Why The Adam/god Theory Is False

[CrimsonKairos]

Seems every three months or so this topic crops up again even though it's been beaten to death, past the river Styx and through the floor of Hades to the nether regions that have no name. *sigh*

PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED CANONICAL, OFFICIAL LDS SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT THE ADAM/GOD THEORY IS FALSE.

First: D&C 78:15 identifies Jesus as the Holy One. Verse 16 says the Holy One appointed Michael to be our prince, and that Michael has the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One. So if Adam were Heavenly Father, we'd have: (1) Jesus appointing his Father to be our prince; (2) the Father being directed by His Son. Ridiculous.

Second: Adam--who is Michael--is called an arch-angel. If Adam were Heavenly Father, it'd be pretty stupid to call the supreme God an angel, be it an arch or any other type of angel.

Third: Adam--who is Michael--is called a prince. Where did Jesus ever call the Father a "prince?" It'd be pretty stupid to call the supreme God a prince.

Fourth: D&C 107 explains how the Lord comforted Adam before his death by saying, "I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever." (D&C 107:55). Again, where else in all scripture did Jesus ever comfort Heavenly Father, or "set" Him anywhere or exercise authority over Him? Nowhere.

Fifth: Before Christ's Second Coming, all priesthood keys will be returned to Adam in Adam-Ondi-Ahman; Adam will then give all keys to Jesus there. It'd be ridiculous for God the Father to defer to His Son, or for the Son to let the Father defer to him.

Sixth: The scriptures and prophets teach us that God the Father is perfect. Yet this perfect Father disobeyed a commandment and ate forbidden fruit, forfeiting His perfection and immortality? This perfect Father--after becoming a fallen mortal--died and had his spirit torn from his body, awaiting his resurrection? This perfect Father couldn't be resurrected until His son Jesus was? Remember, Jesus was the first to be resurrected (Acts 26:23). This perfect Father had not power to reunite his spirit and body without the aid of his Son Jesus? Um, yeah...bologna.

All these facts together lead me to conclude that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young didn't believe that Adam, who is Michael, who is an arch-angel, who is a prince, who sinned and died, is the Heavenly Father we pray to. I have no problem with statements like, "Adam was the Father of Jesus," and "Adam is the Father of us all," etc... I read those differently than perhaps others do, and care not if the "f" in "Father" is capitalized or not. One capital letter doesn't make Adam the God we pray to. Adam is our common father, the father of us all--speaking in terms of heredity and DNA and mortality--but Adam is not the Father I pray to.

Ultimately, we are nowhere taught to pray to Adam, or that we have to believe Adam is the God we pray to, to be saved in heaven. If prophets had taught that, well then, that'd be different.

Show me one prophet who ever taught us to pray, "Our Dear Father in Heaven Adam, we thank Thee..." Show me one prophet who ever prayed that--in any record--and I'll consider the issue again. Barring that, everything else is symbolism, inuendo, metaphor or figurative speech.

[LT04]

I'm suprised that this was even a topic for discussion, after reading so many words who / what Micheal's role is in the grand sceme of things.

-LT04

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm continually surprised too, but there are die-hard Adam/God theorists who cling to the falsehood despite all the scriptural proof. I just felt like silencing them once and for all. I tire of fairy-tales being peddled as truth.

[LukeAir2006]

Ha ha. Yeh, who needs these crazy Prophets to contradict our blessed ignorance and superstition. Lol...

Scriptural proof..I like that....!!!

[CrimsonKairos]

I notice that rather than try to harmonize contradicting statements by Pres. Young you've resorted to sarcasm and mockery.

Nice.

Here's an excerpt from a letter that Elder McConkie wrote to Eugene England, a BYU professor who happened to be teaching false doctrine about God's omniscience and the Adam/God theory. McConkie says:

In that same devotional speech I said: "There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our God, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that his is the one we worship." I, of course, indicated the utter absurdity of this doctrine and said it was totally false.

Since then I have received violent reactions from Ogden Kraut and other cultists in which they have expounded upon the views of Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren relative to Adam. They have plain and clear quotations saying all of the things about Adam which I say are false. The quotations are in our literature and form the basis of a worship system followed by many of the cultists who have been excommunicated from the Church. I also received, of course, your material in which you quote from Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren saying that God is progressing in knowledge.

[...]

Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.

He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation led by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has gone on to eternal exaltation.

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and the rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.

Believe what you will, Luke. It's okay to admit you're wrong, just as it's okay for a prophet's opinions and theories to be wrong. What's not okay is to promote teachings that contradict the standard works. The Adam/God theory blatantly contradicts the standard works.

[LukeAir2006]

I think we will have to part company on this issue, Crimson. I'm not advocating the so called Adam God theory or any other theory. I'm testifying to the authority and power of living Prophets and modern revelation in these latter days.

Lets here what the Prophet Wilford Woodruff says on the matter:

"I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living oracles and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: "You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them."

When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, "Brother Brigham, I want you to take the stand and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God." Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: "There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now," said he, "when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books." That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation: "Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth." [in Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18­19]

Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet - President Ezra Taft Benson

First: The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.

Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.

Fourth: The prophet will never lead the Church astray.

Fifth: The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture.

Seventh: The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.

Eighth: The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.

Ninth: The prophet can receive revelation on any matter--temporal or spiritual.

Tenth: The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

Eleventh: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.

Twelfth: The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency--the highest quorum in the Church.

Fourteenth: The prophet and the presidency--the living prophet and the first presidency--follow them and be blessed; reject them and suffer.

[LukeAir2006]

Thankfully for you, we are not required to believe or teach all of the doctrines taught by the early Prophets of this dispensation. That is a reflection on the state of the church and the world, its not a reflection on the authority of the Lords oracles. If I were you I would let this subject drop, and cease inferring that the early leaders of the Lords church were apostates and false teachers. I would suggest that maybe you are way out of your depth here. Swallow your pride and admit that you simply just don't know.

[LT04]

Luke Air 2006,

I am confused. (not hard to do by the way) Are you disagreeing with CrimsonKairos's method of supporting his opinion or do you disagree with his opinion?

-LT04

[sixpacktr]

This is why the Lord so wants all of us to gain our own testimony instead of relying upon "borrowed light". The church advocates only the Standard Works, Jesus the Christ, Marvelous Work and a Wonder, and a couple others (Miracle of Forgiveness??) as our canon of what we base our beliefs on. All others are considered people's opinions, and we need to balance what they say against what is known in these works, mainly the SW. I personally like Mormon Doctrine, Hugh Nibley's books and lectures, etc. They help me with my testimony and learning, but if they were proven completely wrong it wouldn't change my testimony of the BOM or the PH authority, etc.

We sometimes are too much like the Jews in Nephi's and Jesus' time. To quote:

14 But behold, the Jews were a stiffnecked people; and they despised the words of plainness, and killed the prophets, and sought for things that they could not understand. Wherefore, because of their blindness, which blindness came by looking beyond the mark, they must needs fall; for God hath taken away his plainness from them, and delivered unto them many things which they cannot understand, because they desired it. And because they desired it God hath done it, that they may stumble.

(Book of Mormon | Jacob 4:14)

I love to ponder the what if's, but I have such a hard time loving my neighbor and not wanting to kick the cat when I come home (even though he REALLY deserves it! ) that determining what Pres Young meant is not my most important activity of the day. Neither is trying to really figure out how we got here (evolution, 6 days creation, alien landing), whether I really should or shouldn't eat chocolate because it has more caffiene than the entire state of Texas, or whether or not I will have more than one wife in the eternities because women are just so much more righteous than men. All I need to make sure of is that I do all my duties as father, husband, and PH holder, and I'll trust in HF to tell me whatever else I need to know.

[LukeAir2006]

Crimson believes that we have a Heavenly father but doesn't claim to know His identity. We are currently under no obligation to believe the statements of previous Prophets on this matter and if we do we are to keep our views to ourselves. I am merely defending the authority and validity of the early Presidents of the Church and the principle of continuing revelation. thats all.......

Yes, I agree with Sixpacktr. I was at first shocked and frightened when I discovered some of the early Prophets statements, but this was more a reflection of my ignorance and superstition. I then read all of their discourses and pondered and prayed...and then I understood. Its difficult because we are not permitted to discuss or teach these things..we must keep them to ourselves. I am just very defensive of the early Prophets, knowing that their teachings were absolutely correct, just very misunderstood.

Elder Franklin D. Richards, Quorum of the Twelve, President of the British Mission,1854

I have to say do not trouble ourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about that matter. The Lord has told us in a revelation which he gave through the Prophet Joseph, Jan. 19, 1841 --- "I deign to reveal unto my Church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times." (D&C 124:41) I would like to know where you will find scriptures to prove those things, by which have never before been revealed. Some feel their bounded duty to prove everything which belongs to our faith from the Bible, but I do not, and I will excuse you from all obligation to prove this from the Old Scriptures, for you cannot, if you try. You may bring much collateral evidence from the Bible and other revelations that will dissipate objections, and serve to strengthen the position, but to directly and substantially prove it, as the world requires, and as we can the first principles, it will puzzle you to do it, and from henceforth we may expect more and more of the word of the Lord giving us instructions which are nowhere written in the Old Scriptures. If we feel ourselves, and teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be proved from the scriptures, we shall never know much of the Lord ourselves, nor be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent. If as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, THE PROPHET AND APOSTLE BRIGHAM HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT IS THE WORD OF THE LORD. That is vastly stronger proof than Christendom can give for much that they profess to believe. Tell the Saints that if this stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside. You can help them roll it out of their way so that they will be but a short time till they will find a place in their building where no other stone will fit; then it will be on hand all right, and will come into its place in the building without the sound of hammer or chisel.

[a-train]

Luke,

I am right here with you in your perception that our latter-day Apostles 'were absolutely correct, just very misunderstood.'

I am further sometimes let down when I see members who will quickly write off what purports to be a concept attributed to the brethren as human error with little or no effort to determine the validity and/or meaning and implication of their statements.

This tendency is known to the antis as a powerful tool in cornering us in our own minds. It is when we perceive our own interpretation and knowledge to be greater than the LORD's anointed servants that we begin to replace their wisdom and counsel with our own. and Satan and his click are very aware of this.

I can say that in every instance that I have searched out the statements taken out of context by these antis I have found them to be uplifting and in agreeance with the scriptures and the doctrines of the Church and the interpretation applied by the deceivers was completely erroneous at best.

Keep it up.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Luke, you keep twisting the issue. I never said Pres. Young was an apostate. Seriously dude, grow up. Saying one man's opinion is wrong is not the same as calling him a rebel against God. Gimme a break.

You keep whining about, "You don't have to have scriptural support for every LDS doctrine because many are new and were never taught before so there won't be support in the old revelations."

True enough. But that's not what I'm saying is wrong with the Adam/God theory. Consider these two scenarios:

1. A prophet receives a revelation concerning doctrine the Church has never before received and which adds to the knowledge found in the standard works.

2. A prophet voices an opinion concerning doctrine that contradicts knowledge found in the standard works.

Pres. Young did the second, not the first.

Luke, you can't say, "I'm not advocating the Adam/God theory," and then turn around and say, "But everything the prophets ever said is true." In essence, that is advocating the Adam/God theory.

Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Let me translate that for you: If Pres. Hinckley says in conference, as part of a talk, that chicken tastes better than steak, that does not mean it's an eternal truth that chicken tastes better than steak and if we like steak better than chicken we are going to hell.

Not everything Pres. Young said was revealed by God. In other words, Young wasn't speaking as a prophet 24/7 from his ordination until his death. He was entitled to his opinions, interpretations, likes, dislikes, "superstitions" as you say, etc...

Just because Pres. Young interpreted some scriptures incorrectly does not rob him of his status as God's prophet or erase what he did in bringing the saints to Utah and the other great things he did as the Lord's mouthpiece. He was God's prophet. I never said otherwise. A prophet does not have a brain-transplant when they are called and ordained to be God's prophet...they retain their ignorance, knowledge, temperament, personality, upbringing, etc...

You doggedly maintain that everything Pres. Young said was true. Fine. Then will you please explain the contradictions to our standard works that my original post in this thread enumerates?

Remember, it's one thing to reveal knowledge not found in our standard works, but it's entirely different to teach opinions that contradict knowledge found in our standard works.

By the way, to interpret the "God won't let the prophet lead the Church astray" comment to mean that a prophet will never be wrong about anything is ridiculous. That transforms them into a "Mormon Pope," i.e. infallible. Prophets are still mortal. I give them permission to make mistakes. Pres. Young didn't lead the Church astray with his Adam/God theory (except for those who made it the core doctrine of their testimony and were excommunicated as a result).

If Pres. Young had taught the Church to pray to Adam, that would have been leading it astray. The issue is more refined and subtler than you'd like to think, and frankly your approach is overly simplistic. Here's what I get from your posts:

"If a prophet says one wrong thing, it invalidates his entire ministry and calling."

I simply cannot grasp such elementary thinking. I could give other examples of past prophets and apostles being very wrong in their opinions about doctrine, but that's not my point in posting all of this. I happen to esteem the prophets and apostles of the latter-days far greater than you probably think I do based on this thread. I'll defend their authority and ministry with my last breath.

What I will not do is swallow every opinion they ever espoused whether in public, private, orally or written, pertaining to eternity.

Two last questions:

1. Did Brigham Young teach that Adam is Heavenly Father and the God we pray to?

2. Did Brigham Young teach that Adam was our spiritual brother, a son of the God we pray to?

I'll give you a hint: The answer to both questions is "yes." Hmmm. A prophet voicing two different opinions. Which to believe is accurate? Hmmm. The one that contradicts the latter-day revelations of God in the D&C? Or the one which is in harmony with revelations received by Joseph Smith and contained in the D&C?

The answer is simple, and the issue is too. Prophets (as people) may have opinions and prophets may be wrong...but prophets may not be wrong or speak for themselves when directing the Lord's Church.

I know Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

I know Brigham Young was a prophet of God.

I know all the men from then until and including Gordon Hinckley were/are prophets of God too.

I know that Adam is my spiritual brother, a son of God like me, and one of God's noblest spirit children--even the prince and arch-angel Michael.

I know Heavenly Father is the literal Father of my spirit, and that His glorious, perfected spirit is inseparably joined with His glorious, exalted body of flesh and bone, and that He never "died" on our planet as Adam did.

To God alone the glory.

[Shade]

i believe there is indisputable fact to which we may all attest: the only perfect person who has ever lived on this earth was Jesus the Christ.

anyone disagree? if so, check every scripture you've ever read, every revelation ever received by any prophet, any statement or opinion ever expressed by any church leader and think again.

His purity and perfection allowed Him to make the Atonement for our own sins and short-comings.

to imply that ANY other man/woman/child is perfect is absurd. whether that person is representing God, Allah or themselves, they are NOT without fault. they are - each and every one - fallible.

i find it hard to believe that either entertaining or NOT entertaining the possibility that these "theories" (such as this so-called Adam-God theory) are true or otherwise would condemn the man/woman/child who entertains such ideas or thoughts. were this otherwise, that might be construed as leading the church astray and God has promised us that this will never happen. would He strike down the man who attempted such a thing, or would He find some way to simply set the record straight? hey, who knows?

we, in our mortal states are so utterly incapable of understanding or even beginning to fathom the might of the Almighty. the world is filled with apparent contradictions. there are absurd questions posed such as "If God can do anything, could he build a chasm so wide that He could not jump over it?" - for example. what absurdity! and my answer to such a question may seem equally absurd, because i should answer, "YES! He could build such a chasm, but He would also be able to jump across it!"

i do not believe any man other than the Saviour Himself knew all the answers to all these questions with which we wrack ourselves. it is truly remarkable to me to find you guys engrossed in deep and often bitter arguments about facts upon which - for all intents and purposes - you really seem to agree, anyway.

are we not instructed to support and love one another, finding joy in our similarities rather than our differences? maybe it's just me that's not understanding what the disagreement is really about?

[CrimsonKairos]

I disagree with you Shade.

Hahahaha, just kidding. B)

I just worry that some people canonize every spoken or written word if it has a prophet as its source.

A prophet is not always a prophet, only when acting as such.

That's all I'm saying.

[Dr T]

A prophet is not always a prophet, only when acting as such.

That is an interesting concept. Being human, I wouldn't consider them perfect but to say they speak for God, it doesn't seem that they can "just give their opinion falsely about God." I wonder what the Bible says about prophets?

[CrimsonKairos]

So Dr. T, you would be of the belief that once God calls someone to be a prophet, every word they utter must be dictated by God?

I refer to the example of Moses calling a bat a bird in Lev. 19:11. Did God tell him to say that? Did his little zoological gaffe invalidate his ministry or prophecies? Nope.

[a-train]

You know, I have heard some put forth Deuteronomy 18:22 as a means to perceive a 'false prophet'.

The LORD says: 'When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.'

I can see no explicit reference to any 'false' prophet in this. Moreover, the LORD here has not given the presumptuous statement of a prophet as any revelation that he be not of God, but the question He has resolved is asked: 'How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?' (Deut 18:21) and NOT 'How shall we know the false prophet whom the LORD hath not sent?'

His answer in verse 22, doesn't abnegate any prophet's calling in the first instance of human error, but indemnifies the people from any falling away due to the error of the LORD's anointed servants.

The Bible in this instance does say something about the prophets. It says the LORD told Israel that we are not to fear the speculative words of the prophet, however He said 'whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.' (verse 19)

In short, the Bible teaches that we are required to follow the word of God as delivered by His prophets, and we are not to fear any unfounded speculation on the part of the oracle.

Having said this, I should say that failing to follow the words of the LORD through His prophet is far more dangerous than sharing any incorrect presumption with this man whom we are instructed not to fear, for we fear not men but fear God. We should therefore look long and hard to verify the prophet's teachings and move very slow to correct them.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

One word, a-train:

Booyah!!!

Couldn't have said it better (I tried, and then gave up, lol). B)

[Dr T]

Thanks CK. That is something I need to think about. I didn't know about the "bat/bird" thing-I have to look into that sometime. I guess I first have to figure out what a "prophet" is before I can question what they are called to do. I've been so busy lately, I haven't had much time to look into things that I'm interested in.

Thank you for those verses A-train. Your reading seems to make sense. I'll give it some thought. Thanks again.

[CrimsonKairos]

There's not much to the bird/bat mistake on Moses' part.

However, it's an example of the sort of flimsy argument an anti-mormon would level against our latter-day prophets.

I've found that--just like the Medusa--if anti-mormons are forced to apply their reasoning to their own beliefs (i.e. the Bible), their own faith would be disproved and turned to stone. It's not because the Bible is false any more than LDS beliefs are false. It's because the reasoning is specious, the logic flawed, and the perspective prejudiced.

One example: LDS have "new" ordinances like temple endowments that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Bible. This is unacceptable to anti's who claim that it's adding to or changing the Bible or gospel as Jesus taught it. If we strip this claim down to both its position and its underlying issue, we see how dangerous it is to the anti's themselves.

The position = Temple endowments aren't mentioned in the Bible and thus are false ordinances and not of God.

The issue = Current religious practice--including ordinances--won't be changed or altered by God.

The problem with that thinking is that if these anti-mormons lived during Christ's day, going by that standard they would have rejected Christ and Christianity since it added to the Mosaic structure of Judaism by introducing new ordinances like the Lord's Supper, removing old ordinances like the Passover feast, etc...

Of course, no anti-mormons I've met or heard of are so fair-minded as to be willing to apply the standards they thrust upon the LDS faith, onto their own beliefs as well. The reason, of course, is that if they did they'd disprove their own religion and version of Christ's gospel.

But who's interested in truth, right? B)

[Shade]

So Dr. T, you would be of the belief that once God calls someone to be a prophet, every word they utter must be dictated by God?

I refer to the example of Moses calling a bat a bird in Lev. 19:11. Did God tell him to say that? Did his little zoological gaffe invalidate his ministry or prophecies? Nope.

seeing as Moses has been mentioned, this also raises another interesting point: Moses claimed to have given the wandering Israelites water when he struck the rock in the wilderness and water issued forth. God dealt with his transgression pretty firmly, as I recall: he was banned from entering the promised land.

EVEN Moses, the same dude who freed the Israelites from Egypt, performed hundreds of miracles, healed the sick, parted the sea and closed it up again to swallow the host of Egypt, was transfigured and received the stone tablets from God in person upon the mountain, EVEN this same incredible MAN was not that different to any of us. he was quite capable of making mistakes.

this error on his part did nothing to detract from the messages he delivered nor from the role he played long after. he wasn't "demoted", he wasn't condemned and i do not believe that there are many who dispute his position as one of the most important prophets of the bible.

i believe the important point here is that whatever our prophets do, don't do, say, don't say, think, don't think, or otherwise will one day be between them and their Maker. and the same applies to each of us. the fact that each of us makes mistakes every day of our lives does nothing to diminish the truth that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Saviour, that His Father is our Creator and Master of the universe, and that the Holy Ghost can and often does fill us with comfort in His role as our Comforter. i believe that, if anything, it reinforces these facts and keeps us in perspective. we KNOW that we can never be perfect in this lifetime. we accept our fallibility. can we not accept that of others so readily?

i wrote earlier that i do not feel that any man could ever begin to fathom the incredible mysteries of heaven. what is possible and real in God's domain are beyond our feeble comprehension, yet some mysteries are not so mysterious once we allow ourselves to be open-minded. our greatest limitations to understanding these mysteries are those we so willingly impose upon ourselves.

just as a side-note to the original topic:

if we believe that we have the potential to become as God, if we believe that God has promised us all He has and that we shall be one with Him and if we believe that people such as Adam, Jesus, Noah, Moses, Enoch, Elijah, or any other prophets of old and also including the modern prophets such as Joseph Smith and other great men of our own dipensations were righteous Godly men, then we must surely asume that they are God, already.

God's time not being like ours, and all things having been created spiritually before temporally, whatever is to come already is. i have always believed that God does not necessarily separate the past, present and future in quite the same way we do for our own sanity and convenience and that all time is His. if He is eternal, is there any difference in God's time between yesterday, today or tomorrow? we do not worship Adam, Moses, Elijah, Enoch nor any other man. yet, assuming that what we profess to believe is true, then are all these men not already God in their own right?

[CrimsonKairos]

It's debatable.

I personally believe Abraham and other worthies have passed on to their reward and exaltation (D&C 132:29).

[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 inahabit. 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!