Questions Re "adam-god"

[john doe]

<div class='quotemain'>

One of the reasons that yoga is so popular is that if you twist your body into wild contortions so much that you eventually look like a pretzel, eventually you get to a point where 'clarity' kicks in. Or you neck hurts from all the twists. By the same token, if you take BY's words and twist the gospel just so, and bend your mind just right, you will be able to understand the Adam-God theory in the same way that ardent believers in the theory do.

I'm sorry, my mind just doesn't bend that way.....

I suggest you post your theory on the MA&D board and let those who deal with these things on a daily basis take a whack at it. I suspect you won't because you don't want to give up on a pet theory, but it would be a good place to see where the holes in your theory are. There are many church scholars and pseudo-scholars over there who would be happy to show you where you are right and where you are wrong.

GAIA:

Y'know, there's a HUGE difference between (on the one hand) saying, "This thing just doesn't make sense, heart or spirit to me, and i don't expect it ever will....";

- And (on the other hand) saying something like, "And you have evil/ unworthy / suspicious motives for raising, talking or thinking about it in the first place!"

Unfortunately, That's the sort of hostility that some folks seem to harbor about many of these "controversial" issues....I think that sort of defensiveness is rather sad;

-- And ilt's precisely what i was talking about with my "few personal notes" at the end of that previous post - allowing the Church's enemies to define those issues in negative and troubling terms, which then have to be defended against.

Hopefully, we'll get beyond that, some day.

Blessings --

~Gaia

I'm sorry, where exactly in my post did you get that I was accusing you of what you claim?

[BenRaines]

Checkerboy,

I too believe much as you do. There are only a few things that one must do to return to our Heavenly Father after enduring to the end.

As far as posts that are way out in left field or are speculation or interpretations of what was said by someone 50, 100 or over 200 years ago or thousands of years ago I tend to rely on the current living prophet for my guidance of what The Lord would have me do. I leave the rest to the intellectuals of the world.

I am just a poor farm boy without much of an education.

Ben Raines

[Gaia]

I like how this site is called LDSTalk yet for some reason a majority of the threads are dominated by those who are either former members or not members at all. And a lot of the topics seem to be about things that most LDS could care less about. I know that for me I just care about the things I need to do to get me into heaven.

Don't get me wrong or misquote me, wink wink, I don't have anything against non-members (or members for that matter) coming here and putting there two cents in but when it is blatent that the only reason they are doing so is to illicit some sort of controversial response then I think it is time to take our boards back.

If you want to come here and learn something about the church then welcome, if you want to come here and muck up controversy then I would kindly ask that you post somewhere else. There are forums here that are meant for this kind of controversy. Maybe we can move this there so at least I know what I am getting into if I choose to read.

GAIA:

Hi There, Checkerboy --

I certainly think you have an absolute, inalienable right to determine what you will and won't read --

But how does that translate into telling OTHER people what they can and cannot post about?

I've been a poster on LDS boards for a very long time, and in my experience, the way ADULTS choose to handle it when they dislike (or have no use for) a particular thread is -- they don't bother to read it. They skip it or "twit" it (and maybe its poster) and get on with reading what they DO want to read, rather than telling other people what topics they should post on.

This thread was very clearly marked with its topic -- that topic was NOT hidden or "sprung" on you; there was NO "bait and switch" here. So if you think the topic is so useless and inappropriate, why did you bother to read it anyway, KNOWING what it was about?

Wtih all due respect, it sure seems to me you're not quite being honest with yourself or us, Checkerboy.

Two suggestions:

1. Read whatever you want; but once you decide to read, it becomes YOUR responsibility -- not somebody else's to "protect" you from your own choices.

2. Please don't presume to tell others what they can and cannot post on or talk about - at least until you're a Moderator (All due respect and appreciation to the Mods!)

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Moksha]

Therefore couldn't BY and HK have been simply refering to the fact that Adam as the Father of all the mortals on the planet will stand as a judge over all of us?

I thought the New Testament said that Jesus would do this. Is there a scriptorian on duty?

I don't have anything against non-members (or members for that matter) coming here and putting there two cents in but when it is blatent that the only reason they are doing so is to illicit some sort of controversial response then I think it is time to take our boards back.

Checkerboy, if not for discussion worthy items, these type of boards sometimes can involve recipes and announcements of missionary farewells. Besides, are you able to discuss these types of gospel related issues in Church? I know they never occur in my ward. It is much better to storm the Bastille and let in the light of day, than to live an perfectly ordinary and humdrum existence. That way we can learn and progress.

[MadHatter]

GAIA:

Hi There, Checkerboy --

I certainly think you have an absolute, inalienable right to determine what you will and won't read --

But how does that translate into telling OTHER people what they can and cannot post about?

there are proper places and times to discuss certain facets of anything. and this particular thread needs to die

A Moderator has the right to close, delete, move and edit threads. you post for the sake of argument and controversy. not for growth and enlightenment. go to a debate forum where peopel care to debate.

I've been a poster on LDS boards for a very long time, and in my experience, the way ADULTS choose to handle it when they dislike (or have no use for) a particular thread is -- they don't bother to read it. They skip it or "twit" it (and maybe its poster) and get on with reading what they DO want to read, rather than telling other people what topics they should post on.

Gaia

Group: Members

Posts: 114

Joined: 9-September 07

Member No.: 20,922

Religion: Seeker of Wisdom

Yeah, real long time posting here it looks like... or did you get banned once and had to make a new account?

This thread was very clearly marked with its topic -- that topic was NOT hidden or "sprung" on you; there was NO "bait and switch" here. So if you think the topic is so useless and inappropriate, why did you bother to read it anyway, KNOWING what it was about?

Again, you post things for controversy and debates rather than learning. you aske questions, someone answers then you say "well nono, what about this (10 page post later)" and all of it is written in the 3rd person. get over yourself and talk like a normal person.

Wtih all due respect, it sure seems to me you're not quite being honest with yourself or us, Checkerboy.

Honest about what? he is being honest youa re the one causing arguments and controversy. Do you realize that maybe someone has a budding testimony that will get rocked by your blantant outcries to stir up trouble?

Two suggestions:

1. Read whatever you want; but once you decide to read, it becomes YOUR responsibility -- not somebody else's to "protect" you from your own choices.

2. Please don't presume to tell others what they can and cannot post on or talk about - at least until you're a Moderator (All due respect and appreciation to the Mods!)

blah blah blah, stop posting where you aren't wanted.

[Gaia]

GAIA:

OH THANK YOU, Hatter -- I needed a good laugh!

[MadHatter]

<div class='quotemain'>

Therefore couldn't BY and HK have been simply refering to the fact that Adam as the Father of all the mortals on the planet will stand as a judge over all of us?

I thought the New Testament said that Jesus would do this. Is there a scriptorian on duty?

I don't have anything against non-members (or members for that matter) coming here and putting there two cents in but when it is blatent that the only reason they are doing so is to illicit some sort of controversial response then I think it is time to take our boards back.

Checkerboy, if not for discussion worthy items, these type of boards sometimes can involve recipes and announcements of missionary farewells. Besides, are you able to discuss these types of gospel related issues in Church? I know they never occur in my ward. It is much better to storm the Bastille and let in the light of day, than to live an perfectly ordinary and humdrum existence. That way we can learn and progress.

There is nothing wrong with discussing them with the appropriate audience. and the audience of this forum is not generally for debates.

[Moksha]

blah blah blah, stop posting where you aren't wanted.

A Hatter with an attitude, eh?

Personally, I like a good attitude, where people respect and value one another despite whether they disagree or not.

[a-train]

Gaia,

You still haven't addressed the deletions in the quotes you provided. Are you planning on addressing that? You said you got them from LDS sources, but the LDS sources I have are not edited and altered that way. The anti sites ALL are edited that way.

If you were indeed a research assistant, how can you possibly let such deletions fly? Did you not realize this? Do you think the deletions are not pertinent? What is up?

-a-train

[Jason]

If ellipses are a crime, then you should read Wilford Woodruff's unedited talk as not found in Official Declaration #1. There's a reason why the Church used ellipses!

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

These records, simply are not scripture. They were never EVER referred to as scripture either.

GAIA:

With all due respect, that is simply WRONG ;

In fact, in General Conference, (President and Prophet) Brigham Young specifically called the doctrine "SCRIPTURE" -- See Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec. (The quote is a long address, so be sure to read it entirely)

- and in another (see below) he referred to it as revelation.

Therefore, If you have an issue with it, your issue is with Brigham, and the other GA's who taught the doctrine over a quarter century.

Dishonesty is hardly a tactic I would employ to win friends and influence people - then on the other hand, maybe you aren't trying to win and influence.

Every Mormon knows what scripture is. It is standardized, known, codified and canonized.

Whatever theory of Adam-God you are trying to promote as a teaching of Brigham Young is not scripture, nor has it ever been and it is not doctrine, nor has it ever been.

Honesty is called for here.

First, I was blessed to be a research assistant to some of the best (BYU) Religion Profs and experts in LDS history and doctrine -- I had access to the Church Historian's office and even the Archives/ Vault, so i do have some materials not readily available to others, but i try to limit my use of them on boards like this.

Oh - a claim to secret superior knowledge. How very surprizing.

Did you know that I once won the Superbowl and bowled a 300 game with oven mitts on?

[MadHatter]

<div class='quotemain'>

blah blah blah, stop posting where you aren't wanted.

A Hatter with an attitude, eh?

Personally, I like a good attitude, where people respect and value one another despite whether they disagree or not.

sorry about the attitude, i shouldn't take it personally epsecially since it wasn't a respond to my posts.

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

These records, simply are not scripture. They were never EVER referred to as scripture either.

GAIA:

With all due respect, that is simply WRONG ;

In fact, in General Conference, (President and Prophet) Brigham Young specifically called the doctrine "SCRIPTURE" -- See Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec. (The quote is a long address, so be sure to read it entirely)

- and in another (see below) he referred to it as revelation.

Therefore, If you have an issue with it, your issue is with Brigham, and the other GA's who taught the doctrine over a quarter century.

Dishonesty is hardly a tactic I would employ to win friends and influence people - then on the other hand, maybe you aren't trying to win and influence.

Every Mormon knows what scripture is. It is standardized, known, codified and canonized.

Whatever theory of Adam-God you are trying to promote as a teaching of Brigham Young is not scripture, nor has it ever been and it is not doctrine, nor has it ever been.

Honesty is called for here.

First, I was blessed to be a research assistant to some of the best (BYU) Religion Profs and experts in LDS history and doctrine -- I had access to the Church Historian's office and even the Archives/ Vault, so i do have some materials not readily available to others, but i try to limit my use of them on boards like this.

Oh - a claim to secret superior knowledge. How very surprizing.

Did you know that I once won the Superbowl and bowled a 300 game with oven mitts on?

You did Snow? Can I have your autograph? Or even one of the oven mitts? I'd treasure itall the rest of my days.

[Moksha]

Oh - a claim to secret superior knowledge. How very surprizing.

Did you know that I once won the Superbowl and bowled a 300 game with oven mitts on?

Secret superior knowledge? Sounds rather gnostic to me.

The thing is, what Gaia said was factual about her background, and I doubt she would claim any superiority. Some folks have had through school or experience a lot of religious education. That said, it does not diminish the individual worth of anyone's opinion for they are all worthy of being heard.

Congratulations on the Superbowl, 300 game and the oven mitts.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Therefore couldn't BY and HK have been simply refering to the fact that Adam as the Father of all the mortals on the planet will stand as a judge over all of us?

I thought the New Testament said that Jesus would do this. Is there a scriptorian on duty?

Hi Moksha,

This is from Chapter 46 of Gospel Principles (with a nod of appreciation to "Still_Small_Voice" at LDSForums for making this readily available):

"The Apostle John taught that “the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son” (John 5:22). The Son, in turn, will call upon others to assist in the Judgment. The Twelve who were with him in his ministry will judge the twelve tribes of Israel (see Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). The Nephite Twelve will judge the Nephite and Lamanite people (see 1 Nephi 12:9–10; Mormon 3:18–19). President John Taylor said the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles in our own dispensation will also judge us."

As Michael/Adam was a member of the Divine Council, I imagine he might have a few important duties to perform in the hereafter as well (even perhaps standing as a judge of sorts).

On a quasi-side-note, in Chapter 20 of the Book of Enoch, it says that Michael “who, presiding over human virtue, commands the nations.”

[Gaia]

The thing is, what Gaia said was factual about her background, and I doubt she would claim any superiority. Some folks have had through school or experience a lot of religious education. That said, it does not diminish the individual worth of anyone's opinion for they are all worthy of being heard.

GAIA:

So true, Moksha -- EVERYONE's opinion is important and deserves to be heard -- as long as they express it respectfully, i think.

As far as "special knowledge" is concerned, i'll quote Joseph Smith:

"God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them"

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 149).

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Gaia]

<div class='quotemain'>

These records, simply are not scripture. They were never EVER referred to as scripture either.

GAIA:

With all due respect, that is simply WRONG ;

In fact, in General Conference, (President and Prophet) Brigham Young specifically called the doctrine "SCRIPTURE" -- See Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec. (The quote is a long address, so be sure to read it entirely)

- and in another (see below) he referred to it as revelation.

Therefore, If you have an issue with it, your issue is with Brigham, and the other GA's who taught the doctrine over a quarter century.

Dishonesty is hardly a tactic I would employ to win friends and influence people - then on the other hand, maybe you aren't trying to win and influence.

Every Mormon knows what scripture is. It is standardized, known, codified and canonized.

Whatever theory of Adam-God you are trying to promote as a teaching of Brigham Young is not scripture, nor has it ever been and it is not doctrine, nor has it ever been.

Honesty is called for here.

GAIA NOW:

First as i've said several times, i'm not "promoting" anything; i was ASKED A QUESTION about this teaching, and i answered it.

Secondly, i have already shown how this teaching was consistent with and taught in both Biblical and Book of Mormon scripture;

Thirdly, that is not the only definition of "scripture" in official LDS thought: I respectfully remind you of D&C 68:4

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

First, I was blessed to be a research assistant to some of the best (BYU) Religion Profs and experts in LDS history and doctrine -- I had access to the Church Historian's office and even the Archives/ Vault, so i do have some materials not readily available to others, but i try to limit my use of them on boards like this.

Oh - a claim to secret superior knowledge. How very surprizing.

GAIA:

Yup -- i heartily reccomend to you the following scriptures:

(John 14:26.)

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

(Doctrine and Covenants 88:118.)

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith

~Gaia

[a-train]

Gaia,

Did you address the issue with the quotes being edited and altered? Did I just miss that? I was hoping you would get to that.

-a-train

[Maureen]

..go to a debate forum where peopel care to debate...

It appears Gaia has come to the right place because many posters here like to debate.

M.

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

..go to a debate forum where peopel care to debate...

It appears Gaia has come to the right place because many posters here like to debate.

M.

I would like to debate whether or not people here like to debate...

[Annabelli]

Doctor Steuss: As Michael/Adam was a member of the Divine Council, I imagine he might have a few important duties to perform in the hereafter as well (even perhaps standing as a judge of sorts).

I thought that Michael is an angel, and the only angel who did not disagree with God's plan to give the free agency. (Because angels do not possess the free agency.) And in the days of old, angels appeared to man in the form of men.

I think Adam is a very important Prophet of this world but that he is "ADAM." (And God is God, Jesus-Jesus, Moses-Moses)

I don't understand how angels can appear to men and be the men that they appear to.

[Adomini22]

Doctor Steuss: As Michael/Adam was a member of the Divine Council, I imagine he might have a few important duties to perform in the hereafter as well (even perhaps standing as a judge of sorts).

I thought that Michael is an angel, and the only angel who did not disagree with God's plan to give the free agency. (Because angels do not possess the free agency.) And in the days of old, angels appeared to man in the form of men.

I think Adam is a very important Prophet of this world but that he is "ADAM." (And God is God, Jesus-Jesus, Moses-Moses)

I don't understand how angels can appear to men and be the men that they appear to.

Ok, like half of that post doesnt even correspond with LDS theology.

[Annabelli]

Adomini: Like how would you know since Snow said:

The Church - deliberately - has no systematic theology and no one place that you can turn to to learn what we believe. The spirit behind the Church is spirit of prophecy and we do not define ourselves or limit ourselves by creeds and comprehensive promulgations.

It the most fundamental sense, the scriptures consititute the core of our beliefs. They are the canon, the standard by which we measure all else. To that you should consider what is officially published by the Church under the auspices of the First Presidency as approved to be accepted doctrine but only insofar as it is consistent with the canon. All else may be good and it may be true but in practical terms it is commentary, opinion and interpretation.

(Copied from What Is *official* Doctrine?....post 22)

[MichaelH]

Wow guys, im all confused after reading all this.

Getting to the temple ceremony explains alot to me.

[Annabelli]

The Stake President interviewed me and explained everything that I would need to know and addressed all my questions. I had been well prepared when I entered the Temple for the first time.

I should add that the Temple Prep classes were a valuable preparation for my interview with the Stake President.