the archangel” (D&C 107:54).

During the Millennium the devil will be bound, but afterward will be freed for a short time, during which he will rally his evil forces to make one final assault upon God.

Who will lead the defending armies of the Lord? None other than Michael himself, whose position as archangel qualifies him to be the captain of the Lord’s host. Is he not the chief of the angels? Then should he not lead them into battle against Lucifer?

As the archangel he continues to serve the interests of the Lord with respect to this earth. His ultimate exaltation, of course, is fully assured, but it must await the completion of his work here.

Seven angels are to sound trumpets to announce a series of events to precede the second coming of the Savior. Michael will be the seventh of those angels.

Says the scripture:

“And Michael, the seventh angel, even the archangel”—and please note here how the Lord still identifies him strictly as an angel, for that is his status—and now I repeat this scripture:

“And Michael, the seventh angel, even the archangel, shall gather together his armies, even the hosts of heaven. … And then cometh the battle of the great God; and the devil and his armies shall be cast away into their own place.” (D&C 88:112, 114; emphasis added.)

Then can anyone honestly mistake the identity of Adam, or Michael? Even after the thousand years of the Millennium are over he will still retain his status as an angel—the archangel—and a resurrected man.

In the year 1842 the Prophet Joseph Smith spoke of Michael, or Adam, who visited him. Joseph identified him as an angel even then—the archangel—and said, “The voice of Michael, the archangel; … and of diverse [other] angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time” (D&C 128:21). He thus listed Michael, or Adam, with the other angels.

So, in 1842 Michael, or Adam, was still an angel and will continue to be so through the final winding up scene of this earth.

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel…

…Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.

The Almighty himself repeatedly called Jesus both his firstborn and his Only Begotten.

Then who is Adam? He is Michael the archangel, appointed by God and Christ to be the mortal progenitor of the race. At this very moment, in the year 1980, he is still in his position as the archangel whose trumpet in the final days will herald the resurrection and who will be the captain of the Lord’s hosts in the final defeat of Lucifer.

He is the “Ancient of Days” spoken of by Daniel the prophet and as such will meet the faithful in that same valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, which is named after him (see Dan. 7:9–22; D&C 116)…

M.

Maureen,

Even though that is an older post, thank you for taking the time to research that and post it. That was pretty great of you.

Sug

I don't remember this thread and have been so busy recently that I can't go back and read it all. The plurality of God, in my book, has to stand for God's triune nature. I know we disagree about that concept. I don't see it as three (or more) gods, but one God in essence (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

In essence? You don't mean they are one being or a spiritual force, do you? Christ wasn't praying to himself in the Garden, and in mortality he referred to his Father frequently. When he appeared to his disciples AFTER his resurrection he proved to them he wasn't a spirit but telling them to handle him and see. That he wasn't a spirit as they had thought. And then he ate with them.

If you mean one in purpose, yes, you would be correct. But, they are three separate personages and researching and reading the entire OT and NT will testify of that. Not scriptures taken out of context, but read the entire Bible. Don't forget to pray about it before you read.

[Dr T]

Thank you Sugarbay. I agree, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same. When Jesus was praying to the Father, he was not praying to himself. I never said that. When I say, One God, I am not saying, "One in purpose" although they are in that they work toward the One God's final plan. I say one in essence because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally been one God.

[LukeAir2006]

I made the distinction between Elohim, which is often taken as the personal name of our Heavenly Father, and Eloheim, which is the proper rendering of the word Gods. But yes, they do both mean the Gods. As in, Let US make man in OUR image etc.

As for your comments on rejecting the statements of modern prophets and modern revelation in favor of fragmented, sometimes vague, statements of ancient prophets - feel free. Do you think Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were false prophets then? Or just idiots? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways! And your theory would also cancel out the promise that we have that the President of the Church will never lead us astray. According to you they already have. You haven't thought this one out very well have you?

[CrimsonKairos]

Ah Luke, Luke, Luke...the naivete of the young (or unlearned).

Joseph Smith was not correct in every single word that came out of his mouth.

Neither was Brigham Young. In fact Brigham was wrong about many things.

It's pretty infantile to say, "Well if they were wrong about x then they were wrong about y and z too and since they weren't wrong about y and z they must have been right about x!"

Pretty circular.

If Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually believed that Adam was our Heavenly Father, the literal Father of our Spirits and the personal father of Jesus Christ...and they wanted it accepted as official doctrine, they would have submitted it to the Church membership as a proposed addition to the Book of Commandments (aka D&C).

The fact that they did not, and that desperate Adam/God theorists have to resort to extra-canonical sources speaks volumes about the theory...which is wrong, by the way.

As for the promise that the President of the Church will never lead the Church astray...that's talking about revelations that actually affect what the Church is to believe and do.

If a prophet writes a letter saying, "I believe 100% that Adam is our Heavenly Father," he's allowed to do that without making it official doctrine of the Lord's Church. Prophets are allowed to have opinions and speculate and interpret scripture just like the rest of us.

Now note that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never approached the Church about accepting the supposed Adam/God theory as doctrine. Even if they taught it publicly, it is not doctrine nor binding on Church members to believe it unless they say, "God revealed to me that Adam is the Father we worship and pray to, and I testify of that in the name of Jesus Christ and further submit that such revelation be added to the D&C as official LDS canonized scripture."

But not one prophet ever said that. What they do is couch their theory in wording such as, "Now it's reasonable to assume..." and "Show me how it could be otherwise..." and "Prove me wrong," etc...

A prophet revealing a divine truth from God doesn't use such language. It's clear that Brigham Young was theorizing in public and private about Adam's relationship to God, and was using arguments that were to him and others apparently, reasonable and logical. But he never said it's God's truth.

All you Adam/God theorists have to swallow that. Sorry. No dice.

[Sugarbay]

Thank you Sugarbay. I agree, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same. When Jesus was praying to the Father, he was not praying to himself. I never said that. When I say, One God, I am not saying, "One in purpose" although they are in that they work toward the One God's final plan. I say one in essence because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally been one God.

I didn't think you would believe that...you are too smart. Explain how they are one God? We believe they are the Godhead. Is that what you mean by one God? I am not challenging you at all. I just like to know what others believe.

[Maureen]

<div class='quotemain'>

...I say one in essence because the Father, Son and Holy Spirit have eternally been one God.

I didn't think you would believe that...you are too smart. Explain how they are one God? We believe they are the Godhead. Is that what you mean by one God? I am not challenging you at all. I just like to know what others believe.

And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

And he answered, No. (Alma 11:26-29)

…and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the bFather, and the Holy Spirit, which is cone Eternal God, to be djudged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)

And as I spake concerning the aconvincing of the bJews, that Jesus is the cvery Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the dEternal eGod;…(2 Nephi 26:12)

And after this manner shall ye abaptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are bone; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. (3 Nephi 11:27)

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are aone God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:28)

M.