Adam=michael The Archangel?

[Dr T]

Not to worry Sugarbay. I don't think you challenging-we can always bounce ideas off each other. :) Like that passage says, "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end." That would be my understanding of the Trinity. I do not believe there was ever, or will ever be another God. I don't think God was begotten. I think God is (and is the only) eternal being that does not depend on anything for its existence.

[LukeAir2006]

I myself am not an Adam God theorist. But I am a believer in the Restoration of the Gospel Of Jesus Christ and the Authority of Latter day Prophets. As President Kimball said, the so-called Adam God theory is the term used by the world and apostates for their incorrect interpretation of Brigham Youngs teachings. Do you think I should reject the ordinances of the Temple because I just can't seem to find scriptural references for the Endowment and Sealing ceremony? We would have to abandon an awful lot of the restored gospel if we used your lithmus test. The Lord has counselled us "For his word (the Prophet) ye shall receive, as if from my own mouth, in all patience and in faith" D&C 21:5 At conference, we sustain the President of the Church as Prophet, Seer and Revelator, not the standard works. At our Temple recommend interview we are asked if we sustain the President as Prophet, Seer and Revelator. We never sustain the scriptures. Did you know that Orson Pratt, an Apostle, was nearly excommunicated for not accepting the teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young and he based his rebellion on his interpretation of the Bible. The christian world lies in apostasy and ignorance because it relies solely upon the Bible for guidance while rejecting the words of living Prophets. Do we follow the Prophets? Or do we love the world? We have no City of Zion but Utah is number 1 consumer of pornography in the US. Wonderful! Just as Brigham Young said it would be. The Lord is withdrawing his revealed truths and it looks like the cleansing of the church and kingdom is definately imminent.

[CrimsonKairos]

Mauren: I don't see what the point of your post is (though you did some great BoM research to find those verses :)).

LDS don't believe there is only one literal being who is a God. There are three Gods in the Godhead. Joseph Smith, who translated the BoM of course, knew there were more than one God because he saw both the Father and the Son in a vision, as separate glorified individuals.

The intent of those verses is contextual, they are each speaking to a different audience/person (in context) and they serve to teach different things.

It's simple. There is only one God we pray to, and that is our Heavenly Father (or God the Father).

God the Father and God the Son and God the Testator are one God[head].

I assure you Joseph Smith knew that, as per his First Vision.

Luke: So you're not an Adam/God theorist, eh? Hmmm, sounded like you were in your earlier post. Whatever. I just have to say that you're confusing the issue.

The question isn't, "Do we sustain the scriptures or do we sustain the prophet?" That's a ridiculous simplification and is misleading.

The question is, "When there is a teaching that contradicts core doctrines in the scriptures, which do we believe?"

There is nothing in the endowment ceremony that contradicts the scriptures. The endowment ceremony having more knowledge than the scriptures isn't the same thing as contradicting knowledge found in the scriptures.

Of course the prophet may reveal things that change Church policies, etc..., et al, and so on, yaddah yaddah yaddah. Everyone knows that.

But no prophet will ever teach something that contradicts the Lord's words about certain unchanging doctrines. What doctrines are unchanging you may ask?

God is the Father of our spirits; Jesus is our Savior from death and hell; we wil be resurrected by Christ's power; etc...

I'm sure we could list more. The point is these are truths which will never change in the future. We are never going to "find out" that God really isn't the Father of our spirits, but maybe our Uncle instead...nor will a prophet reveal that Jesus isn't our Savior or that we don't need him to be saved.

So when a prophet's comments (Brigham's odd Adam/God sermons) are the exact opposite of unchanging doctrines in the standard works (see my thread on why the Adam/God theory is false), we are to stick to the standard works for correct doctrine. Doesn't matter who says otherwise or what they teach...it's false if it contradicts the standard works.

Don't make it a bigger issue than it is. It's not about rejecting the living prophet or rejecting the scriptures...it's not an either/or question...we accept both. But if there's ever a disparity in their teachings regarding core doctrines such as who our Father in Heaven really is...then we do reject the false teaching and cling to the standard works.

[a-train]

Jesus prayed for His disciples saying: 'Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.' (John 17:11)

LDS believe and affirm the Oneness of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and The Holy Ghost as Maureen stated above. It is only the sense of the Godhead's Oneness that differs from the Nicean Creed.

It is only the manner in which They are One that those devoted to such creeds find unorthodox in us LDS.

I personally find the LDS interpretation much more coherant with John 17:11.

Will the Apostles coalesce into a twelvity, rivalling even the Trinity in complexity? Will Peter lose his will and mind to James or James' to John? How will the disciples be one as the Father and Son? I presume the Trinitarians will write the saying off to only a glance of similarity. They will say that Jesus speach is purely figurative.

My question is this: How do you know that His saying: 'I and my Father are one' (John 10:30) wasn't purely figurative also?

I think this demonstrates the need for modern revelation.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Well said, a-train.

[Maureen]

Mauren: I don't see what the point of your post is (though you did some great BoM research to find those verses :)).

So far CK, you have stated that the LDS understanding of the Godhead is made up of three Gods but, the majority of your standard works only states God, I did find that Abraham 4: 1-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-29, 31 used the term Gods. And other non-standard works such as:

“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods” (History of the Church, 6:474).

When one speaks of God, it is generally the Father who is referred to; that is, Elohim. All mankind are his children. The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ, and who is also a God. Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All mankind are his brethren and sisters, he being the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Many of the things that the scripture says were done were actually done by the LORD (Jesus). Thus the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1: 1), but we know that it was actually the LORD (Jesus) who was the creator (John 1: 3, 10), or as Paul said, God created all things by Christ Jesus (Eph. 3: 9). The Holy Ghost is also a God and is variously called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Spirit of God, etc. (Bible Dictionary)

Other standard work scriptures only state God and give no indication that any of the 3 persons of the Godhead is considered a different God than the other:

aListen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. (Moroni 8:8)

By these things we aknow that there is a bGod in heaven, who is infinite and ceternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same dunchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them; And that he acreated man, male and female, after his own bimage and in his own likeness, created he them; And gave unto them commandments that they should alove and bserve him, the only cliving and true dGod, and that he should be the only being whom they should worship. (D&C 20:17-19)

CK, please show me scripture that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Gods, or would you say that the Abraham verses out-weigh all other scripture in truthfulness.

M. :)

[CrimsonKairos]

I think you're missing the context of much of those verses.

For instance, LDS believe Jesus Christ is a God, along with our Father in Heaven. But those scriptures that state that Jesus is the eternal God are not saying Heavenly Father is not a God also. The purpose of such a verse is to highlight the godhood of our Savior.

The rest are similar in context and intent. Thanks for your genuine interest and research though.

[a-train]

Please show me scripture that says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Gods, or would you say that the Abraham verses out-weigh all other scripture in truthfulness.

LDS do not consider nor assign the 'weight' of a particular scripture. We believe that 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.' (2 Tim 3:16-17)

We therefore are willing to accept precepts taught in the scriptures regardless of the number of verses dedicated to the subject small or great. We also do not pit various authorities against one another. For example, we do not take Paul's words over Peter's or Joseph Smith's over Moses' etc.

We also therefore believe that all verses throughout the Standard Works coherantly agree with one another and if they appear to conflict, then our perception or interpretation is what needs fixing, not the Scriptures.

As I stated before, it is the sense of the Oneness of Diety that is being misunderstood here. To the LDS, a scripture that says that the 'day and [the] hour [of Christ's 2nd Coming] knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father' (Mark 13:32) does not conflict with the verse that says: 'I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)

If John 10:30 means that Christ IS His Father, then this would seem to contradict Mark 13:32, or it would mean that the Saviour can somehow simultaneously know something and not know it. Another explanation would be that the oneness described in John 10:30 is different from saying the Father and the Son are the same Being. It is the latter that we subscribe to and have scriptural authority of.

Did you know that the word 'God' throughout the Old Testament is a plural term? Eloah which means great one, god, or magistrate is ended with the plural suffix im. In every case, im signifies plurality, such as one cherub, two cherubim. Therefore the literal translation of Elohim which is in Genesis 1:1 is Great Ones. The verse literally says: 'In the beginning Great Ones created the heaven and the earth.'

Look up Elohim, google it, whatever.

Were you aware that the exact same term 'Elohim' is used in Exodus 20:3 when it says 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.'? It is also the same term used in Gen. 3:5 when Satan says: 'and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil'.

This really strikes a cord of reason when you read Genesis 1:26 which says: 'And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:'. The LORD further said concerning Adam after the partaking of the fruit: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:' (Gen 3:22)

So why does our translation have a singular 'God' in only the instances that the Hebrew presented the plural 'Elohim' in reference to the God of Israel? Simply because the singularization of God occured centuries before the first English translation, but in Moses' day it was commonplace to refer to the God of Israel as 'Gods'.

English translators followed existing traditions and used context to determine if the Elohim spoken of was the Supreme Being or otherwise and affixed singularity or plurality accordingly, even though the original text did not do so. This was only to appease the already universally believed doctrine of the Trinity and the ardent monotheistic view associate therewith.

Is it possible that Satan tempted Eve with the desire to become like the true and living God and not just any god? hmmm...

This is getting too lengthy, but also consider Christ's seperate will from His Father manifested in His prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane wherein He submitted His will to the Father saying: 'nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.' (Luke 22:42)

There is actually more, but this should be a long enough post for now. Suffice it to say, that LDS take into account the plurality of the term Elohim throughout the entire content of the scriptures. You should understand that LDS taking this into account see the word 'Gods' throughout the Standard Works even though it is printed 'God'. This is no different from understanding what is signified by LORD in all capital letters throughout the text also.

Another thing to remember is milk before meat (Heb 5:13), this is heavy stuff for most people. It all makes their head spin, so we don't push it to hard. We allow the LORD to teach in His manner (Isaiah 28:10)

Hope this sheds some light on the subject.

God Bless

-a-train

[MaidservantX]

FROM a-TRAIN:

We also therefore believe that all verses throughout the Standard Works coherantly agree with one another and if they appear to conflict, then our perception or interpretation is what needs fixing, not the Scriptures.

As I stated before, it is the sense of the Oneness of Diety that is being misunderstood here. To the LDS, a scripture that says that the 'day and [the] hour [of Christ's 2nd Coming] knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father' (Mark 13:32) does not conflict with the verse that says: 'I and my Father are one." (John 10:30)

EXACTLY!!

By the way, doesn't this thread, and others similar that we have so much fun with, sound a little bit like what the Council of Nicea would have sounded like? Is it no wonder what they came up with? Isn't it great to have living prophets who keep it real? One cannot overestimate, in my opinion, the First Vision -- what Joseph SAW and HEARD. Two men and one pointed to the other and said, This is My Beloved Son.

[CrimsonKairos]

Again, excellent post a-train.

I've used the same arguments before, but they don't seem to even put a dent in the Trinity belief various members of this board hold. Anyway, I enjoyed your post.

And yes, xhenli, the First Vision really is indispensable if understanding God's nature is the goal.

[Dr T]

I don't have a problem with the Father and Son being separate. We see it on a number of occassions in the Bible. That is clear, like I said, the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father, and when they reference each other, that does not negatively impact the doctrine of the Trinity, as I know it, because they make up One God.

[CrimsonKairos]

So Dr. T, maybe you can help me out with the Trinity thing.

When you say there are three persons, distinct from each other, and separate, that make up One God, what do you mean by the word "God?"

For example, if I were to say that Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one Eternal God, I'd be speaking metaphorically and could easily substitute the word "council" in place of "God" like so:

Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one Eternal Council.

So what do you mean by the word "God?" How can three persons, separate from each other, honestly be regarded as a single being (without introducing metaphor)? I am, of course, just interested in your opinion.

[Dr T]

Hello CK,

I am happy to try and explain my understanding of the Trinity to you. Read biblical scripture and trying to make as much sense of it as I can, I've come to the belief that God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God. When I read things like "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" (Gen 1:1), "You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you" (Neh 9:6) and then see that Jesus created all things, it just makes sense that they are talking about the Father and the Son being part of that, “one God.” So I see that God is the creator and worshipped. I also see that the Father as not a man but a different being. “For I am God, and not man-the Holy One among you” (Hos. 11:9). I also read, “Hear O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deut. 6:4). He says, “Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me” (Is. 43:10). For that one, I can’t add, “That we worship” and see it as speaking in relationship to only our worship. He says, “Apart from me there is no God” (Is. 44:6) period. When I read, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) and “There are different kinds of gifts but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service but the same Lord. There are different kinds of worship, but the same God” (1 Cor. 12-4-6). I take those as talking about the Trinity. Then in Acts in the story of Ananias and Sapphira, we see, “You have lied to the Holy Spirit. …You have not lied to men but to God” (Acts 5:3-4) and “Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence? If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there” (Ps. 139:7-8). These verses, in my understanding are some of the reasons I see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit all being God. Since, there is only “one God” it makes sense that the above would make the three one God. The idea of “council” seems to denote “an assembly of person’s convened for deliberation.” The problem I have with that is that the godhead, in my understanding, is not just a collection of beings/people, put together, elected to, or chosen, but as the essence of deity, again, not only a group of people working toward one goal/purpose. The “Us” and “Our image” in Gen. 1:26 further are talking about the triune God (Father, Son and H.S.), not a council of gods (IMO). The discussion that has started on this site about Jehovah and Elohim to separate Jesus from the Father also doesn’t seem to follow for me. When we read in Deut 6:4 that literally says, “Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah,” that seems to be showing the inseparability of the unity in God’s nature not just two names for gods. I’m sure there are much better people to explain the concept of the Trinity with good support for their belief but these are a few of my ideas about God’s nature. Can I understand exactly how it works? No. I have apprehended it though and that is the testimony of my belief, which God has revealed to me. We can talk more about it, and maybe other Christians can fill in my lack of articulation on the topic. I look forward to trying anyway. Again, I am not an expert or theologian I can only share what I’ve come to understand.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for the reply, Dr. T.

Can I understand exactly how [the Trinity] works? No.

At least I'm not alone then, lol. B)

Seriously, I think the Trinity just muddles up an understanding of God's nature with philosophical phraseology and self-contradictions.

I'm confident we could exchange scriptures all day that support our understanding of the Godhead, but I guess what gets me is that the Trinity doesn't make sense. Every non-LDS Christian friend I've ever talked to about it, and questioned about what it really means, has ended with something similar to what I quoted you as saying above.

At least you didn't use the, "It's part of the beauty of the mystery of God," cop-out which I hate.

Anyone else care to explain (not necessarily scripturally) how three persons can honestly be viewed as one being? I wish people could drop one or the other of that compound "mystery" and say either that God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are really the same person, or else there are three persons and hence three Gods.

NOTE: It occurred to me that if the Trinity really is what it claims to be...three people in one being...and if the somewhat popular view is true that Jesus was married...then Mary Magdalene would be committing polyandry (whereas LDS are always condemned for polygyny) since marrying Jesus means marrying the One God, and there are three persons in that One Being. So according to Trinitarians, if Jesus married, he involved Mary in a polygamous relationship.

[Dr T]

I hate the "It's a mystery" too. What it ultimately come to though, for both of us, is a concession that we lack complete knowledge of God's infinite nature. If you look back through some of our discussions, I can vaguely remember you saying something about not fully knowing how or why X is the case when discussing concepts about God. I'm sorry, I can't give an example right now. I'm working right now too so I'm unable to look for one right now. As for the Jesus making Mary commit polygamy, I don't have that problem; I don't believe Jesus was married.

[a-train]

A word about the LDS use of the terms 'Elohim' and 'Jehovah': It should be noted that it is NOT believed by the LDS that 'Elohim' is the heavenly name of the Father. Nor is it understood by us that Christ, when He stood in Heaven before the world was, was known by the name 'Jehovah'.

These are earthly terms for our use here in mortality. They are furthermore used by us in modern times to designate the Father or Son respectively only for lack of better terms. Talmage said: 'Elohim, as understood and used in the restored Church of Jesus Christ, is the name-title of God the Eternal Father, whose firstborn Son in the spirit is Jehovah-the Only Begotten in the flesh, Jesus Christ.' (Jesus The Christ p.35)

The term 'Elohim' in the text of the Old Testament is NOT therefore interpreted by LDS to signify the Father in the same manner as mentioned above. Thus the 'Elohim' in Genesis 6:4 (and thousands of other places in the Old Testament) is NOT an explicit reference to the Father.

About Deuteronomy 6:4: A transliteration of the hebrew is this:

Shema Yisrael Adonai eloheinu Adonai ehad.

Hear O Israel, Jehovah is our God, Jehovah is One.

I think keeping the 'one' at the end of the verse where it started in the first place is a little more coherant and brings out the meaning more clearly.

Hopefully this will help to avoid confusion and ambiguity.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I think the purpose of Deut. 6:4 and other similar verses was to impress upon the Israelites that they were to worship only one God.

Remember, they'd spent over 400 years in Egypt, a nation with one of the richest and most complex array of gods under the sun.

Jehovah/Elohim's point in Deut. 6:4?

"Whether ye need food, strength, forgiveness, guidance, knowledge, etc... ye are to worship and pray to me alone. There is no Savior beside me."

That's what I maintain as an LDS member. We are to worship and pray to God the Father and none other.

[Dr T]

That is something I've been thinking about recently. I pray to the Father, as Jesus always did and as his example showed. I pray to the Father, through Jesus' name but I don't necessarily pray "dear Jesus" prayers. Jesus being a part of the one true God, however, I don't think it would necessarily be wrong to, but I just don't at this time. Just like I don't pray, "Oh, Holy Spirit..." I pray to the Father and ask him to send the Holy Spirit to help me understand, to be my helper, etc., but usually, I pray to the Father.

[Maureen]

...So what do you mean by the word "God?"...

Here's an answer through the eyes of Judaism. I don't know if I agree with everything he says but I like the thought behind it. Here's the ending first:

What then is heresy? Heresy is the placement of G-d within the scale of our reality, the attribution to Him of qualities that are part of our vision of ourselves and our world. The challenge in the endeavor to know G-d is not to fall short of the degree of abstraction we are capable of -- based on our minds potential and the knowledge of Himself that He has made available to us in His Torah.4

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=2782

M.

[LukeAir2006]

Crimson Kairos, my point is, is that nothing that Brigham Young said contradicts the Standard works. He expanded upon and explained previous revelations as Prophets generally do, but never contradicted them. The King Follet sermon is not a part of the Standard works but is accepted as a fundamental and pivotal teaching on the nature of God. What is not generally known is that at the time the Saints were outraged at such blasphemous and outrageous statements and demanded that the Prophet Joseph retract his teachings, which he did. And of course today, there are many Saints who will be totally unaware that such teachings even exist. The Prophet Joseph indicated that he could have revealed so much more on the identity of our Father in Heaven but didn't because the Saints were inacapable of receiving more knowledege. That doesn't mean that what Joseph Smith said wasn't correct; it was absolutely correct. It just means that knowing that we have a Father in Heaven is quite enough for most people to take. They don't want to know who our Father in Heaven is or what he is like. The so called standard works are adapted to the most unbelieving of the Saints. In fact, by the principal of common consent, the saints have the privelege of rejecting the words of the Prophets that they can't quite stomach and whats left is the 'standard works' Like nursery children we're not quite ready for the gruesome details of the facts of life and conception. The story of the stork is quite enough thank you very much.

[CrimsonKairos]

Luke, did you not read my thread on why the Adam/God theory is false?

Pres. Young certainly did preach some things that contradict the standard works (mostly the D&C). Then again, at times he contradicted himself and taught the correct view of God the Father (i.e. that He is not Adam).

Does that make him a false prophet? Of course not. Why would it? Isn't he allowed to have his own opinions? He never taught the Church to pray to Adam. What he did do was openly discuss his theories, a few of which turned out to be incorrect.

The difference between the Adam/God theory and the King Follett Sermon is that the latter didn't contradict the standard works, while the former did.

View the standard works with distaste if you wish, however, I doubt you've plumbed its depths and gleaned all there is to glean from its "nursery rhymes."

[LukeAir2006]

Why would Brigham have taught us to pray to Adam? Adam means First Man and is generic to the first Man of every earth. I know the Saviour referred to himself as Son of Man of Holiness but instructed us to call upon our Father in Heaven or Our God. Our Heavenly Father is the Celestial, Exalted Man who brought forth our spirits and our physical bodies. He is our God and the only God that we have to do with.

[CrimsonKairos]

Good, so you agree that Adam/Michael is not the God we pray to?

And this whole time I thought you were defending Pres. Young's theory in that regard. B)

[LukeAir2006]

Thought for the day: You know sometimes we need to look through the other end of the telescope to see something. Someone has mentioned the ' SCRIPTURAL CANONIZED TRUTH' that Abraham is NOW A GOD! (D&C 132:29) NOW HEAR IT O INHABITANTS OF THE EARTH, JEW AND GENTILE, SAINT AND SINNER, THE MAN ABRAHAM, WHO WALKED THIS PLANET, WHO HAD SEVERAL WIVES, WHO IS THE LITERAL FATHER OF MILLIONS OF US, WHO IS AN ANGEL, A RESURRECTED MAN, IS NOW A GOD!! (Luke Franklin, 2007)

Who will our Father Abraham be God of? Well, only those Spirits that he and his wife/wives will bring forth. Then they will have to prepare a planet for those spirit children and then they will have to go down to that earth and provide bodies for those spirit children, whether you believe thats in a literal sense or by a magic wand is up to you, and all this under the direction of our FATHER GOD and the other GODS.

And on some distant planet I hear a Prophet saying, you know children, Our Father and Our God is not GRANDFATHER GOD, but is no other than the ANGEL ABRAHAM. He is a resurrected man from another planet who has gained his exaltation, he is the FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS and who under the direction of our GRANDFATHER GOD has helped create this planet, and has with MOTHER SARIAH become the Adam and Eve of this planet and have brought forth bodies for our Spirits to inhabit. And the FIRSTBORN SPIRIT, our BROTHER, has the right to be the SAVIOUR of the FAMILY. And all of the people on this planet who are children of the Exalted Angel Abraham cried, NO NO, THIS IS BLASPHEMY, THIS CANNOT BE, BOO HOO, WE WANT GRANDFATHER GOD AS OUR GOD, you've got this wrong!, And so the Prophet said, As you wish, I have spoken the truth but do with it as you will. It is sufficient to know that we have a FATHER and GOD and when you return to the Celestial City and behold the white locks of Father Abraham, you will know who your GOD is!

[CrimsonKairos]

Only problem is, the Adam/God cultists believe the God we pray to is Adam.

That's different than saying, "Adam has gone on to his exaltation like Abraham and is now a god."

Either way, I don't care. I know we don't pray to Adam and his status as a god or archangel right now doesn't affect my salvation one whit. Oh, and he's not the Father of my spirit. He's my spirit brother.