Edward Kimball Article on 1978 Revelation

[Just_A_Guy]

If you believe in exaltation, then the Adam-God theory is naturally true.

OK, you've got my attention.

By all means, continue.

[Tyler90AZ]

Here we go, I am ready for a good debate:

It seems like people have a problem with the Adam-God theory because they don't understand it. They automatically assume we are placing Adam above God and Jesus Christ, which is not true. Adam is not higher then God or Jesus Christ, just like if we are exalted, we are not higher then God or Jesus Christ. Every time somebody is exalted it just adds honor unto God, Jesus Christ and other Gods who were our ancestors. Let me repeat that, no one will surpass God or Jesus Christ.

Brigham Young was basically teaching that Adam is a God, "HE is our FATHER and our GOD." Adam is just as much our father and God as we will be to our posterity(if we live righteously). The reason that Jesus was begotten in the flesh by Adam, was because Adam created all things with God and Jesus. Therefore, it logically follows, that if Adam created everything with God in the beginning, he also created Jesus. Just like Jesus created everything, therefore, he was with God to create Adam.

This teaching is important because it teaches the truthfulness of exaltation and helps us understand our potential.

[Tyler90AZ]

Looking deeper into it, people are saying that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the father. I don't see where they are getting that from, his teaching says nothing like that and we know better from what we learn in the Temple. It looks like Heber Kimball made a statement in 1856 that teaches that more then anything. But that doesn't jive with what we learn in the Temple.

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks, Tyler. I think you're right in that sense, though in all candor I'm not sure that's quite the interpretation Brigham Young was driving at. JD 1:50-51 is not the only source of Adam-God. We also get a version of it from the journal of Young's secretary, L. John Nuttall - see here - and in that source, President Young explicitly labels Jesus as "Father Adam's oldest son" and having been begotten by Adam in the spirit world. President Young thus thrusts Adam into the roll we typically associate with Elohim, or God the Father.

And I agree with you. Adam-God does not square with the modern LDS temple ceremony. It does not square with scripture. It does not square with other statements by President Young himself. I think it encompasses some really intriguing ideas (multiple mortal probations, for example--the idea that man goes through life as an ordinary person, then again as a Jesus-figure, then again as an Adam-figure and on to ultimate exaltation); but there's just too much about it that we don't know and/or that contradicts with things that we (believe we) do know.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

This specific topic for obvious reasons, should not be discussed in the manner you suggest.

It's not obvious to me that "my" method of discussion -- which involves shutting the heck up and obeying the request of our leaders not to speculate -- is inappropriate for this specific topic. Can you clarify what you find inappropriate about obeying such a request?

[mikbone]

It's not obvious to me that "my" method of discussion -- which involves shutting the heck up and obeying the request of our leaders not to speculate -- is inappropriate for this specific topic. Can you clarify what you find inappropriate about obeying such a request?

nope

[Vort]

nope

Then why did you claim it inappropriate?

[mikbone]

I think it encompasses some really intriguing ideas (multiple mortal probations, for example--the idea that man goes through life as an ordinary person, then again as a Jesus-figure, then again as an Adam-figure and on to ultimate exaltation); but there's just too much about it that we don't know and/or that contradicts with things that we (believe we) do know.

I agree. And I personally love the idea of MMP.

I think that Brigham Young as well as Eliza Snow were privy to a personal discussion with Joseph Smith Jr. wherein he expounded on some of the concepts of MMP. Brigham Young seems to have some of the concepts mixed up in his mind, or He just awkwardly related the concepts in the JD 1:50 discourse. Hard to say for sure.

I'm like 99.99% convinced of the MMP concept. But I realize that if this idea was clearly explained to the majority of LDS, many members would balk at the concepts and responsibilities that the ideas require of us. Not to mention the firestorm that would be unleashed upon us by our enemies...

[Tyler90AZ]

Thanks, Tyler. I think you're right in that sense, though in all candor I'm not sure that's quite the interpretation Brigham Young was driving at. JD 1:50-51 is not the only source of Adam-God. We also get a version of it from the journal of Young's secretary, L. John Nuttall - see here - and in that source, President Young explicitly labels Jesus as "Father Adam's oldest son" and having been begotten by Adam in the spirit world. President Young thus thrusts Adam into the roll we typically associate with Elohim, or God the Father.

And I agree with you. Adam-God does not square with the modern LDS temple ceremony. It does not square with scripture. It does not square with other statements by President Young himself. I think it encompasses some really intriguing ideas (multiple mortal probations, for example--the idea that man goes through life as an ordinary person, then again as a Jesus-figure, then again as an Adam-figure and on to ultimate exaltation); but there's just too much about it that we don't know and/or that contradicts with things that we (believe we) do know.

As far as Jesus being Adams only son, I don't think it necessarily thrusts him into the role of Elohim. I think Adam also would be Jesus Christ's oldest son. That is if we consider that Elohim, Jehovah and Micheal created everything together. You ask, well how can they both be the oldest sons of each other? We need to remember that 'heaven' is not in the same time spectrum as we are. Therefore, it is possible that they both created each other in the flesh and are eldest sons in that sense. I understand you said created in the spirit world, but Brigham Young said this in his original lecture, "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." The thing that lends me to believe Brigham Young was referring to this interpretation of his talk is the Temple. The Temple refers to Elohim, Jehovah and Micheal creating everything and specifically in that order, also the scriptures lend credence to that interpretation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

As far as Jesus being Adams only son, I don't think it necessarily thrusts him into the role of Elohim. I think Adam also would be Jesus Christ's oldest son. That is if we consider that Elohim, Jehovah and Micheal created everything together. You ask, well how can they both be the oldest sons of each other? We need to remember that 'heaven' is not in the same time spectrum as we are. Therefore, it is possible that they both created each other in the flesh and are eldest sons in that sense. I understand you said created in the spirit world, but Brigham Young said this in his original lecture, "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." The thing that lends me to believe Brigham Young was referring to this interpretation of his talk is the Temple. The Temple refers to Elohim, Jehovah and Micheal creating everything and specifically in that order, also the scriptures lend credence to that interpretation.

Is there anything wrong with keeping an open mind about the possibility (especially since we don't really have it as doctrine) that "Adam" is a type of body? If one reads through the Adam-God quotes and the veil lecture etc. with that thought then it could fit into that kind of interpretation without any threat to our known doctrine.

Michael getting an "Adam" body in the garden was a "Celestial" type body, it was perfect and immortal. Jesus' body, being the Only Begotten, is also of that type and therefore He was part "Adam" body and the son of man (the fallen Adam body genes). And when everything is restored to its original creation, the "Adam" design, then He will look like Adam and God.

If this "Adam" model body was made in the express image of God, maybe even the exact same genetic structure, then it's origins were not from this world. The model, the DNA code, or whatever other structural design specifications are used with immortal bodies, whatever that might be, was kept the same. Therefore it is God the Father's body as well. We are told that when we see Jesus we are seeing God the Father. I could ponder the idea that that would be true also for the perfect body formed in the Garden of Eden.

Also, there are many souls that we know about who have earned exaltation before coming here, they just had to get a body. All those that die before the age of 8 and those that have severe debilitating disease. There are also some noble and great ones, I would believe, that have their calling and election made sure before coming here and therefore have "earned" their exaltation before actually being born. I would imagine that the job that Adam and Eve took on would require souls that were so valiant that they already "earned" their exaltation. They had come here to fulfill certain assignments that require valiant souls.

These are just some thoughts to ponder while thinking about Brigham's words.

[Vort]

Is there anything wrong with keeping an open mind about the possibility (especially since we don't really have it as doctrine) that "Adam" is a type of body?

That sounds bizarre to me. But to answer your question: No, there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind about such possibilities. In fact, in this whole discussion, I see only two ways of approaching things that I would consider wrong:

• Undue public speculation about unrevealed doctrines, especially when that speculation tends to lead to conclusions opposite what we have been taught.

• Public criticism of Church authorities present or past, especially including name-calling and applying labels such as "racist" in an attempt to appear broad-minded or to resolve a perceived discrepancy to one's personal satisfaction.

The first thing is unwise to do and pretty much never leads to any good end, especially when done publicly. The second is simply unfaithful and disloyal, and brings the perpetrator dangerously close to (or, more likely, well over) the line between fidelity and open apostasy. Such people, those who would gladly throw the great figures of the past under the bus for a little popularity among the modern crowd, deserve the company they garner from such deplorable actions.

[Tyler90AZ]

That sounds bizarre to me. But to answer your question: No, there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind about such possibilities. In fact, in this whole discussion, I see only two ways of approaching things that I would consider wrong:

• Undue public speculation about unrevealed doctrines, especially when that speculation tends to lead to conclusions opposite what we have been taught.

• Public criticism of Church authorities present or past, especially including name-calling and applying labels such as "racist" in an attempt to appear broad-minded or to resolve a perceived discrepancy to one's personal satisfaction.

The first thing is unwise to do and pretty much never leads to any good end, especially when done publicly. The second is simply unfaithful and disloyal, and brings the perpetrator dangerously close to (or, more likely, well over) the line between fidelity and open apostasy. Such people, those who would gladly throw the great figures of the past under the bus for a little popularity among the modern crowd, deserve the company they garner from such deplorable actions.

I agree that the Adam-God theory discussion is pure speculation and nobody views should be associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If anybody really wants to find out about The Church, they can see Living Prophets on 1 April 2012 at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[Seminarysnoozer]

That sounds bizarre to me. But to answer your question: No, there is nothing wrong with keeping an open mind about such possibilities. In fact, in this whole discussion, I see only two ways of approaching things that I would consider wrong:

• Undue public speculation about unrevealed doctrines, especially when that speculation tends to lead to conclusions opposite what we have been taught.

• Public criticism of Church authorities present or past, especially including name-calling and applying labels such as "racist" in an attempt to appear broad-minded or to resolve a perceived discrepancy to one's personal satisfaction.

The first thing is unwise to do and pretty much never leads to any good end, especially when done publicly. The second is simply unfaithful and disloyal, and brings the perpetrator dangerously close to (or, more likely, well over) the line between fidelity and open apostasy. Such people, those who would gladly throw the great figures of the past under the bus for a little popularity among the modern crowd, deserve the company they garner from such deplorable actions.

I think it is incredibly hard to find the line between discussing and pondering the meaning of statements made by prophets versus "undue public speculation ...".

The only reason I posted my statement was to suggest that there are other possible explanations besides the MMP possibility that a previous LDS poster suggested was 99.9% sure was true.

I understand that you think it is better to just not talk about these things but on the flip side, I think some people get closed into their understanding because an opposing possibility is never proposed. I think that is why members sometimes stay with beliefs like MMP.

I think never pondering and never discussing one's thoughts with like-minded thinkers also does not lead to good .... otherwise I will skip Relief Society next week. Of course, ideas that are direct opposites of known doctrine are not good ... but if one thinks they are "wrong" then the person should have a pretty good understanding of why they are wrong.

[mikbone]

I think it is incredibly hard to find the line between discussing and pondering the meaning of statements made by prophets versus "undue public speculation ...".

The only reason I posted my statement was to suggest that there are other possible explanations besides the MMP possibility that a previous LDS poster suggested was 99.9% sure was true.

Actually I wrote that I am 99.99% convinced of the MMP concept. Which is a much different statement that what you posted.

But that is neither here nor there. The issue at question is the Adam-God Theory. It is such a confusing line of thought. For it to make any sense at all, one must assume that Brigham Young was using terms and names incorrectly or that He was purposely trying to conceal his idea within a riddle.

Anyway if we are going to delve into the depths of the AGT we should start a new thread...

[Magen_Avot]

Wow. I've lived a sheltered life as I consider all that has been said. I'm also glad this thread hasn't been locked out yet.

Skippy 740 provided a great response in the quote from "Pauls Search for Happiness".

Loved Suzie's links and responses.

I personally find many LDS people closed minded though. I'm not speaking of the digital world but the real world. As always I enjoy reading other's thoughts even if they like/believe/convinced of the AGT or MMP 99.9% or even 99.99%.

While I do believe it comes down to following the prophet or not, there is historical information I wished would be openly presented. The truth should be known ~ only then can we actually improve. I dislike most that opinions of doctines/rules/administrative content of any kind are used like a stick... Hmmm... the WoW comes to mind...

I prefer gentle encouragement, although things can get pretty frustrating at times.

The article was a keeper. I put it on my nook. Do I believe it speaks the whole truth?... I can only answer that when I use my golden pass into the church's historical vault.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Magen_Avot

[Seminarysnoozer]

Actually I wrote that I am 99.99% convinced of the MMP concept. Which is a much different statement that what you posted.

But that is neither here nor there. The issue at question is the Adam-God Theory. It is such a confusing line of thought. For it to make any sense at all, one must assume that Brigham Young was using terms and names incorrectly or that He was purposely trying to conceal his idea within a riddle.

Anyway if we are going to delve into the depths of the AGT we should start a new thread...

I'm sorry, you are right.

I agree with your second paragraph, I think that was my point too. I gave another possible explanation for words that I think are being interpreted a specific way. I have heard others say even the idea of "Adam" meaning the 'first father' and in that sens the word "Adam" could be used for the Adam senior or the Adam junior.

I think a little of the AGT topic relates to the thread at hand in that there are some that are insistent that Adam's body was born in similar fashion to how babies are born in the mortal sense and therefore would have a certain set of genes or whatever other method of "genetic" inheritance is had with immortal bodies, whatever that is. They apply some meaning or significance to that type of birth as if it is necessary but without really explaining why that is necessary. As opposed to the idea that Adam's spirit is a child-offspring of God and the immortal body was created which would carry with it the lack of importance of certain genetic material passed onto Adam's body (not the spirit).

Depending on how one rests on the side of creation of the body versus birth requiring "genetic" information from one parent and a set of "genetic" information from another then there is also a given level of importance to the genetic make up of any individual in mortality.

The reality is that everyone's body is "cursed" in a sense, it is corrupted as a result of mortality. If people want to be so politically correct as to say that genetic make up plays absolutely no role in the connection between the spirit and the body then they would have a hard time explaining why we see people with trisomy 21 or other such diseases the way we do. I think we see clues to the importance of genes in the scriptures on various levels but we don't really understand it and can't use it to judge anyone based on appearance. Some clues are that Able and Seth were in the image of their father more than other sons. And Jesus is in the express image of His Father.

If "genes" weren't so important than I think nobody would get worked up about whether Adam's body was simply put together as a specific model based in "genetic" programing that came from previous realms versus a body that needed to be "birthed" from random mixing of two sets of "genes". For me, being a spirit daughter offspring is sufficient enough. I don't see the need for this body, mortal body, to be anything higher than the dust it will return to. There is nothing in our doctrine that says it has to be during this probationary period.

[Vort]

I think it is incredibly hard to find the line between discussing and pondering the meaning of statements made by prophets versus "undue public speculation ...".

Maybe not that hard. If you're contradicting doctrine or prophetic teachings, you've gone too far. If you're way outside the bounds of doctrine (but not actually contradicting it) and your ideas may scare people away, you should keep those ideas to yourself.

Example: On my mission, there were missionaries who enjoyed speculating with members about the nature of the kingdoms of glory. Specifically, they decided that the planets Uranus and Neptune were telestial kingdoms, Saturn and Jupiter were terrestrial kingdoms, and the sun was a "crystallized celestial sphere". (No. I am not joking, though I wish I were.)

Now, I don't believe this idea actually contradicts established doctrine on any specific point. But it's weird. It's absurd. It really is not anything any missionary should be spending time on. These missionaries would have done far better to bury their foolish speculation, at least as long as they were in the mission field. If such "space doctrine" absolutely must be speculated about, it should be done privately, not where those outside the Church might wrongly get the idea that it's LDS doctrine. No need to hand our enemies a spiked club to bash us with.

The only reason I posted my statement was to suggest that there are other possible explanations besides the MMP possibility that a previous LDS poster suggested was 99.9% sure was true.

I was speaking generally, not specifically about you or anyone else.

I understand that you think it is better to just not talk about these things but on the flip side, I think some people get closed into their understanding because an opposing possibility is never proposed. I think that is why members sometimes stay with beliefs like MMP.

I think such speculation should be clearly labeled as such. I do think there are some things that should simply not be discussed in a public forum. This includes both things that are so far out that they would expose the Church to ridicule (e.g. the previously mentioned planetary explanation of the kingdoms of glory) and things that may well be true but are private and sacred (e.g. the nature of the Holy Ghost).

I think never pondering and never discussing one's thoughts with like-minded thinkers also does not lead to good .... otherwise I will skip Relief Society next week. Of course, ideas that are direct opposites of known doctrine are not good ... but if one thinks they are "wrong" then the person should have a pretty good understanding of why they are wrong.

I'm all for pondering, and discussion is usually fine, especially in smaller groups like a quorum or RS setting. I don't have hard and fast rules about what is and is not appropriate for discussion. I know only that some things make me very uncomfortable to hear discussed in open forum.

[Guest kyolive]

case your blood Sacramento Escort original pharmacy prescription Sacramento Escorts necklace that alerts Sacramento Asian Escort that you have Diabetes and providesSacramento Asian Escorts traveling by plane

[earth2steph]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that 'seed of Cain' curse is still in effect. Look at Africa today, it looks like a bomb went off and the survivors are still killing, raping and breeding beyond all reason. Have you ever talked to a South African white person about what it's like to live in South Africa, post-Apartheid? Pretty horrific the murders etc and the security measures they must take just to live their lives in some peace. They can't leave the country without losing all of their assets to the S. African government and they can't even seek asylum in the USA on grounds of persecution/racial discrimination etc. because they are white.

And part of the reason for extending the Priesthood to worthy black members was due to pressure from the Carter administration. Threatened to remove the tax exempt status of the entire LDS church. But, don't take my word for it, search around and compare the numerous sources on the web that detail this. It's a pity, but at least all members have to show themselves worthy, though my sense is that this is becoming a bit compromised.

As for me and my house we will serve the Lord and come what may, fight to the bitter end for what we know to be righteous and good and by golly AMERICAN!

[Vort]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that 'seed of Cain' curse is still in effect. Look at Africa today, it looks like a bomb went off and the survivors are still killing, raping and breeding beyond all reason. Have you ever talked to a South African white person about what it's like to live in South Africa, post-Apartheid? Pretty horrific the murders etc and the security measures they must take just to live their lives in some peace. They can't leave the country without losing all of their assets to the S. African government and they can't even seek asylum in the USA on grounds of persecution/racial discrimination etc. because they are white.

I think you are mistaken, and I don't think there is anything worthwhile in this particular theory. It contradicts my understanding of our doctrine.

And part of the reason for extending the Priesthood to worthy black members was due to pressure from the Carter administration.

This is just plain false. Please do not make such claims unless you have solid evidence to back them up.