Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adam-God doctrine explained


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cdowis said:

I find it interesting that you think you are smarter and wiser than your Creator.  OR, you are simply proclaiming that the church is false.

Perhaps you can tell us which is correct.  You would save alot of bandwidth simply to put this in your signature line.

I think the missionaries need to be up front, and I think I should have been told before going to the temple, what the church is really about, before I promised to sacrifice my time, money and maybe my life if need be.

I know there are plenty of upset people that felt like they would have lived differently had they known the truth upfront. And not joined the church or they would have found a different path. There are a lot of choices made because of the church's teachings. But I don't want to get into those here.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Now , if you could enlighten us concerning " what the Church is really about " . It obviously  isn't about helping people to live a life of service and compassion and forgiveness , so it must be about  ( insert favorite grievance here ).

That Adam is a polygamist, that he is God and that we are to strive to be a God, not just like God, but a God. And there are to be other Gods not just one. So now my God is Adam...great. :(

How Christian is that? So far off it's not funny. To most Christians, Jesus is God incarnate, come down to sacrifice for our sins because Eve messed up and didn't follow the commandment to not partake of the fruit.

But I never grew up with that analogy either, so I guess I can't complain.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That Adam is a polygamist, that he is God and that we are to strive to be a God, not just like God, but a God. And there are to be other Gods not just one. So now my God is Adam...great. :(

How Christian is that? So far off it's not funny. To most Christians, Jesus is God incarnate, come down to sacrifice for our sins because Eve messed up and didn't follow the commandment to not partake of the fruit.

But I never grew up with that analogy either, so I guess I can't complain.

We do not know whether Adam-Michael was a polygynist, and it should not matter in any case.  Most so-called "christians" do believe that God the Father came down, took on a body, was crucified, and then resurrected.  For them, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all one and the same person.  Early Christians did not believe this, but they did believe that all of the faithful would become gods (apotheosis).  Apostate christianity long ago jettisoned those authentic beliefs

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most so-called "christians" do believe that God the Father came down, took on a body, was crucified, and then resurrected.  For them, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all one and the same person.  Early Christians did not believe this, but they did believe that all of the faithful would become gods (apotheosis).  Apostate christianity long ago jettisoned those authentic beliefs

CFR the underlined.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, ChristKnight said:
6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most so-called "christians" do believe that God the Father came down, took on a body, was crucified, and then resurrected.  For them, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father are all one and the same person.  Early Christians did not believe this, but they did believe that all of the faithful would become gods (apotheosis).  Apostate christianity long ago jettisoned those authentic beliefs

 

 

35 minutes ago, ChristKnight said:

CFR the underlined.

Robert is referring to the Trinity Doctrine espoused by most Christian faiths. From the wikipedia article, which has citations:

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial, and each is God, whole and entire.

If a Christian believes that Trinity doctrine, then, since God the Father and Jesus Christ are of one substance, essentially one and the same, then God the Father did come down to earth and die on the cross and was resurrected.

Apologia to Robert for inserting my understanding of what he was thinking.

Glenn

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That Adam is a polygamist, that he is God and that we are to strive to be a God, not just like God, but a God. And there are to be other Gods not just one. So now my God is Adam...great. :(

How Christian is that? So far off it's not funny. To most Christians, Jesus is God incarnate, come down to sacrifice for our sins because Eve messed up and didn't follow the commandment to not partake of the fruit.

But I never grew up with that analogy either, so I guess I can't complain.

We are Gods according to the Bible.

Do you really care what most Christians believe or what the Church actually teaches?

I grew up with it. I complain plenty. ;)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 The anti-Mormons have always found that shocking the innocent members of the LDS Church with false doctrines to be an excellent method of getting them to leave Mormonism -- without even reflecting on the truth or falsity of the claims being made.

Can you give an example of the so called "false doctrines" that these "anti-mormons" supposedly foist onto the innocent lambs of the church?  In my experience, what church leaders and apologists claimed to be false in the past has been admitted to be true by the church today.  Back in the day, the Tanners and other history buffs were vilified for talking about seer stones and JS's belief in white christian magic.  It was down-right scandalous to talk about JS being charged in court for using his seer stone to look for buried treasure.  Now, it's quietly admitted.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

 

Robert is referring to the Trinity Doctrine espoused by most Christian faiths. From the wikipedia article, which has citations:

According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Lateran Council declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds") and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and co-substantial, and each is God, whole and entire.

If a Christian believes that Trinity doctrine, then, since God the Father and Jesus Christ are of one substance, essentially one and the same, then God the Father did come down to earth and die on the cross and was resurrected.

Apologia to Robert for inserting my understanding of what he was thinking.

Glenn

Unfortunately that would not be correct.  As you quoted, it states that the Persons are distinct from one another in their relations of origin, and their relations with one another.  So no, it would not be Trinitarian belief that God the Father came down on earth and died on the cross.  Robert and yourself actually describe Trinitarian heresies denounced by Trinitarians.  From wikipedia as well:

1) Patripassianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patripassianism): 

patripassianism (as it is referred to in the Western church) or Sabellianism in the Eastern church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead - that there are no real or substantial differences between the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

In the West, this belief was known as patripassianism (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"), because the teaching required that since the Father had become incarnate in Christ, he had suffered.[2]

From the standpoint of the doctrine of the Trinity—one divine being existing in three persons—patripassianism is considered heretical since "it simply cannot make sense of the New Testament's teaching on the interpersonal relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit."[3] In this patripassianism asserts that God the Father—rather than God the Son—became incarnate and suffered on the cross for humanity's redemption. This not only denies the personhood of God-the-Son (Jesus Christ), but is seen by trinitarians as distorting the spiritual transaction that was taking place at the cross, which the Apostle Paul described as follows: "God [the Father] was reconciling the world to himself in Christ [the Son], not counting people’s sins against them. . . . God [the Father] made him who had no sin [God-the-Son] to be sin for us, so that in him [the Son] we might become the righteousness of God [the Father]." (2 Corinthians 5:19, 21)

2) Modalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism):

In Christianity, Sabellianism in the Eastern church or Patripassianism in the Western church (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian or anti-trinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spiritare three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead—that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son.[1]

 

Also, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the Trinity:

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary."86 "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son."87 They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds."88 The divine Unity is Triune.

From the quote from the Catechism, we see that it is Trinitarian doctrine that the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Son, the Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, etc.  From all of this, we see that no, it is not Trinitarian doctrine that the Father came down and incarnated as the Son, nor is it Trinitarian doctrine that it was the Father that was crucified (as we see above, that is the non-Trinitarian heresy of patripassianism), nor is it Trinitarian doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one Person (as we see above, that is the non-Trinitarian heresy of modalism).

Anyway, sorry for going way off topic, but I had to address this clear misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, ChristKnight said:

Anyway, sorry for going way off topic, but I had to address this clear misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine.

Thanks for your input. I seriously do not understand yet that aspect of the Trinity doctrine, but it is something that would need its own thread.

Edited to add: Yet, does your understanding of this doctrine coincide with the understanding that most other Christians believe? I have heard modalism argued as well as other positions.

Glenn

Edited by Glenn101
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the missionaries need to be up front, and I think I should have been told before going to the temple, what the church is really about, before I promised to sacrifice my time, money and maybe my life if need be.

This is not a political party or a buffet where you choose the salad bar or Mexican.  Your choice is whether the church is lead by God, or not.  Your decision is whether to join the church if it is true.

If you are deciding which church to join based on the find details of its doctrines and history, this is clearly the wrong church for you.

Bottom line, it is not the church which is being tested, but it is WE ourselves.  The basis of the decision is really simple == read the Book of Mormon with a sincere heart and open mind and pray to God whether it is true.  It is NOT whether you agree with its doctrines, such as tithing, Word of Wisdom, temple endowment, etc.

I know there are plenty of upset people that felt like they would have lived differently had they known the truth upfront. And not joined the church or they would have found a different path. There are a lot of choices made because of the church's teachings. But I don't want to get into those here. 

If the basis of their conversion was that God told them that the church were true, that is something between themselves and their Creator. The Lord commanded us to teach milk, not meat.  

We appreciate your advice, and I'm sure there are many other churches who would appreciate your guidance. 

 

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment

 

8 minutes ago, cdowis said:

If the basis of their conversion was that God told them that the church were true, that is something between themselves and their Creator. The Lord commanded us to teach milk, not meat.  

We appreciate your advice, and I'm sure there are many other churches who would appreciate your guidance. 

Please CFR that the lord commanded the leaders teach milk? 

You're welcome, anytime. Now is that a nice way of showing me the door?

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

 

Please CFR that the lord commanded the leaders teach milk? 

You're welcome, anytime. Now is that a nice way of showing me the door?

Heb 5 [12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

D&C 19   21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

Anyway, when someone is advocating to the church on how to preach the Gospel,  they are going down a very dangerous path.  And perhaps I am the only one who has pointed out the danger to you.  Someday you may thank me, or maybe not.

Just ignore me if you find it offensive.

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
14 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Heb 5 [12] For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

D&C 19   21 And I command you that you preach naught but repentance, and show not these things unto the world until it is wisdom in me.22 For they cannot bear meat now, but milk they must receive; wherefore, they must not know these things, lest they perish.

So apparently none of the church members are ready to be taught the meat or deeper doctrines?  Or can you give an example of when one of our leaders have taught the meat in a talk given in General Conference or anywhere else where they were speaking to and teaching members?

Do you believe these topics and doctrines are only to be revealed to those who go outside church settings or read books or go to online sources to find the meat?

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, cdowis said:
15 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the missionaries need to be up front, and I think I should have been told before going to the temple, what the church is really about, before I promised to sacrifice my time, money and maybe my life if need be.

This is not a political party or a buffet where you choose the salad bar or Mexican.  Your choice is whether the church is lead by God, or not.  Your decision is whether to join the church if it is true.

 

So, how does one discern truth?  Does God just expect us to pray, receive an answer and that's it?    Wow,  I could've been so much more accomplished in my studies if this were the case.  No need for resources.    What if there were some inaccuracies within the temple?  Would you hold the attendees accountable for for knowing just by praying?

I say this because I do believe in God to this day.  I met with missionaries and others.  I prayed about our discussions and I found in my prayers that they spoke the truth and prayed about the truthfulness of the church - of which I received confirmation in my prayers about the truthfulness of the church itself.     

When my testimony began to crumble was when I came to understand that the discussions with said missionaries were filled with lore much more than truth.    So, that led me to the understanding and embarrassment that my confirmation was less than accurate.  The discussions with the then current bishop, friends, relatives were all filled with much lore and just bits of truth I later discovered.  

So they may not need to be as much "up front" as Tacenda put it; but I don't think it's too much to ask that they at least be accurate.  

So now, I do not believe this church is led by God.  Are there elements of his presence - sure, as in most churches.  But led - No.  It is led by men.  What are their motivations?  That's just a question one has to decide for him/herself.  I do know quite a few individuals within the church that are Godly men.  I also know quite a few that fit the bill of 'wolf in sheep's clothing'.  Not to bring the church down but they just are a different person when they are playing the role of church member vs individual within the world.  I say this from experience as I have dealt with many in business that rules/laws are willfully ignored if the benefit goes to them.  

 

Link to comment

 

Anyway, sorry for going way off topic, but I had to address this clear misunderstanding of the Trinity doctrine.

I was going to if you hadn't, though not as informative.  We need to be careful in our use of Being, Persons, and substance to avoid calling the Trinity something that it is not.  Not having the use of the terms consistent between finite persons ( beings is interchangeable here imo) and infinite persons ("Being" has been defined as something different, though I do not see this as something that can be experienced outside of reasoning).

And while I don't have the confidence to state most nonLDS Christians believe modalism, in my personal experience it is the majority, but my experience is very limited (I also know many nonLDS Christians who are very grounded in the Trinity and don't get tripped up by wording). 

And to tie it back to the topic.....

NonLDS Christians have the Trinity and the burden of modalism to deal with, we have the Godhead and Adam-God, which may depending on how one interprets it lead to heresy or lead to informing one's relationship with God's family.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Anyway, when someone is advocating to the church on how to preach the Gospel,  they are going down a very dangerous path.  And perhaps I am the only one who has pointed out the danger to you.  Someday you may thank me, or maybe not.

Shouldn't there be room for questions and dissent? The leaders seem to be speaking as men a lot and rarely let us know when they are speaking directly for the Lord. So, it seems that the questioner should be allowed to question, at least when it's coming from men and not the Lord. Maybe constructive criticism will help them avoid p.r. nightmares like the dust up that happened last year and recently with the LGTB/kids policy/revelation/policy ... whatever it was.

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Anyway, when someone is advocating to the church on how to preach the Gospel,  they are going down a very dangerous path.  And perhaps I am the only one who has pointed out the danger to you.  Someday you may thank me, or maybe not.

Just ignore me if you find it offensive.

"We appreciate your advice, and I'm sure there are many other churches who would appreciate your guidance."

But you hadn't "pointed out the danger" at all, but instead more or less told her her "advice" was unwelcomed in a sarcastic way and suggested it would work better elsewhere, thus she should go elsewhere.  There is nothing there to thank you for.  If you wish to teach than I advise choosing a plainer version without the not so subtle digs.  The rest of your post is actually informative and does well at pointing out not only truth, but what she needs to do with it.  Cut off the bottom and you have been helpful.  Leave it there and you suck the power and charity out of your own words.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Rivers said:

I divide LDS doctrine into four categories:

Tradition: Everything that has ever been taught or believed throughout Mormon history, e.g. Adam-God, Cain as bigfoot, men on the moon, Jesus as polygamist.

Official Doctrine: The current teachings taught by the church in official publications and videos, LDS.org, General Conference, etc.

Unofficial Doctrine: Teachings found in books sold at LDS bookstores that aren't considered official but aren't heresy either.

Absolute truth:  That which our puny mortal minds can't fully grasp although we do our best.

You use the word 'current teachings' in your description of official doctrine.  Are teachings in past General
Conferences to be considered as true official doctrine or false?  Example: the location of the Hill Cumorah.
source: http://www.archive.org/details/conferencereport1928a

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
1 hour ago, JulieM said:

So apparently none of the church members are ready to be taught the meat or deeper doctrines?  Or can you give an example of when one of our leaders have taught the meat in a talk given in General Conference or anywhere else where they were speaking to and teaching members?

Do you believe these topics and doctrines are only to be revealed to those who go outside church settings or read books or go to online sources to find the meat?

Funny that...none of the members are ready to be taught meat..but ready to pay tithes and total devotion.  One would think that they deserved the deeper understanding of the meat.

Link to comment
41 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

So, how does one discern truth?  Does God just expect us to pray, receive an answer and that's it?    Wow,  I could've been so much more accomplished in my studies if this were the case.  No need for resources.    What if there were some inaccuracies within the temple?  Would you hold the attendees accountable for for knowing just by praying?

I say this because I do believe in God to this day.  I met with missionaries and others.  I prayed about our discussions and I found in my prayers that they spoke the truth and prayed about the truthfulness of the church - of which I received confirmation in my prayers about the truthfulness of the church itself.     

When my testimony began to crumble was when I came to understand that the discussions with said missionaries were filled with lore much more than truth.    So, that led me to the understanding and embarrassment that my confirmation was less than accurate.  The discussions with the then current bishop, friends, relatives were all filled with much lore and just bits of truth I later discovered.

I am wondering what parts of the missionary discussions are filled more with lore than truth?? They only teach the core doctrines of the gospel, and then only in abbreviated form. But that may be fodder for another thread also. Certainly Adam-God was not taught in those discussions???

However, you did get a spiritual confirmation that the things that you were taught were true. So, now you have placed your reason above those spiritual confirmations? This happens a lot in the church. Reason and emotionalism trump spiritual revelations. And that is the basis for people leaving the church, in my opinion.

Could it as well be that your spiritual revelations were indeed accurate but that that your reasoning and the information upon which you base your reasoning is imperfect?

If I were to come to the conclusion that the the LDS church is not "true". I would pretty much have to become an atheist. Just about any argument used against Joseph Smith as a prophet, the Book of Mormon, etc. can be used against the Bible and the events portrayed therein. But that also is fodder for another thread.

The Lord expects us to read, ponder, meditate, and pray in order to come to a knowledge of the truth. That is implicitly and explicitly taught. Spiritual truths can only be obtained spiritually.

Glenn

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...