Questions Re "adam-god"

[Elphaba]

In several of the post on this thread, many have asked you to post your references.

As an example of what they want: (removed)

It is obvious that those who list their religious preferences are respected by others in this forum.

People are just asking for some honesty.

Annabelli,

Do you really think it is reasonable that you chastise someone else for not providing references when I have asked you three times now to provide a reference for the the following comment you made here:

"Pope Gregory XVI in particular addressed issues on both the American LDS Church and Joseph Smith and the Persia Bahai Faith and Baha'ullah."

I've done an extensive search and have found nothing to verify your quote, and have come to believe you made it up. But I am willing to admit I am wrong if you just provide the reference.

If you can’t provide the reference then just say so. I have no problem with that.

But can you see how it is just not right for you, of all people, to be judging someone else’s lack of references when you do the very same thing?

I'm going to drop it because you are obviuosly not going to provide the reference. But yes, people do just want some honesty and I've been waiting for some honesty regarding this refrence from you for a while now.

Elphaba

[john doe]

Gaia,

Honestly? I usually don't read the 4 page posts. They typically are covers for people who really have no basis in fact, so they seek to bury their 'truths' in layers of gobbledygook. Your posts (smile) prove my position on that. I actually took the time to read your last post entirely after your recent challenge and, after having to nudge myself back awake periodically, I learned nothing new from my past personal research on the subject. Your post shows little more than nothingness.

You see, I have a theory of my own, one which I feel is at least as valid as the Adam/God theory. That theory is this: If you're on a message board, and fail to make a point, any kind of point, within five paragraphs of at least 4 sentences, then you really have no point, and are straining to make any kind of sense at all. I really see no sense in reading every word of every cut-and-pasts post here, most of it is retreaded fluff that has been brought up and discarded before. Show me something new, and make it short and easy to read. You do neither in your novels proclaiming invalid theories.

I will be honest again. I've said it before when you insisted your (grin) theories are doctrine: I have already studied the information and it doesn't hold water with me. You can claim it until the cows come home, but the fact is that the official LDS churhc does not hold the Adam/God theory to be doctrine. Admittedly, at one time there were some who did believe in it, and your (chuckle) convoluted posts show that you probably do as well, but the church does not see things the way you do, do they?

[a-train]

Did anyone look at any JoD 'adam-god references' listed in the OP?

There are some doozies for sure!

Like this one:

JD 12:97 Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday

Full Text Here

President Brigham Young says:

'Now, the sermon which I design preaching to the ladies comes right before me. It is said-"If it were not for your obnoxious doctrine of plurality of wives we could believe in the rest very well." It is not that. That is not the touchstone at all, but it is because our wives and daughters cannot be seduced; it is because this people are strictly moral, virtuous, and truthful.

Now, taking the history of creation as given by Moses, let me ask the question-"Mother Eve, did you not partake of the forbidden fruit, as also did Adam, and thus bring sin and iniquity into the world?" "O, yes," says mother Eve. Then, why cannot you bear the affliction of it? Why not say-"If I was the cause of bringing evil into the world, I will firmly bear all that God puts upon me, and maintain His word and His law, and so work out my salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God working within me.

I ask this question of you, mother Eves, every one of you. If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families you ought to bear the burden. But you say this is cruel. No, it is not cruel at all.

Is there a passion in man that he cannot subdue for the sake of the gospel of salvation, that he may be crowned with glory, immortality, and eternal lives? Shame on the elder who, if duty calls, cannot go and preach the gospel until he winds up his earthly career and never permit a female to kiss him.

I do not wish to say much upon this subject, but I say, woe to you Eves if you proclaim or entertain feelings against this doctrine! Woe to every female in this Church who says, "I will not submit to the doctrine that God has revealed." You will wake up by and by and say, "I have lost the crown and exaltation I might have gained had I only been faithful to my covenants and the rvelations [revelations] which God gave. I might have been crowned as well as you, but now I must go to another kingdom."

Be careful, O, ye mothers in Israel, and do not teach your daughters in future, as many of them have been taught, to marry out of Israel. Woe to you who do it; you will lose your crowns as sure as God lives. Be careful! "Well," but say you, "these men, these elders of Israel, have it all their own way." That is not so, and we are not going to have it all our own way, unless our way is to do just right. And the man and woman who set up their will against the providence of God, will be found wanting when accounts are squared. They will have to say, "the summer is past, the harvest is ended, and we have not received our crowns."'

Clearly Brigham did NOT say: 'Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday.' His reference to women as 'Eves' is symbolic as it is in the temple and does not imply they will be reincarnated as the first woman on a distant planet.

-a-train

[a-train]

Here is another humdinger:

JD 4:271 we will get the privilege of being an Adam on earth

Full Text Here

President Young said:

'If you look at things spiritually, and then naturally, and see how they appear together, you will understand that when you have the privilege of commencing the work that Adam commenced on this earth, you will have all your children come and report to you of their sayings and acts; and you will hold every son and daughter of yours responsible when you get the privilege of being an Adam on earth.

Suppose that one of us had been Adam, and had peopled and filled the world with our children, they, although they might be great grandchildren, &c., still, say I, had I been Adam, they would be my flesh, blood, and bones, and have the same kind of a spirit put into them that is in me. And pertaining to the flesh they would all be my children, and I would call them to account, and by and bye I would call every one of them home. They would have to render up to father an account, that he may know what their works have been on earth, for man is judged according to his works on the earth.'

This does NOT imply that worthy men will become 'Adams' on future planets, but he is speaking of what one in Adam's position would do. This citation has taken the phrase 'when you get the privilege of being an Adam on earth' wildly out of context.

-a-train

[Adomini22]

Thanx a-train for bringing that up. I love reading Journal of Discourses, and it irks me to no end to see anti-mormon idiots twisting plain doctrine up. Whoever posted those references is a liar, in my eyes.

[Iggy]

Because I forgot my reading glasses at work.

So you always forget your glasses when you post? Yet you can read every post that does not have the bold, because they all are the same.

In the future hold down the control key and use the scroll knob on your mouse and it will either enlarge or decrease the font. OR you can go to the lower right hand corner of your monitor screen, where you see the 100% - click on it and you can select a size to increase your monitor screen.

To me your constant use of bold is like others who use all caps - it is shouting and it is rude.

[Gaia]

In several of the post on this thread, many have asked you to post your references.

As an example of what they want: (removed)

It is obvious that those who list their religious preferences are respected by others in this forum.

People are just asking for some honesty.

GAIA:

Hi Annabelli --

I'm sorry, i'm uncertain what you're talking about. I've posted references with everything i've ever quoted/ written on this site. I 've also said several times that i own (and have provided links to) the GospeLink 2001 Program -- again, see http://gospelink.com/ for more on that -- *smile* I strongly reccomend that program to anyone who is or desires to become a serious student of LDS doctrine or history -- It's worth many times what i was fortunate enough to have to pay for it, when i got it three-four years ago.

* * *

As for my personal religious preferences, i've already said (several times!) that i have been an endowed member of the LDS church for several decades; but that i have also studied a number of other Spiritual paths and consider myself a "Spiritual Seeker" rather than tied to any particular Path.

And with all due respect, if you'll notice my pattern of replies over the last couple of weeks, you'll see that i've stopped replying to some because their accusations of "dishonesty" strike me as absurdly and revealingly hypocritical, given their penchant for ad hominems, character assasination, and misrepresentation, along with their obvious inability to discuss matters on the merits of ISSUES rather than ad hominems -- And to tell you the truth, i'm gratified to have received emails agreeing with and supporting, both my position and response to such silliness.

* * *

Once again, Anabelli, and for others wondering why i respond as i do: There is a huge difference between saying to someone on the one hand: "I really strongly disagree with your opinion / findings / ideas"; and on the other hand, saying "And you are bad /evil/ faithless / foolish / anti-Mormon / [or any other condemnation] -- for raising the issue, beleiving as you do, or discussing it, in the first place!" Do you see the difference, there?

Do you realize, that throughout these discussions, I have NEVER suggested that anybody else accept or believe the Adam-God doctrine, or for that matter, Heavenly Mother? I've merely answered some questions and provided information on those teachings/ ideas. I've quoted previous PROPHETS AND APOSTLES on them. I haven't even said that i personally accept or incorporate them into my personal spiritual practice. -- Just presented information in the form of quotes from Apostles and Prophets, and suggested that these ideas may offer "beauty and wisdom" -- THAT's ALL . I've NEVER said that anybody else "should" accept or beleive them. On the contrary, i've said several times that every person should do their own research and determine for themselves, with the Guidance of the Holy Spirit -- what they think of these matters and all others.

Now go back and read the kinds of accusations that have been hurled at me. Geez, i'm surprised nobody has questioned my birth LOL And please note the LACK of such accusations, ad hominems, etc from my direction.

Now, do YOU think that's fair, reasonable, -- let alone Christlike behavior of anyone claiming to represent Christ, or presuming to lecture others on the nature and meaning of the Gospel, Priesthood, or other similar principles?

Can you blame me then, for deciding to reply with extreme discretion and care?

Look, Anabelli -- and anyone else sincerely interested in discussion -- If there's something you feel you need that i've not provided, just let me know -- and here's a hint: Perhaps email would be a better venue :)

Blessings --

~Gaia

([email protected])

[Gaia]

Gaia,

Honestly? I usually don't read the 4 page posts. They typically are covers for people who really have no basis in fact, so they seek to bury their 'truths' in layers of gobbledygook. Your posts (smile) prove my position on that. I actually took the time to read your last post entirely after your recent challenge and, after having to nudge myself back awake periodically, I learned nothing new from my past personal research on the subject. Your post shows little more than nothingness.

GAIA:

Hi JohnDoe --

You're certainly entitled to read (or not read) whatever you wish --

But then -- with all due respect -- claiming that someone has "invalid theories" without bothering to actually READ those theories, let alone the evidence for them -- reveals you as someone who evidently thinks he can judge the validity of something without bothering to investigate it -- and most people would call that "bias", not (educated) opinion.

*Shrug* some people are satisfied with merely knowing just enough to confirm their prejudices -- others are not. I hope you will someday understand and appreciate the difference.

Until then, i do wish you'd at least be honest enough to withhold labelling something "invalid" without at least bothering to actually read the evidence presented on it --

- But i do understand, that's contrary to human nature B) .

Show me something new, and make it short and easy to read.

GAIA:

OK -- Here ya go: Take your pick, even!

1. Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec.

Moses said Adam was made of 'the dust of the ground,' but he did not say of WHAT ground. I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of THIS earth, but he was made of the dust of THE EARTH WHERE HE LIVED, where he honored his calling, believed in HIS Savior or elder brother, and by his faithfulness was redeemed and got a glorious RESURRECTION. ... I will tell you more: ADAM IS THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS. He lived upon AN earth, he did abide His creation and did honor to His calling and priesthood and obeyed HIS master or lord, and probably MANY of his wives did the same; and THEY LIVED AND DIED UPON AN AN EARTH AND THEN WERE RESURRECTED again to immortality and eternal life.

2. SCRIPTURAL ADAM-GOD REFERENCES FROM STANDARD WORKS:

Jesus says to the brother of Jared: “Never have I showed myself unto man whom I created”.

Did Adam see Jesus?

Daniel 7:9-10; 13-14

9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. ...

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man

came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Daniel 2:44

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

1 Corinthians 15:24

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

DISCUSSION:

In Daniel 2, who was it that set up the kingdom? God [Elohim].

In Corinthians, who shall "put down all rule"? God [the Father].

And in Daniel 7, who was it? The Ancient of Days [Adam].

Blessings,

~Gaia

[Gaia]

Clearly Brigham did NOT say: 'Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday.' His reference to women as 'Eves' is symbolic as it is in the temple and does not imply they will be reincarnated as the first woman on a distant planet.

-a-train

GAIA:

Well, woah there, A=Train.....

1. FIRST -- There have been changes to the historical record:

LDS historians have noted and presented evidence that there have been CHANGES to the historical record, even scriptures -- The Church has gone back and changed historical records, ordinances, even scriptures, to better conform to or support current policies, programs, and teachings.

The officially published History of the Church also deleted evidence, introduced anachronisms, even reversed meanings in manuscript minutes and other documents which were detailed and explicit in their original form.

In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants began a policy of retroactive editing by reversing previous meanings, adding concepts and whole paragraphs to the texts of previously published revelations.

Examples are available in the sources below, but here are two quick and easy ones:

a. The Hymnal has been edited to remove references to doctrines that were taught by previous Church leaders, which are now considered heretical -- For just one small example, see Hymn #51: "Sons of Michael He Approaches" which originally included a reference to the now-heretical "Adam-God" doctrine, as follows:

The orignal version said:

"Sons of Michael, he approaches!

Rise; the Eternal Father greet" --

The Current version "corrected" it to read:

"Rise, the ancient father greet."

b. Another example is Joseph Smith's quote taken from the original Relief Society minutes:

The ORIGINAL said:

"The Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and that he was "going to make of this Society a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

(Joseph Smith statement, 30 Mar. 1842, in microfilm copies of original minutes of the Female RElief Society of Nauvoo, Joseph Smkith Collection, at the Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU, Provo, Utah.

- And in:

- Transcript copy in Linda King Newell papers, Western Americana, Marriott Library, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Ut.

- Andrew F Ehat and Lndon W Cook, "The Words of the Joseph Smith" 110;

- Jill Mulvay Derr, Janath Russell Cannon, and Maureen Ursenbach Beecher, Women of Covenant, 43, 53.

-- Compare with the altered version of these minutes in BH Roberts, ed. History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 vols. 4:570.

In printing the original minutes of the prophet's talk after his death, the official "History of the Church" omitted Joseph's first use of the word "Society" and changed the second "Society" to "Church", as follows:

"going to make of this Church a kingdom of Priests, as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day" -- which changes the entire meaning of the passage.

For analysis of changes in revelatory texts, see the following LDS Sources:

- Melvin Joseph Peterson, "A Study of the Nature and Significance of the Changes in the Revelations as Found in a Comparison of the Book of Commandments and Subsequent Editions of the Doctrine and Covenants," MA Thesis, Brigham Young University, 1955;

- Richard P Howard, "Restoration Scriptures: A Study of Their Textual Development" Independence, MO: Herald House, 1969;

- Robert J Woodford, "The Historical Development of the Doctrine and Covenants," 3 vols, Ph.D. Diss, Brigham Young University, 1974;

- Milton V Backman, Jr. "The Heavens Resound: A History of the Latter-day Saints in Ohio, 1930-1838" 214-215;

- Woodford, "The Story of the Doctrine and Covenants," Ensign 14:32-39;

- Woodford, "Doctrine and Covenants Editions," in Ludlow, _Encyclopedia of Mormonism_ 1:242.)

2. Secondly:

That was NOT the only source supporting the idea (taught in the Adam-God doctrine) women WILL become Eves, and men Adams, and that this is in fact the nature of "Eternal LIVES" (note the plural, and see D&C 132:35) --

a. First, there is the Temple ritual itself.

b. For another quick and easy example (and if you give me some time, i can find more) -- there's the poem by Eliza R Snow Smith, who said she received the teaching from her polygamous husband, Joseph Smith:

"The Ultimatum of Human Life", from Poems Religious, Historical and Political, Vol. 2:8-9, 1877.

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation he arose to be

Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to him in his probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?

Whate'er his offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By his obedience he obtain'd the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all her daughters on the earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

What did she care, when in her lowest state,

Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great?

'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth--

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth.

Life's ultimatum, unto those that live

As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive;

Is still the onward, upward course to tread--

To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head

Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth,

And to their spirit race, give mortal birth--

Give them experience in a world like this;

then lead them forth to everlasting bliss,

Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy

Where full perfection dwells, without alloy.

Agreed, this is NOT scripture, however it does establish that this idea of men becoming Adams and women becoming Eves, certainly was taught / understood to be truth by a leading woman of the Church, and one consistently referred to as "Zion's High Priestess" throughout her life.

As i said, if given time, i can provide more references from Brigham and others.

~Gaia

[Gaia]

OK, here are some more quotes, from my copy of the JOurnal of Discourses on the GospeLink 2001 Library:

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.)

Brigham Young:

"How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to

one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to

me-- namely that Adam is our father and God--I do not know, I do not

enquire, I care nothing about it. . . . 'Well', says one, 'Why was Adam

called Adam?' He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker,

He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said,

'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I

once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state, I was

faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of

extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my

children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take

tabernacles of flesh that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or

dwelling place as mine has, and where is the mystery?'"

Brigham Young, 8 Jun 1873, Deseret News, 18 June 1873.

"Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is

our God and Joseph taught this principle."

Brigham Young, 16 Dec 1867, Wilford Woodruff Journal.

[a-train]

Gia,

I understand that you assert that the Church has altered documents. Are you saying that the specific wild mis-representations of the JoD you have listed are not mis-representations at all, but indicate what the text said before changes were made in the text? I did not see you address those specific quotes. If you are claiming those were changed, how? What references do you have to show these changes?

Now, with all respect, do you see that when you do not specifically address the precise holes in your assertions that it does NOT matter what you say to people? They feel like you are dodging their questions. If they get a post that wears out the scroll on their mouse but doesn't address their question or the issue at hand they feel cheated.

Do these quotes listed in your last two posts somehow address the erroneous representation of the citations I have mentioned? Or, are you saying, in effect: 'OK, your right, those citations don't mean what I said they mean, but here I have some others to demonstrate that Brigham Young taught what I assert him to have taught.'?

What ARE you saying about those specific quotes?

-a-train

[a-train]

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.)

Now this, you have already listed before. There is more than one way to interpret this. The trouble with this is that he doesn't explicitly say that the man who has his exaltation and his crown will have to be the Adam in this new world. Now, the man who is the Adam in this new world may have benefit of a celestial body, but this does not prove that he is the same Being that presides over this operation.

It is true that not only did Adam and Eve possess celestial bodies before the fall, but the whole earth was celestial in its first creation. A statement to the effect that Adam possessed a celestial body and/or that it came from a different sphere does NOT demonstrate that he is Eloheim. Do you see the difference here?

"Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is

our God and Joseph taught this principle."

Brigham Young, 16 Dec 1867, Wilford Woodruff Journal.

Although there is no substance to the difference, the quote I show is: 'Presidet Young said Adam was Michael the Ark angel & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this Principle.' I wonder if your sources are direct or secondary or what?

Do you see that this can be true in a different sense than the one that holds Adam to be Eloheim? Take a look at Luke 3, we can see that not only is Adam the Father of Jesus through mary, but that the scripture tells us that he could be legally considered the son of Joseph and it further says that Adam was the son of God. Who is Adam's Father?

Matthew 1 also gives a legal lineage of Jesus through Joseph back to David. Jesus is also reffered to as the Son of David in other verses (Matt. 20:30-31, 21:9, 22:42,45; Mark 10:47-48; Luke 18:38, and others).

There is also a sense in which Christ is Adam's father also. Can you see that this quote is inconclusive to your assertion and can only be interpreted to mean Adam is Eloheim in a particular context to which it is not native?

-a-train

[Gaia]

More Quotes -- and again, i have taken these directly from the LDS-owned and published GospeLink 2001 Library (See http://gospelink.com/) --

He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 3: 319.)

Brigham Young:

Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between Jesus Christ and any other man that ever lived on the earth, from the days of Adam until now, is simply this, the Father, after He had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live, obtained His exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and powers, and had the knowledge and power to create-to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural principles. This He did after His ascension, or His glory, or His eternity, and was actually classed with the Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, and again obtained their bodies. Then He was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach. It is all here in the Bible; I am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth.

When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me. And a difference there is between our Father and us consists in that He has gained His exaltation, and has obtained eternal lives. The principle of eternal lives is an eternal existence, eternal duration, eternal exaltation. Endless are His kingdoms, endless His thrones and His dominions, and endless are His posterity; they never will cease to multiply from this time henceforth and forever.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 218.)

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.)

Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 290 - 291.)

Suppose a man should come here and tell you the very nature of our Father Adam—tell precisely how he was organized, his height, his proportions, the extent of his knowledge, tell you the agreement that was entered into, the amount of knowledge that he had to forget to reduce himself to the capacity of a corruptible being! Suppose this could all be told to the congregations of the Saints, what would they know about it? Very little. There may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 264.)

I ask this question of you, mother Eves, every one of you. If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families you ought to bear the burden.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 12: 98.)

When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 286.)

Heber C KIMball:

I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth—the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 1 - 2.)

Now, let's go back and review the first reference in light of these others -- again, from the LDS owned and published GospeLink version of the Journal of Discourses:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.

J8It 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.

J8Again, 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.

Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 1: 51.)

*Many*, many more exist; if anyone is interested, Just Let me know.

~Gaia

[BenRaines]

Wow El, cool trick. Ctrl and scroll. Amazing this old dog taught a new trick.

Ben Raines

[sixpacktr]

More Quotes -- and again, i have taken these directly from the LDS-owned and published GospeLink 2001 Library (See http://gospelink.com/) --

He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 3: 319.)

Brigham Young:

Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between Jesus Christ and any other man that ever lived on the earth, from the days of Adam until now, is simply this, the Father, after He had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live, obtained His exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and powers, and had the knowledge and power to create-to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural principles. This He did after His ascension, or His glory, or His eternity, and was actually classed with the Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, and again obtained their bodies. Then He was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach. It is all here in the Bible; I am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth.

When the time came that His first-born, the Saviour, should come into the world and take a tabernacle, the Father came Himself and favoured that spirit with a tabernacle instead of letting any other man do it. The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between Jesus Christ and you and me. And a difference there is between our Father and us consists in that He has gained His exaltation, and has obtained eternal lives. The principle of eternal lives is an eternal existence, eternal duration, eternal exaltation. Endless are His kingdoms, endless His thrones and His dominions, and endless are His posterity; they never will cease to multiply from this time henceforth and forever.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 218.)

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.)

Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 290 - 291.)

Suppose a man should come here and tell you the very nature of our Father Adam—tell precisely how he was organized, his height, his proportions, the extent of his knowledge, tell you the agreement that was entered into, the amount of knowledge that he had to forget to reduce himself to the capacity of a corruptible being! Suppose this could all be told to the congregations of the Saints, what would they know about it? Very little. There may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 13: 264.)

I ask this question of you, mother Eves, every one of you. If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families you ought to bear the burden.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 12: 98.)

When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 7: 286.)

Heber C KIMball:

I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth—the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood shed, that our sins might be remitted.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 4: 1 - 2.)

Now, let's go back and review the first reference in light of these others -- again, from the LDS owned and published GospeLink version of the Journal of Discourses:

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.

J8It 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.

J8Again, 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.

Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 1: 51.)

*Many*, many more exist; if anyone is interested, Just Let me know.

~Gaia

Oh, are you finished??

Really, Gaia, I know you feel that you have lots of lots of information, but...

you need to quit bloviating. Brevity, brevity, brevity...

[Gaia]

<div class='quotemain'>

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 6: 275.)

Now this, you have already listed before. There is more than one way to interpret this. The trouble with this is that he doesn't explicitly say that the man who has his exaltation and his crown will have to be the Adam in this new world. Now, the man who is the Adam in this new world may have benefit of a celestial body, but this does not prove that he is the same Being that presides over this operation.

GAIA:

Please See "More quotes".

It is true that not only did Adam and Eve possess celestial bodies before the fall, but the whole earth was celestial in its first creation. A statement to the effect that Adam possessed a celestial body and/or that it came from a different sphere does NOT demonstrate that he is Eloheim. Do you see the difference here?

GAIA:

I think i see the difference you are suggesting, however, i would like to address a couple of things:

1. I must (respectfully) disagree -- the earth was not created "Celestialized", it was PARADISIACAL -- There's a subtle but important difference.

(Articles of Faith:10.)

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

(Articles of Faith:10.)

In the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (TPJS), Joseph said: "This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God, and crowned with celestial glory."

(Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, selected and arranged by Joseph Fielding Smith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976], 181.)

The phrase "crowned with Celestial Glory" suggests that Celestial Glory was not something it had previously.

For scriptural references to redeemed or resurrected spheres, see D&C 77:1; 130:6-9.

And this is from "God, Man and the Universe" by (BYU Religion Prof Emeritus), Hyrum Andrus:

To be more specific, the earth after its creation was in a paradisiacal-celestial state. This term, which combines the meaning of the two words which compose it, describes (1) the state of glory in which the earth existed and (2) the kind or degree of glory by which it was quickened in its paradisiacal state. The earth's paradisiacal state of glory has been described in the preceding paragraph. To say that the earth was in a paradisiacal-celestial state carries the added meaning that the earth was enveloped in the glory and power of the Father, or that kind and degree of glory which the scriptures refer to as being celestial. For instance, a sphere is in a telestial condition when the Holy Spirit is the basic source of the divine intelligence and power which it receives from God; it is in a terrestrial condition when the glory of Christ as the Son is its basic source of truth and light; and it is in a celestial condition when it is capable of receiving the glory and power of the Father. fn Since the earth after its creation dwelt in a paradisiacal state amid the glory and power of the Father, it was then in a paradisiacal-celestial state of glory.

There are several points that support the idea that the earth was in a paradisiacal state of glory after its creation and that make clear that nature of life in that state: First, Joseph Smith said that when this earth is redeemed, it "will be rolled back into the presence of God and crowned with celestial glory."

In its redeemed state, this earth will be a body of light. But a sphere that is in a paradisiacal state evidently receives its glory from a redeemed sphere or personage; and although a sphere in a paradisiacal state is enveloped in divine spiritual powers, these intelligent forces are not organized within it as a permanent part of it, but are manifest to it on a dependent principle.

(Hyrum L. Andrus, God, Man, and the Universe [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1968], 328.)

In fact, if you wouldn't mind a digression -- There is a very interesting teaching regarding that very issue --

Joseph Smith (allegedly) taught that while the Earth was created in a PARADISIACAL state -- perfect, without sin or corruption, it was NOT yet Celestialized; and in order to achieve that, it would have to go through several stages, just as human beings must -- which Eliza R Snow Smith referred to in her poem, "Address to Earth":

ADDRESS TO EARTH - By Eliza R Snow Smith (pages 154-155 of her book of "Poems")

Thou 0 earth wast once a glorious sphere

Of noble magnitude,

And didst with majesty appear

among the worlds of god.

But thy dimensions have been torn

asunder piece by piece,

and each dismember'd fragment borne

abroad to distant space.

When Enoch could no longer stay

amid corruption here,

part of thyself was borne away

to form another sphere.

that portion where his city stood

he gain'd by right approv'd

and nearer to the throne of god

his planet upward moved

and when the lord saw fit to hide

the ten lost tribes away

thou earth wast sever'd to provide

the orb on which they stay

and thus from time to time thy size

has been diminished till

thou seem'st the law of sacrifice

created to fulfill.

the curse of god on man was plac'd

that curse thou didst partake

and thou hast been by turns disgrac'd

and honor'd for his sake

the vilest wretches hell will claim

now breathe thy atmosphere

the noblest spirits heaven can name

have been embodied here

Jesus the lord thy surface grac'd

he fell a sacrifice

and now within thy cold embrace

the martyr'd Joseph lies!

When Satans hosts are overcome

the martyr'd princely race

will claim thee their celestial home

the royal dwelling place.

A restitution yet must come

that will to thee restore

by the grand law of worlds thy sum

of matter heretofore.

And thou 0 earth wilt leave the track

thou hast been doom'd to trace

the gods with shouts will bring thee back

to fill thy native place.

The point there is that the earth was not just automatically granted "Celestialization", it had to "merit" the Grace of Christ just as humans must obey the Gospel, in order to lay claim to that sanctifying (and celestializing) Grace.

2. OK, now to adress the second part of your point:

Adam possessed a celestial body and/or that it came from a different sphere does NOT demonstrate that he is Eloheim. Do you see the difference here?

GAIA:

I think it does suggest exactly that. Who ELSE involved in the entire process of creation -- Besides Eve -- participated with a "Celestialized" Body?

"Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is

our God and Joseph taught this principle."

Brigham Young, 16 Dec 1867, Wilford Woodruff Journal.

Do you see that this can be true in a different sense than the one that holds Adam to be Eloheim?

GAIA:

Hmm -- How would you feel about using the term, "Heavenly FAther" or "HF" to refer to God the FAther, rather than "Elohim/ Eloheim", since there are many who can qualify as "Elohims"?

OK, let me see if i understand your point here:

Are you saying that MIchael-Adam may be said to be the Father of Jesus, or for that matter, any of us, by virtue of his position in the Priesthood, and as the "Father" (ie, progenitor) of all humankind?

If that's it, i can see it, and even agree with the basic idea -- but i think it's really stretching the point to use that interpretation for this quote. (But then hey, i can understand you thinking I'M "stretching" things to suggest some of the things i have! *rueful grin*)

* * *

A-Train, and any others reading this -- i hope you are beginning to note the difference in the tone of our exchange, here -- And i hope you don't mind my calling attention to it, but i think it may be valuable:

A-Train and i are now TALKING TO each other , with consideration, giving real thought to and trying to understand each other's point of view, rather than automatically dismissing, discrediting, even demonizing each other.....Can you see what a difference this makes, in the spirit of the discussion, and how much more meaningful, intelligent, even worthwhile the discussion becomes?

I think that's an important -- even crucial, difference.

Thanks, A=Train.

Blessings --

~GAia

[a-train]

Gaia,

Now again, you post another scroll-beater without addressing my questions. It is as if you are more interested in giving a sermon than having a conversation. Now, I enjoy good sermons and I have even given some in this forum (whether they were good or not is negotiable). But, I think the natives are getting wrestless.

I'll just address some more of your citations:

'He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.' (Journal of Discourses, 3: 319.)

Again, how does this imply that Adam is Eloheim? I would answer it does NOT.

'Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth.' (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4: 218.)

It is widely known and proclaimed that LDS believe that the Father took on a physical body just the same as did the Saviour and as did we, this provides no evidence that when Eloheim took upon himself the course material of a physical body, he became the Adam we read of in Genesis.

Now I acknowledge the fact that he said THIS earth, but if we were to conform to this word so strictly to say that the Father obtained his physical body on this planet, then we would have to also deny the notion so popular among the 'Adam-God-Theorists' that he obtained that body on another sphere and then came here, the same notion you represent in your first quote there.

Simply, this quote demonstrates that we gained a physical body like the one our Father in Heaven has, but it does not in any way imply that He lived as Adam and transgressed in the garden. Does this interpretation seem valid to you? Do you at least acknowledge it as a possible interpretation?

Your next quote was a repeat which I already addressed and asked questions about. You didn't answer them, you just requoted. Can you answer my questions?

'Suppose a man should come here and tell you the very nature of our Father Adam—tell precisely how he was organized, his height, his proportions, the extent of his knowledge, tell you the agreement that was entered into, the amount of knowledge that he had to forget to reduce himself to the capacity of a corruptible being! Suppose this could all be told to the congregations of the Saints, what would they know about it? Very little. There may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not. ' (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 13: 264.)

It is acknowledged that Adam, in the garden, took upon himself the viel and forgot all of his previous existance. This is not a forgotten or hidden doctrine, but is the subject of Sunday School lessons and missionary discussions. How are we to somehow suppose that his great knowledge which he forgot somehow implies he was Eloheim? This is not indicated in this quote.

Your next quote was, again, a repeat which I already addressed and asked questions about. You didn't answer them, you just requoted. Can you answer my questions?

The next quote (from Heber C. Kimball), again, doesn't imply that Adam is Eloheim and you have already posted it. For that matter, isn't it possible that we could call Eloheim 'the First Man', but not imply He was Adam?

The last quote is again another repeat which we have already discussed, but you haven't answered my questions which I will sum up here: Do you assert that a single Being acted as Eloheim AND Michael simultaneously in the Quorum mentioned by Brigham Young when he said: 'the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum'?

Please try to answer these questions and have a conversation and refrain from eating up cyberspace with the repetition of the quotes you have previously made.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

And the "2007 Korihor Award" goes to...

Gaia.

Your grand prize consists of some sound advice: Brevity is the soul of wit.

[a-train]

I must (respectfully) disagree -- the earth was not created "Celestialized", it was PARADISIACAL -- There's a subtle but important difference....

...In the "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith" (TPJS), Joseph said: "This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God, and crowned with celestial glory."

The phrase "crowned with Celestial Glory" suggests that Celestial Glory was not something it had previously.

I would first ask how much merit you give the phrase 'rolled back into the presence of God'? In my estimation, Celestial Glory is by definition the Presence of God. Can the earth be in the Presence of God without being Celestialized and can it be Celestialized outside the Presence of God? I would answer 'NO' to both questions. The 'Adam-God' theory really has a problem here. If Adam and this earth was cast out of God's presence, whose presence was he and this earth rolled from?

I do not see anything in that quote from Hyrum L. Andrus that would mean that the earth was NOT celestial in its first creation. In fact, it says quite the opposite. I will quote it: 'Since the earth after its creation dwelt in a paradisiacal state amid the glory and power of the Father, it was then in a paradisiacal-celestial state of glory.' How can this be used to demonstrate that the Earth was NOT celestial?

I am unable to see how this poem from Eliza R. Snow demonstrates that Adam and this Earth did NOT fall from a celestial state.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Adam possessed a celestial body and/or that it came from a different sphere does NOT demonstrate that he is Eloheim. Do you see the difference here?

GAIA:

I think it does suggest exactly that. Who ELSE involved in the entire process of creation -- Besides Eve -- participated with a "Celestialized" Body?

Any Sunday School kid would quickly answer: Heavenly Father. God the Father/Eloheim, Michael/Adam, and Eve all possessed physical bodies before the fall.

Hmm -- How would you feel about using the term, "Heavenly FAther" or "HF" to refer to God the FAther, rather than "Elohim/ Eloheim", since there are many who can qualify as "Elohims"?

In talking about this topic of 'Adam-God', Heavenly Father is quite ambiguous as well. However, I WILL speak to you in whatever terms you understand best.

OK, let me see if i understand your point here:

Are you saying that MIchael-Adam may be said to be the Father of Jesus, or for that matter, any of us, by virtue of his position in the Priesthood, and as the "Father" (ie, progenitor) of all humankind?

YES, Adam and the Patriarchs are parents of Jesus in a very different sense than the Fatherhood of Jesus exclusive to Heavenly Father. It can also be said that Jesus is our Eternal Father because it is He who gives us Eternal Life, however this does NOT negate the existance or position of God the Eternal Father as such.

God Bless

-a-train

[sixpacktr]

And the "2007 Korihor Award" goes to...

Gaia.

Your grand prize consists of some sound advice: Brevity is the soul of wit.

Reminds me of when I was a teen, I called our Stake YM Pres Alma the Younger (before his repentance) and he called me Korihor. We'd go around saying the most off the wall things like "Adam is Eloheim", "Women ought to hold the PH", etc.

Ahh, Good times, good times...

[Snow]

Wow El, cool trick. Ctrl and scroll. Amazing this old dog taught a new trick.

Ben Raines

Holy Smokes!

That even works on my Mac - the one true computer.

[Gaia]

Now again, you post another scroll-beater without addressing my questions. It is as if you are more interested in giving a sermon than having a conversation. Now, I enjoy good sermons and I have even given some in this forum (whether they were good or not is negotiable). But, I think the natives are getting wrestless.

GAIA:

Please consider that (as the evidence shows) i began answering questions this morning at 7:30 am, and kept it up until well past noon, trying to address the (respectful) messages that were put to me one at a time, as completely as possible. That means some get answered later, or more slowly, than others. Particularly, Those that make specific challenges, require me to do extra research and therefore require more time and effort. As i've already explained to you privately, my time on the computer (or just sitting up) is limited for a number of reasons.

IOW, i'm sorry for any problems it may cause, but i'm really doing the best i can given the circumstances i have to deal with :) .

OK, in Msg 136 you say:

"I understand that you assert that the Church has altered documents. Are you saying that the specific wild mis-representations of the JoD you have listed are not mis-representations at all, but indicate what the text said before changes were made in the text? I did not see you address those specific quotes. If you are claiming those were changed, how? What references do you have to show these changes?

Now, with all respect, do you see that when you do not specifically address the precise holes in your assertions that it does NOT matter what you say to people? They feel like you are dodging their questions. If they get a post that wears out the scroll on their mouse but doesn't address their question or the issue at hand they feel cheated.

Do these quotes listed in your last two posts somehow address the erroneous representation of the citations I have mentioned? Or, are you saying, in effect: 'OK, your right, those citations don't mean what I said they mean, but here I have some others to demonstrate that Brigham Young taught what I assert him to have taught.'?

What ARE you saying about those specific quotes?"

-a-train

GAIA:

I did "address" (at least some of) those quotes, perhaps just not the way you wanted me to.

OK, let's try it again:

Starting with this one:

QUOTE

JD 12:97 Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday

Full Text Here (snipped for brevity)

A-Train's explanation:

Clearly Brigham did NOT say: 'Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday.' His reference to women as 'Eves' is symbolic as it is in the temple and does not imply they will be reincarnated as the first woman on a distant planet.

-a-train

GAIA NOW:

I'm saying a number of things:

1. First, that there are some errors in MY work:

For example, If you'll remember that very first post, toward the end i included a list of JD quotes with very brief -- in most cases one-line -- "explanations" of the "gist" of each of them, with a note that the JD is NOT considered official doctrine, and at the very end, an encouragement for each person to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. Those "explanations" were for my own use, i should never have included them in work presented to anybody else, and i deeply apologise, because while i knew their limitations, others could not.

For another example (of MY error): I had never gone through the entire list of quotes and references, to examine each quote and reference word for word with my GospeLink, but our discussion inspired me to do so -- That's another bit of what i've been doing, when i haven't been (promptly) answering all of your questions *smile*.

So i must admit that (as i've discovered during this process) some of those were misquoted (by me or the persons from whom i originally obtained them, years ago); some were mis-identified -- i couldn't even find a few of them.

I don't know all the explanations for those problems. I wish i did. I do know now that i've corrected my files, made sure all the quotes "jive" with GospeLink, and deleted the errors; and i will no longer make those mistakes, so i thank you for that.

2. I'm saying that there have been errors and changes to the historical record, by those charged with recording and maintaining the Library -- some of them deliberate, some perhaps just human error. Again, i cannot know all the reasons, and would prefer not to make assumptions, especially the kind attributing questionable intentions or motives, to people or situations that i cannot know (or prove).

3. I'm saying that despite all of that, my point in quoting yet MORE material was to show that in the long run and ultimately to the discussion and issue, none of that really mattered, because there were other quotes that DID prove the points i was attempting to make -- for example -- that 'Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday" --

According to the Adam-God teaching by Brigham and others, Eve is an Office which involves a celestialized, exalted woman helping to create a physical world to which she goes with her exalted, celestialized husband, Michael-Adam, to effect a fall from Exaltation/ Celestialization, to open up that world to mortality, and to provide physical, mortal tabernacles for THEIR spirit children

For quotes and references on that, Please see post # 138.

~Gaia

[john doe]

Hey Gaia?

Maybe you missed it when I told you I had already investigated the issue for myself before. I'm not going to go into specifics since it doesn't matter and I know you won't concede. My mind is made up on this, and the things you keep repeating are not new evidence to show how right you are and how wrong the LDS church is. Besides which, you are railing to the wrong people on this. You need to convince the current prophet that your assertions are true, because even he doesn't subscribe to your claims. He's the one you need to convince, and if you convince him to declare it an official doctrine of the church, then I'll revisit it. Until you do, the point is moot, your claim is invalid. If he won't say it's church doctrine, then as far as I'm concerned there is no need to pursue the matter further for anything more than recreational reaqsons.

Now, I'm going to grease my scroll wheel on my mouse, it has been squeaking since I have had to roll it past your ultra-lengthy 'evidences' of nothing.

[Gaia]

'He [Adam] was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.' (Journal of Discourses, 3: 319.)

Again, how does this imply that Adam is Eloheim?

GAIA:

First, the phrase "brought a wife with him" implies that he had received the Priesthood and the Principle of (Celestial) Marriage, in which case he'd have received both the "Preparatory" and the "Everlasting" Gospel --in that "Other" world, where he had successfully passed his Mortal probationary period.

THAT (according to D&C 132) is Exalted, Celestialized existence; and the only people we know of who were "celestial" and "exalted" at the formation of the world were HF and HM -- and THEIR Parents .

'Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth, until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth.' (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 4: 218.)

It is widely known and proclaimed that LDS believe that the Father took on a physical body just the same as did the Saviour and as did we, this provides no evidence that when Eloheim took upon himself the course material of a physical body, he became the Adam we read of in Genesis.

Now I acknowledge the fact that he said THIS earth, but if we were to conform to this word so strictly to say that the Father obtained his physical body on this planet, then we would have to also deny the notion so popular among the 'Adam-God-Theorists' that he obtained that body on another sphere and then came here, the same notion you represent in your first quote there.

GAIA:

No, i think you're misunderstanding the point here.

He (Adam) came here with a CELESTIALIZED, EXALTED body --

Now, you only get one of those AFTER successfully enduring a Mortal probationary period -- obeying the Gospel, enduring to the End, and getting Justified, Sanctified and Exalted (ie, D&C 132) --

That CELESTIALIZED body had to BECOME mortal AGAIN, and to achieve that, he had to "partak[e] of the course material that composed this earth, until His (Celestialized, Exalted) system was charged with it (ie, he "coarse material of the earth)."

THEN he (or rather, his wife Eve) could give physical birth to what we're told in other quotes, were THEIR SPIRIT CHILDREN.

'Suppose a man should come here and tell you the very nature of our Father Adam—tell precisely how he was organized, his height, his proportions, the extent of his knowledge, tell you the agreement that was entered into, the amount of knowledge that he had to forget to reduce himself to the capacity of a corruptible being! Suppose this could all be told to the congregations of the Saints, what would they know about it? Very little. There may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not. ' (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 13: 264.)

It is acknowledged that Adam, in the garden, took upon himself the viel and forgot all of his previous existance. This is not a forgotten or hidden doctrine, but is the subject of Sunday School lessons and missionary discussions. How are we to somehow suppose that his great knowledge which he forgot somehow implies he was Eloheim? This is not indicated in this quote.

GAIA:

With all due respect, i think you're missing an important hint, here:

Brigham certainly knew what all Sunday School lessons and missionary discussions taught -- WHY would he say that "there may be some minds which could grasp some things pertaining to it, but others could not"??? -- Because he was NOT just referring to Adam taking on the vail and forgetting what we generally think of as a "previous existence"as a Spirit son of Elohim/ HF in the Spirit World --

Instead, what Adam was "forgetting" -- the "agreement that he entered into" -- was to trade his existence as a CELESTIALIZED, EXALTED MAN OF HOLINESS in the Celestial Kingdom, for that of a "corruptible being" -- and that he therefore had to greatly "reduce" himself -- iow, just the opposite of what Paul said regarding "corruption putting on INcorruption" -- HOw do you think that would feel?

The next quote (from Heber C. Kimball), again, doesn't imply that Adam is Eloheim and you have already posted it. For that matter, isn't it possible that we could call Eloheim 'the First Man', but not imply He was Adam?

GAIA:

I suppose that is possible, but again, i just don't think it "fits" in the context of all the other quotes. I understand that you may, and that's your perfect right . . . .

But can YOU see that others might reasonably, honorably disagree with YOUR interpretation?

The last quote is again another repeat which we have already discussed, but you haven't answered my questions which I will sum up here: Do you assert that a single Being acted as Eloheim AND Michael simultaneously in the Quorum mentioned by Brigham Young when he said: 'the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum'?

GAIA:

Please remember that I don't "assert" anything, A-Train. I never have.

I'm saying -- as i have all along -- that this teaching and these quotes can be interpreted or understood as saying

A. that just as a single being can, at one moment, fill the Office of Bishop, and at another moment or in another context, be a Home Teacher; or just as a single being could be at one moment/ context a Stake President and at another, a Temple President or Apostle --

So a single Being COULD have filled the Priesthood Office of Elohim at one moment or in one context, and at another moment or context, have filled the Office of Michael-Adam;

In all these cases, They would still be "distinct characters" with distinct (and very different) roles, authority, powers, responsibilities, and obligations. We would no more pray to Adam than we would expect the HOme Teacher to run the ward, or the Stake President to dictate official doctrine.

AND

B. That the term "Elohim" is NOT a proper name, it is first of all, a PLURAL; second, in LDS practice, it refers to "THE GODS" -- I can present more evidence on that if you wish -- and "The Gods" can mean the pre-Mortal "Noble and Great Ones" who helped with the Creation, or those who have been Sanctified, Glorified and Exalted -- including HF and HM, as well as THEIR Heavenly Parents, and so on, back through Eternities.

So, there is a GRANDFATHER -- HF's Father, who can "fill in" any position, role or Office when so required or needed;

So what you're referring to as "Elohiem" in the quote, could have been a) the "NOble and Great Ones", B) the Grandfather or c) other exalted, Celestialized Beings.....

That's my answer to that question. If it's not agreeable, i'm sorry, but i have no other for you.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[pam]

Ugh another huge post. My attention span is not that long.