Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
inquiringmind

Two Adams?

Recommended Posts

...

Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young said:

"Eve was a name or title conferred upon our first mother, because she was actually to be the mother of all the human beings who should live upon this earth. I am looking upon a congregation designed to be just such beings."

...

From my perspective, the absurb splitting the Adam theory was developed to try to redefine President Young's teachings so they support what the church teaches today. This then supports the general "done deal" doctrine that the church President will never lead the church astray in any way.

But this quote above just by itself verifies that President Young taught a different doctrine about Adam than what the church teaches today.

This quote supports the doctrine that Adam and Eve lived on a previous earth and came to this earth with resurrected bodies. That is a critical part of the Adam-God teachings. How else could a woman member of an early Mormon congregation become an "Eve" at some future point unless it is after the resurrection? And why would she not come with an "Adam" what she was married to before the resurrection?

One thing that has always confused me about the splitting the Adam theory is if President Young was talking about two Adams, and Adam Jr. did not come here with a resurrected body, but Adam Sr is resurrected and is actually Eloheim, is it not saying that Adam Jr will eventually become an Adam Sr? So they are they same kind of beings, just one is ahead of the other in progression. And if that is true, why would it be so hard to accept that President Young was saying Adam Jr himself actually had a resurrected body-- just as it so clearly seems he was saying?

Richard

Share this post


Link to post

Because it conflicts with the notion that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father in the flesh. In a Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory, Adam and Eve are also begotten.

The "notion" that Jesus is the only begotten son of our Father in the flesh is a notion that needs to be correctly understood before you can understand the true doctrine. To be a little more clear I would say that Jesus is the only begotten in the flesh of our Father in heaven, putting the "in the flesh" part closer to the "begotten"part to try to clarify the way in which he was begotten. Or to try to be even more clear than that I would say that Jesus is the only person (either son or daughter) who our Father begat as a personage of flesh like the flesh we now have. All of us were spiritually begotten (or begotten as spirits) by our Father in heaven, as spirits, including the Adam (Jr.) and Eve (Jr.) who started off our race on this Earth as children of our Father in heaven, but Jesus is the only one our Father ever begat (or caused to be begotten since Mary is the one who actually delivered him into this world) in a body of the same type of flesh we now have. Adam (Jr.) and Eve (Jr.) came into the garden of Eden with the same type of spirit bodies we all had in heaven, except our Father who had a body of glorified flesh that we (including Jesus at that time) did not have at that time, and when they "fell" the flesh we mortals now have (which has not been glorified yet) was one of the results of their fall. In between the time Adam (Jr.) and Eve (Jr.) came into the garden and before they fell, though, they both had glorified bodies of flesh like our Father and like Jesus had after he was resurrected.

Get that right and then you'll be closer to understanding what brother Brigham really meant.Get it wrong and you'll then have a "theory" which any President of the true Church of Jesus Christ would say is not true.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post

Get that right and then you'll be closer to understanding what brother Brigham really meant.Get it wrong and you'll then have a "theory" which any President of the true Church of Jesus Christ would say is not true.

Or when you don't like what Brigham said, just make up what you wanted him to say, based on a preferred metaphysical cosmology and desire to have all Prophets equally and consistently correlated, even though there's no evidence any of his contemporaries had any idea he meant it in such a way, change the definitions of the words Brigham used to make him say what you wanted him to say, and then proclaim that Brigham Young teaches the same thing taught in the Church today, and that everyone is blind for not seeing it, and must therefore just be listening to the "Antis".

Sorry. Not my preferred method of understanding history and the process of revelation, which takes into consideration the freedom of individuals - even the Lord's Anointed - to speculate, and be dead wrong on some things.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

Or when you don't like what Brigham said, just make up what you wanted him to say, based on a preferred metaphysical cosmology and desire to have all Prophets equally and consistently correlated, even though there's no evidence any of his contemporaries had any idea he meant it in such a way, change the definitions of the words Brigham used to make him say what you wanted him to say, and then proclaim that Brigham Young teaches the same thing taught in the Church today, and that everyone is blind for not seeing it, and must therefore just be listening to the "Antis".

Sorry. Not my preferred method of understanding history and the process of revelation, which takes into consideration the freedom of individuals - even the Lord's Anointed - to speculate, and be dead wrong on some things.

Your preferred method is to think Brigham was just dead wrong on this issue instead of taking into consideration that your thinking on this issue is wrong.

How typical of those who simply don't agree with what a prophet of God has said.

Are you at least able to see that all I said in my post is the truth? If so, and you can admit I can see that, why don't you think Brigham Young could see it?

It's very basic and simple doctrine that anyone should be able to get, especially considering how much prophets of God have been proclaiming that doctrine, even if some of the words people have used to express true ideas can be misunderstood by others.

Share this post


Link to post

This quote supports the doctrine that Adam and Eve lived on a previous earth...

or a planet like ours...

... and came to this earth with resurrected bodies.

Our Father and his wife did live on a planet like ours and they did come to this Earth with resurrected bodies.

Adam (Jr.) and Eve (Jr.) ALSO lived on a planet like ours too, though, and they came to this Earth as celestial spirits to take on celestial bodies of flesh in the garden of Eden, after which point sometime later they then "fell", and through the atonment of Jesus Christ they would yet again have celestial bodies of flesh for their celestial spirits to inhabit.

Both statements are true, and both statements have certain related elements.

That is a critical part of the Adam-God teachings. How else could a woman member of an early Mormon congregation become an "Eve" at some future point unless it is after the resurrection?

It depends on what you understand by the term "Mormon". Mormonology, for lack of a better term, deals with all that has gone on before this Earth of ours and all that will go on afterward, including what happened to people we refer to as our Father and Mother in heaven before they became our Father and Mother in heaven and before they were even married. Try to keep in mind that we all have more than one Father and Mother, including many Fathers who we could instead refer to as Grandfathers, or Great Grandfathers, etc.

And why would she not come with an "Adam" what she was married to before the resurrection?

I can't think of any reason she wouldn't if her intent was to create offspring, which would require her to have a celestial husband.

One thing that has always confused me about the splitting the Adam theory is if President Young was talking about two Adams, and Adam Jr. did not come here with a resurrected body

He got a celestial body of flesh when he came here, though, and that celestial body he had was the same type we will get which we now refer to as a "resurrected" body.

..., but Adam Sr is resurrected and is actually Eloheim, is it not saying that Adam Jr will eventually become an Adam Sr?

If he was true and faithful to the plan of our Father, yes, he would if he hasn't already.

There are some of us (our Father's children) who have already been resurrected, you know.

So they are the same kind of beings, just one is ahead of the other in progression. And if that is true, why would it be so hard to accept that President Young was saying Adam Jr himself actually had a resurrected body-- just as it so clearly seems he was saying?

The only reason I can think of for why it would be hard for people to accept that would be because they would have a hard time thinking Brigham could actually see that and talk about it to try to share that idea with others.

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post

*head-desk* I just realized something... spiritual Earth =0.

I will think on this for a while... interesting possibility Ahab =).

Edited by TAO

Share this post


Link to post

Are you at least able to see that all I said in my post is the truth?

No.

It's very basic and simple doctrine that anyone should be able to get, especially considering how much prophets of God have been proclaiming that doctrine, even if some of the words people have used to express true ideas can be misunderstood by others.

I think the idea of biological begetting of spirits is extremely problematic.

I am highly fond of the notion that as intelligent beings co-eternal with God, He found us, took us under His wing, and we consented to this Adoption as His Children to be guided in progression. The principle of adoption is probably one of the single most recurring (and beautiful) themes in scripture.

We become the 'seed' of Abraham by adoption

We become the 'seed'of Moses by adoption.

We become the 'seed' of Jesus Christ by adoption.

Share this post


Link to post
We become the 'seed' of Abraham by adoption

We become the 'seed'of Moses by adoption.

No, at least most of us are the literal seed of Abraham, and many of us are the literal seed of Moses (although this one is more difficult to establish).

Abraham had many children, one each by Sarah and Hagar and four, as I recall, by Keturah. By the time of his great grandchildren, there were so many of his descendants that I'm reasonably sure they were not counted.

Given nearly four millennia, those "uncounted" by necessity, would have become dozens of billions, and would include virutally every man, woman and child in the Caucasian world, and most of the rest, too.

We become the 'seed' of Jesus Christ by adoption.

That's a different kind of "seed", doncha know?

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

I think the idea of biological begetting of spirits is extremely problematic.

I think the idea of biological beings just popping into existence from out of nothing and nowhere is extremely problematic. We all came from something or someone which is in essence what we really are.

I am highly fond of the notion that as intelligent beings co-eternal with God, He found us, took us under His wing, and we consented to this Adoption as His Children to be guided in progression. The principle of adoption is probably one of the single most recurring (and beautiful) themes in scripture.

I believe we are co-eternal with God in the very same way that the children yet to be begat by their parents are already within those who will later be their parents when their parents eventually produce their offspring.

In other words, the essence of a species is within the seed/egg/sperm/spirit of that species.

You should be able to see this as well as I can by seeing that when children are born that is the "perpetuation" of that species, rather than the "beginning" of that species.

We become the 'seed' of Abraham by adoption

We become the 'seed'of Moses by adoption.

We become the 'seed' of Jesus Christ by adoption.

We all had to come from something or someone in the first place, though, otherwise there would be nothing for those people who "adopted' us to adopt.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...