Adam, God, Scripture And Doctrine

[Snow]

On another thread a poster asserts that the idea that Adam is really God, the Father should be understood in the LDS Church as both scripture and doctrine.

I say it, to whatever extent anybody in the Church, Brigham Young included, may have thought that, it was neither Church doctrine nor scriptural.

What do you say?

[Brother Dorsey]

On another thread a poster asserts that the idea that Adam is really God, the Father should be understood in the LDS Church as both scripture and doctrine.

I say it, to whatever extent anybody in the Church, Brigham Young included, may have thought that, it was neither Church doctrine nor scriptural.

What do you say?

I've been a member of the church most of my adult life and I have never been taught anything about this, nor have I ever read about it in church books, on the church web site or in the scriptures....therefore it is neither doctrine nor is it scripture. If it was at one time as some people state then why is it not now? If you really think about it, if it were true this ancient doctrine would not be changed or dropped by the Lord as it happened in the beginning....not like the doctrine of plural marriage or blacks and the priesthood....it was and idea, that's all!

[a-train]

This is a trick poll.

The Adam-God question is a trick question.

Scripture does NOT say that Adam is Eloheim. As far as I am aware, I have yet to see any of the latter-day prophets even assume this, much less claim it to be revealed. We do not even find this teaching in non-canonized speaches and writings of LDS leaders. It is a doctrine of apostates and the false accusation of anti-mormons. It ALWAYS HAS BEEN.

Now it is a matter of scripture that Adam is Michael, the prince of all, the archangel, and the Ancient of Days (D&C 27:11 & 107:54). He was given all authority and dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26), he holds the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of Christ (D&C 78:16), he shall call the dead from their graves (D&C 29:26), he shall visit his people and sit in judgement in Adam-ondi-Ahman (D&C 116:1) where he blessed the high priests and the righteous of the first dispensation with a great patriarchal blessing (D&C 107:53).

A kingdom of all nations, peoples, languages, dominions, and powers shall be possessed eternally by Adam and the Saints. Adam shall stand and give account in the judgement bar of Christ as the grand head of the human family (Daniel 7). They shall inherit the earth (Matt 5:5). All things shall be theirs, and they shall be Christ's, and Christ is God's (D&C 76:59)

Now here is an interesting question: If Adam is NOT resurrected, the earth is NOT restored to it's pre-fallen state, Eve is NOT restored to Adam, Adam's dominion is NOT restored, and any other blessings and powers given to Adam in the garden are NOT restored in the end; then can we really say he was fully redeemed from the fall? Is the Blood of Christ sufficient to fully redeem Adam from the fall?

The declaration and testament of the scriptures is an emphatic YES.

Do we assume that after the resurrection we will have no relation to Adam? Do we think that he will just fade into obscurity as 'just another angel'?

Those of us who are familiar with the sealing power of the Priesthood wherein the family unit can endure through the eternities can appreciate the grand position of our father Adam. We indeed call it righteousness to pay tribute to our earthly parents, will we not do so to our greatest grandfather?

Adam, like our righteous earthly father, if we are so blessed to have one, exhorts his children to come unto Christ and partake of the fruit of eternal life. We honor him, respect him, sustain him, and love him. We acknowledge his God-given authority and dominion. It would be sin not to do so.

However, he is not the Most High God, he is not our Heavenly Father whom we call Eloheim. The assertion of such is not only absurd, but was never made by Brigham Young or any other worthy LDS leaders. Statements to the affect that Adam is God is with regard to his position in both the Priesthood and as the head of the human family, but NOT that he is Eloheim.

-a-train

[Snow]

This is a trick poll.

The Adam-God question is a trick question.

Lots of good info. Thanks for the thoughts but, here, you are overing thinking it. I am simply asking if the idea, whoever''s idead, that Adam is also God the Father is doctrine and is scripture.

That's it. Nothing fancy.

[a-train]

<div class='quotemain'>

This is a trick poll.

The Adam-God question is a trick question.

Lots of good info. Thanks for the thoughts but, here, you are overing thinking it. I am simply asking if the idea, whoever''s idead, that Adam is also God the Father is doctrine and is scripture.

That's it. Nothing fancy.

I know. I just hate the utilization of ambiguity among the antis to divide and confuse, so I hope to make certain what we are talking about here.

-a-train

[Moksha]

Should have said "scripture or doctrine" or just left out the word scripture, since that seems to imply a higher order of writing. Actually, I think the term "doctrine-out-in-left-field" would have been even closer to the mark.

[Snow]

Should have said "scripture or doctrine" or just left out the word scripture, since that seems to imply a higher order of writing. Actually, I think the term "doctrine-out-in-left-field" would have been even closer to the mark.

The original poster claimed that it was or is both scripture and doctrine.

As to doctrine out of left field, I believe that most LDS folks look at it the way I do... that doctrine is something that is true and does not change. Doctrine cannot be true one day and untrue another day. It is always true. All things not doctrinal are opinion or interpretation. If untrue they are fake or false doctrine and hence not doctrine.

[Gaia]

I've been a member of the church most of my adult life and I have never been taught anything about this, nor have I ever read about it in church books, on the church web site or in the scriptures....therefore it is neither doctrine nor is it scripture. If it was at one time as some people state then why is it not now? If you really think about it, if it were true this ancient doctrine would not be changed or dropped by the Lord as it happened in the beginning....not like the doctrine of plural marriage or blacks and the priesthood....it was and idea, that's all!

GAIA:

Hi There, Brother Dorsey --

You probably know that there have been changes to LDS doctrine over the years -- for example, Polygamy used to be both taught and practiced; now anyone who does either, has their membership in question The examples your gave -- both polygamy and the issue of the Black and Priesthood --are examples of the fact that Church doctrines can and have changed over the years. Others include the literal Gathering of Israel -- for many years, the saints were taught that the Gathering was quite literal, and they were counseled to "come to Zion".....now, that's been changed, and the current counsel is to "build Zion" wherever they live.

I'm not saying (and i've never suggested) that anyone was required to beleive this doctrine. I didn't even bring it up -- if you'll go back and read the original thread, you will find that someone else raised it, i only answered their question about it.

If you want to know the truth about this issue, i strongly reccomend you read LDS material published while it was taught -- between 1852 and approximately 1885 or so. The Journal of Discourses is one good resource, but there are many others, including all the offiical publications of the Church during that era, such as the Deseret News, the Juvenile Instructor, the Elder's Journal, the Millennial Star, the Women's Exponent, etc . . . .

Blessings --

~GAia

[a-train]

OK,

errrch. Pump the brakes. Doctrine does NOT EVER change. Truth does NOT CHANGE. Now, what is accepted by the body of the Church as doctrine can change, but this would not be from one truth to an alternate, but from either truth to fiction or fiction to truth.

It must be understood that God has power and authority to say 'Thou shalt not kill'. But on the same principle He has power and authority to say 'Thou shalt kill'. The various scenerios wherein one or the other may be the case do not demonstrate changes in the truth or in doctrine, but in the implementation of eternal principles by the Almighty given various circumstances.

The whole of Christianity acknowledges the will of God in the fulfillment of the lesser law and the changes of practice associated therewith found in the New Testament. Is this because God grew tired of circumcision and on a whim changed eternal principles? Of course not! They, like the LDS, see that it was in the purpose and mind of God from the beginning to bring about the implementation of the higher law with the coming of the Messiah.

If it were an eternal principle that any persons engaging in plural marriage are therein engaged in sin, then the great prophets of antiquity stand in dishonor. We acknowledge that in the very same instance of his wrestle with the LORD and his reception of the Patriarchal Covenant, the Prophet Jacob was a polygamist.

If indeed the engagement in plural marriage as practiced by Jacob is an eternal principle, unchangeable in nature, then the modern Mormons aren't the only persons in danger of failure to so practice it, but the whole of Christianity stands in contrast to the truth.

The reality is the fact that practice is not doctrine or eternal truth, but the implementation thereof. It is because of our drastically inferior understanding of eternal principles relative to God's that we need revelation to determine a course of action that will prove beneficial in light of eternal truth.

Those who pretend that the Mormon God is constantly changing in contrast to a Biblical God who has never changed simply do not understand the Mormon God, or the Bible, or either.

-a-train

[Snow]

I see someone voted that Adam-God, as they understood it, was, at least at one time, both a matter of scripture and doctrine.

Here's what a recent prophet and president of the Church said:

"We denounce [the Adam-God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." (President Kimball - Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1-3, 1976))

Maybe President Kimball just wasn't as knowledgeable as the poster on matters of doctrine and scripture.. Ya think?

[Snow]

GAIA:

Hi There, Brother Dorsey --

You probably know that there have been changes to LDS doctrine over the years

You are just a big mystery... I have supposed that your continual spreading of falsehood was a matter of dishonesty. Since you claim to be LDS that seems the most likely scenario. I may be mistaken. Perhaps there is another reason I have failed to consider. If so, feel free to chime in.

As to your FALSE claim that doctrine changes:

"It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of it’s meaning are revealed." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

-- for example, Polygamy used to be both taught and practiced; now anyone who does either, has their membership in question

Dumb example (not you, I know you are not dunb - it's your example). The principle (or doctrine if that is what one thinks it is) of plural marriage still exists in the Church. The PRACTICE of plural marriage has changed.

and the issue of the Black and Priesthood --are examples of the fact that Church doctrines can and have changed over the years.

Another dumb and FALSE example. It has never been a matter of doctrine that black people would not at some point receive the priesthood, Brigham Young's opinion that it wouldn't happen before the 2nd Coming notwithstanding.

If you are going to convince anyone to believe your falsehoods, you'll have to do better than that.

Others include the literal Gathering of Israel -- for many years, the saints were taught that the Gathering was quite literal, and they were counseled to "come to Zion".....now, that's been changed, and the current counsel is to "build Zion" wherever they live.

Perhaps the worst of your FALSE examples. The Church has not changed it's belief in the literal Gathering of Israel - do you even ever go to Church? The Church has given counsel and instructions to member about how they ought best behave now. No doctrine has changed.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

GAIA:

Hi There, Brother Dorsey --

You probably know that there have been changes to LDS doctrine over the years

You are just a big mystery... I have supposed that your continual spreading of falsehood was a matter of dishonesty. Since you claim to be LDS that seems the most likely scenario. I may be mistaken. Perhaps there is another reason I have failed to consider. If so, feel free to chime in.

As to your FALSE claim that doctrine changes:

"It is fixed and unchanging. It cannot be modified or contradicted, but merely amplified as additional truths that deepen understanding and appreciation of it’s meaning are revealed." Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

-- for example, Polygamy used to be both taught and practiced; now anyone who does either, has their membership in question

Dumb example (not you, I know you are not dunb - it's your example). The principle (or doctrine if that is what one thinks it is) of plural marriage still exists in the Church. The PRACTICE of plural marriage has changed.

and the issue of the Black and Priesthood --are examples of the fact that Church doctrines can and have changed over the years.

Another dumb and FALSE example. It has never been a matter of doctrine that black people would not at some point receive the priesthood, Brigham Young's opinion that it wouldn't happen before the 2nd Coming notwithstanding.

If you are going to convince anyone to believe your falsehoods, you'll have to do better than that.

Others include the literal Gathering of Israel -- for many years, the saints were taught that the Gathering was quite literal, and they were counseled to "come to Zion".....now, that's been changed, and the current counsel is to "build Zion" wherever they live.

Perhaps the worst of your FALSE examples. The Church has not changed it's belief in the literal Gathering of Israel - do you even ever go to Church? The Church has given counsel and instructions to member about how they ought best behave now. No doctrine has changed.

You forgot how ward teaching was changed to home teaching. How the meeting schedules were changed to the block plan and what is required to get a temple recommend and drugs considered part of the Word of Wisdom.

However, I agree with you Snow, the doctrines that define covenants have never changed - since Adam. And this includes the law of Moses (Old Testament) and the new and everlasting covenant. But unlike you I have decided that when those that do not know what they are talking about - take it upon themselves to inform those that do know - it is really quite funny.

The Traveler

[Snow]

You forgot how ward teaching was changed to home teaching. How the meeting schedules were changed to the block plan and what is required to get a temple recommend and drugs considered part of the Word of Wisdom.

However, I agree with you Snow, the doctrines that define covenants have never changed - since Adam. And this includes the law of Moses (Old Testament) and the new and everlasting covenant. But unlike you I have decided that when those that do not know what they are talking about - take it upon themselves to inform those that do know - it is really quite funny.

The Traveler

Yup.

[Gaia]

However, I agree with you Snow, the doctrines that define covenants have never changed - since Adam. And this includes the law of Moses (Old Testament) and the new and everlasting covenant. But unlike you I have decided that when those that do not know what they are talking about - take it upon themselves to inform those that do know - it is really quite funny.

The Traveler

GAIA:

Blessings, Traveler :)