Power couples

[Maverick]

2 minutes ago, mikbone said:

But I won’t fall into your trap.  You can go fishing elsewhere.

So this is all a deliberate ploy by a few of you to instantly shut down any Adam-God discussion because it’s not welcome here, is that it? 

[mikbone]

14 minutes ago, Maverick said:

Saying that being married is a requirement to become like God is not inappropriate or disrespectful towards God. The goal is to become as our Heavenly parents are and the Gods that have gone before. God has told us that one of those requirements is eternal marriage and that those who aren't married eternally do not become Gods (D&C 131 and 132). Therefore the only logical conclusion is that in order to be a God, one has to be married, and that would include Jesus Christ, who is a God. 

This is a logical statement.

And was the thrust of my original post.

If Jehovah was God back in the pre-mortal existence then He probably had been married before we ever met him.

The Holy Ghost is also a God.  It seems that it would be logical that he has a spouse as well.

Is it important? Nope.  Has nothing to do with our salvation.  Is it interesting?  You bet.

 

[mikbone]

33 minutes ago, Maverick said:

So this is all a deliberate ploy by a few of you to instantly shut down any Adam-God discussion because it’s not welcome here, is that it? 

You can blame me if you want.

I won’t shut you down.  I’m not a moderator.  And the moderators won’t shut you down either.  

I just won’t engage you or anyone else with a topic that I consider worthless to discuss.  Do to my prior investigations and focus on scripture and modern-day revelation.

And I am the OP of this thread.  Thus I have incentive to keep it’s integrity.  Make a new thread about Adam- God theory.  I wont bother you there.  Hijack elsewhere.

Edited December 5, 2024 by mikbone

[zil2]

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

So this is all a deliberate ploy by a few of you to instantly shut down any Adam-God discussion because it’s not welcome here, is that it? 

There is no deliberate ploy.  No behind the scenes plotting.  Good grief.  I'm a firm believer in secret combinations existing in our world, but this is just silly.

What we have on this site is a very small number of active members who fully support the current leaders of the Church, and a smaller number of others (people who aren't members or not active).  So it's not surprising that if the current policy of the Church is as @mikbone pointed out, then the folks here aren't going to be terribly supportive of said theory.  But I'm sure there's no shortage of online discussion groups where folks will happily engage with you.

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

I consider Adam-God and other deeper teachings to be precious pearls that I don't want trampled on by those who aren't mature enough to respectfully discuss them. If I present the full documented case here, what outcome should I expect from all of you? Will there be a respectful discussion, where the evidence I present is actually considered and I am not treated with contempt for expressing views that may make people uncomfortable because it challenges their preconceived notions? 

I wish to make it clear that I am well aware that I cannot possibly know your mind or intentions.  I can only know what I perceive and that may not match your intentions.  Above quote does not seem to me to match up with your approach previously.  You didn't come and make a new thread, or even a comment in the most applicable existing thread saying, in effect, "I would like to discuss the Adam-God theory.  Is anyone interested in joining such a discussion?"  And if you're so concerned about trampling, why toss the theory casually into other discussions?  And if you think the folks to discuss it need to be "mature", then why bring it up here where the whole wide world (no account required) can read everything said?  I'm sorry, I just don't comprehend your approach to this topic.

1 hour ago, Maverick said:

I'm very capable of making the strong full documented case for it and have many sources compiled and ready to go. But I do I have to be honest that I'm a bit hesitant to make the case in this venue based on the reactions some of you have made to some of my comments on deeper doctrine or church history. A few individuals have been pretty disrespectful and very quick to dismiss any evidence I have presented and then turn around and accuse me of not backing up my claims or other things that aren't true. And two of those individuals expressed support for your suggestion that I would make no attempt to provide any documentation.

I know the discussion to which you refer and I saw no dismissing.  I saw people go read provided references and try to find what you said was there and failed.  You doubled down on "it's there, you just don't understand / refuse to see", suggesting at least three of us lack reading comprehension skills. Or so it seemed to me.

My final perception, and I know it is a perception, is that you want to "fight" - that's how your "tone" comes across to me.  That's not really the way to invite discussion.  If it's not your intended tone, sorry - again, I know perception-over-the-internet isn't necessarily correct, but perhaps it's useful to you to know this.

Finally, I'm going to quit discussing this in @mikbone's thread, out of respect for his request to keep the topic out.  By all means, start a new one if you wish.  (Not that my participation would matter anyway, neither of the two topics in question - Adam-God, blacks and the priesthood - interests me in the slightest.)

Edited December 5, 2024 by zil2

[Maverick]

45 minutes ago, mikbone said:

And I am the OP of this thread.  Thus I have incentive to keep it’s integrity.  Make a new thread about Adam- God theory.  I wont bother you there.  Hijack elsewhere.

I wasn't making any attempt to hijack your thread. The thread is about Heavenly Mother and you mentioned that you believed that she was content to remain behind the scenes. What Brigham Young and other early church leaders taught in regards to Eve being our Heavenly Mother fit with that, since this would mean that she was a very active participant and didn't remain behind the scenes. Plus you agreed that Eve was an appropriate title for her.

52 minutes ago, mikbone said:

If Jehovah was God back in the pre-mortal existence then He probably had been married before we ever met him.

The Holy Ghost is also a God.  It seems that it would be logical that he has a spouse as well.

Is it important? Nope.  Has nothing to do with our salvation.  Is it interesting?  You bet.

So the entire topic of this thread was an esoteric doctrinal discussion that doesn't matter for our eternal salvation. Seems strange that you would be okay with starting such a conversation, but then immediately attempt to shut down a related esoteric doctrinal discussion and accuse me of wrong doing for bringing it up. But I guess we imperfect humans aren't always consistent.  

52 minutes ago, mikbone said:

I just won’t engage you or anyone else with a topic that I consider worthless to discuss.  Do to my prior investigations and focus on scripture and modern-day revelation.

I respect this position and would kindly ask that if you won't engage in a discussion about Adam-God that you also refrain from cheering from the sidelines. I would also encourage to read along with an open mind. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something new.

[Maverick]

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

And if you think the folks to discuss it need to be "mature", then why bring it up here where the whole wide world (no account required) can read everything said?  I'm sorry, I just don't comprehend your approach to this topic.

All of the Adam-God sources are already on the internet, so there's no keeping it a secret. I brought it up here because it seemed to fit the deep doctrinal topic being discussed and the people in this group seem to be comfortable discussing deeper doctrinal topics. 

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

I know the discussion to which you refer and I saw no dismissing.  I saw people go read provided references and try to find what you said was there and failed.  You doubled down on "it's there, you just don't understand / refuse to see", suggesting at least three of us lack reading comprehension skills. Or so it seemed to me.

Maybe people simple missed the evidence I originally shared to support my position, but none of it was even acknowledged other than the Zebedee Coltrin Interview. Instead I was pressed to provide individual links for each of the sources provided and it was suggested that maybe they were made up from AI. Then when other sources were provided, to support what Zebedee Coltrin said, the originally sources were ignored and the new ones provided instantly attacked in an attempt to debunk them because they had already made up their minds about when the priesthood ban began and didn't want to consider that they could be wrong. 

I also never said "it's there, you just don't understand / refuse to see." Nor did I challenge anyone's reading comprehension skills.  That may have been your perception, though. 
 

25 minutes ago, zil2 said:

My final perception, and I know it is a perception, is that you want to "fight" - that's how your "tone" comes across to me.  That's not really the way to invite discussion.  If it's not your intended tone, sorry - again, I know perception-over-the-internet isn't necessarily correct, but perhaps it's useful to you to know this.

And my perception is that you and others have assumed the worst about me because you don't like my perspective and then read a "tone" into my words that isn't there. I have actually been very civil and respectful, when others have been snarky, like comparing my claim that there's evidence that Joseph Smith started the priesthood ban and revoked Elijah Abel's priesthood to the CES letter or claiming to have debunked my position in 15 minutes while having ignored nearly all of the evidence.

I was hoping for civil discourse with fellow saints, but unfortunately it hasn't worked out the way I had hoped. 

Edited December 6, 2024 by Maverick

[Vort]

45 minutes ago, Maverick said:

deep doctrinal topic

It is my considered opinion that truly profound doctrine almost exclusively focuses on one or more of four topics:

1. Faith

2. Repentance

3. Baptism

4. Reception of the Holy Ghost

The only modification I might make to the above declaration is reconsidering the use of the word "almost".

[Maverick]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

It is my considered opinion that truly profound doctrine almost exclusively focuses on one or more of four topics:

1. Faith

2. Repentance

3. Baptism

4. Reception of the Holy Ghost

The only modification I might make to the above declaration is reconsidering the use of the word "almost".

While I respect your opinion, I disagree. The things you listed are the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, not deep doctrine or the mysteries of God. 

[mrmarklin]

On 12/5/2024 at 7:20 AM, Maverick said:

In order to be a God Jesus would have to be married. It’s one of the requirements to become a God. See D&C 131 and 132. 

This is true. Church tradition is that He married Mary Magdalene  IMHO I don’t think that there would have been any offspring due to possible leadership problems that would inevitably arisen  

 

 

[Maverick]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

This is true. Church tradition is that He married Mary Magdalene  IMHO I don’t think that there would have been any offspring due to possible leadership problems that would inevitably arisen  

 

 

Some early Latter-day Saint leaders suggested that she was his wife in mortality during the meridian of time, but I was actually referring to him being married before he became a God in the first place, prior to the creation of this world.