Questions Re "adam-god"

[Gaia]

Hi Again, JohnDoe --

Your argument pretty much consists of, "Don't confuse me with any facts, my mind is made up."

So hey, Good luck with that! B)

Blessings --

~Gaia

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

GAIA:

Hi Pam --

Actually, i tried to cut them down to several posts of more reasonable size, but somehow the system automatically combined all of them into one big mess again! LOL -- Sorry 'bout that.

Try reading just one bit at a time/ sitting, see if that helps?

~Gaia

[pam]

Hi Again, JohnDoe --

Your argument pretty much consists of, "Don't confuse me with any facts, my mind is made up."

So hey, Good luck with that! B)

Blessings --

~Gaia

<div class='quotemain'>

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

GAIA:

Hi Pam --

Actually, i tried to cut them down to several posts of more reasonable size, but somehow the system automatically combined all of them into one big mess again! LOL -- Sorry 'bout that.

Try reading just one bit at a time/ sitting, see if that helps?

~Gaia

You are missing the point here Gaia. I think I speak for a great majority who just don't have time to sit here, even a little at a time, and read all the long posts you are famous for. I'm sorry.

[a-train]

Gaia,

For the sake of brevity, I'll try to ask some short simple questions.

If Adam & Eve possessed Celestial bodies before the fall, what evidence do we have that they had to pass through mortality to obtain these physical Celestial bodies before coming to this earth? Please do not repeat quotes, just answer the question.

Could they have received Celestial bodies, the Priesthood, and Eternal Marriage without yet suffering mortality?

Even if they had passed through mortality, does this somehow demonstrate that Adam is Heavenly Father?

Does Adam's giving up of great knowledge and wisdom, Celestial glory, etc., demonstrate that he was Heavenly Father? Didn't the archangel possess great knowledge and power and Celestial glory?

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the character Brigham Young called Eloheim in the Quorum of Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, was NOT Heavenly Father, but someone else? What did Brigham say, in that quote, to indicate that?

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.

Isn't this more of a lens we must put on to read Brigham Young and get 'Adam-God', rather than what naturally comes out of his teachings?

How much merit should we give to the interpretations of Brigham's teachings by the prophets and apostles that came after him? Do you realize that they do not reject Brigham's teachings on this matter, but simply interpret them differently than 'Adam-God-Theory'?

God Bless

-a-train

[john doe]

Gaia,

Do you even bother to read what I write before you decide to cut-and-paste more? My posts are teeny tiny slivers of the size of the ones you post and expect everyone else here to read, yet you can't even seem to get your brain around a small concept like condensing things to make a point? Your lack of consideration for others here is getting exasperating. BTW, have you bothered to answer Snow's objections to your posts, let alone mine?

This garbage you spew about not confusing me with facts is just that, garbage. Read my words again. Your cut-and-pastes are not new facts, they are restreads. I have already studied the issue to my satisfation and I have made up my mind. Just because I don't happen to agree with you doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. The Adam/God Theory is NOT official LDS doctrine, no matter how much you insist the opposite.

Now, if you have a hard time understanding my words, just read a sentence at a time, slowly. If you have to, walk away and think about that sentence. Then come back and read another sentence. Before long, you'll figure out what I'm saying.

[prisonchaplain]

I have not followed this string carefully, but my question is unique. Understanding the "Adam as God" is not a doctrine currently believed by most LDS, how would those who do believe it explain what happened in the Garden of Eden? Who did Adam rebel against? Also, when did he become God--before or after?

[Annabelli]

While this post has been re-inventing itself several times, I noticed from the responses of GAIA, that GAIA does not read GAIA's cut/paste/references either.

[john doe]

I think I'm about done with Gaia.

[a-train]

I have not followed this string carefully, but my question is unique. Understanding the "Adam as God" is not a doctrine currently believed by most LDS, how would those who do believe it explain what happened in the Garden of Eden? Who did Adam rebel against? Also, when did he become God--before or after?

PC, This is the tip of the iceberg for problems with the 'Adam-God-Theory', If Jesus was the Only Begotten of Adam, then who were these people Adam begat in Genesis 5:4?

I think most of them say Adam didn't sin or rebel at all. They put a lot more emphasis and meaning to Joseph Smith's use of the term 'transgression' in describing the fall. And as far as I know, they all believe Adam was God BEFORE coming to this earth.

On the one hand, there is a righteous frustration or disappointment in my heart concerning good intending LDS people who blow it with false doctrine (I'm sure I've been guilty). I don't like those new to the faith or just discovering it for the first time being clouded by that.

But on the other hand, I recognize the confusion the LORD puts upon those who will not obey and the tests He uses to try His people. I cannot remove what the LORD has placed. LDS persons, accountable for their actions, who knowingly transgress are delivered to darkness and fables. Investigators come to know God by passing through the tests of faith offered by such obstacles.

'Adam-God' is one such fable, and even when the Prophet says so in words as plain as these, the wicked cannot see it until they repent, myself included.

(Nobody take that personal, I am not implicating anyone on this forum).

-a-train

[Annabelli]

THE END.

[Canuck Mormon]

THE END.

All in favour, please indicate by the raising of your right hand.

All opposed?

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

THE END.

All in favour, please indicate by the raising of your right hand.

All opposed?

*right hand up after the first request*

*looking around after the second question, and seeing no one*

[snipe123]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

THE END.

All in favour, please indicate by the raising of your right hand.

All opposed?

*right hand up after the first request*

*looking around after the second question, and seeing no one*

Hi everyone,

Jack Welch is writing a research paper on this very subject. It is work in progress and he is intending it to cover all aspects of this issue, he is asking for feedback on what he has so far...You can view the paper as it stands today here:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adam_god.htm

The link for emailing feedback is prominently displayed along with his request for said feedback at the top...

I have also been reviewing several good papers on the subject today here:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai002.html

I particulalry liked this one:

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm

Rather than post a novel with cut/pasted paragraphs from it, I provided the links so you can read them completely if desired...

Many but not all of Gaia's assertions are adressed in the links above... :)

This one is also good: http://www.eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

[Moksha]

I feel badly that I was not more supportive of Gaia on this thread. I am not really into debating and I don't think on a point by point basis. I do however have a conscience and a sense of fair play and so I lament the barbs and rudeness that was heaped upon Gaia in many posts throughout this thread.

On another site, I have at times felt myself being a board nanny urging my fellow posters to observe an attitude of respect and caring even for those with whom one disagrees. This is strongly based on the Golden Rule to which all religions subscribe. We as religious or ethical people should seek to apply this message to our words and behavior.

My public apology Gaia for having been lax in speaking up. I want to make amends.

[Gaia]

I feel badly that I was not more supportive of Gaia on this thread. I am not really into debating and I don't think on a point by point basis. I do however have a conscience and a sense of fair play and so I lament the barbs and rudeness that was heaped upon Gaia in many posts throughout this thread.

On another site, I have at times felt myself being a board nanny urging my fellow posters to observe an attitude of respect and caring even for those with whom one disagrees. This is strongly based on the Golden Rule to which all religions subscribe. We as religious or ethical people should seek to apply this message to our words and behavior.

My public apology Gaia for having been lax in speaking up. I want to make amends.

GAIA:

Dear Moksha, thank you so much for your Christian attitude; but please don't give it another thought.

Some folks talk the talk -- or are so busy debating that they completely forget the basic principles they were supposedly "defending" -- others (like you and the others who emailed me) walk the walk, and i understand that.

But all of you who -- like Moksha -- expressed your thoughtfulness, respect and fair-mindedness -- thank you, sincerely

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Moksha]

GAIA:

Dear Moksha, thank you so much for your Christian attitude; but please don't give it another thought.

Some folks talk the talk -- or are so busy debating that they completely forget the basic principles they were supposedly "defending" -- others (like you and the others who emailed me) walk the walk, and i understand that.

But all of you who -- like Moksha -- expressed your thoughtfulness, respect and fair-mindedness -- thank you, sincerely

Blessings --

~Gaia

You are most welcome Gaia. As you point out, we must all walk the walk for we are all the shining Children of God.

The assumption should never be made that just because one is a skilled debater, that they have a thicker skin or less feelings than anyone else. Those blessed with a remarkable memory and native intelligence like Gaia, are just as vulnerable and deserving of consideration as the rest. We should honor these people for their wisdom and vast store of knowledge.

[Old Tex]

I dropped off this thread a while back, mainly because it is settled in my mind. The first time I read of this Adam/God business was in an anti pamphlet published by the Southern Baptist Convention in the early 1960s before I joined the Church.

This was long before information for research was available like it is now. Still I felt strongly to ignore it, and a lot of other things that were in that pamphlet, and my wife and I joined that Church.

There were too many things I found positive about the Church to worry about something that I could find no real evidence of. So, guys, just mark me up as one who will ask Brother Brigham what he said some day and will give it some thought then.

[Elphaba]

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

Ben Raines

Ben,

I just read this today, and had no idea what you were talking about, as I didn't teach you any new tricks whatsoever. I scrolled back and discovered it was "Iggy" you should be thanking.

Elphaba