Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adam-God and Idolatry


pogi

Recommended Posts

Quote

Thou shalt have no other gods before me, Ex. 20:3 (Mosiah 12:35; 13:12–13).
If thou walk after other gods, ye shall surely perish, Deut. 8:19.
Thou hast discovered thyself to another than me, Isa. 57:8.
Ye cannot serve God and mammon, Matt. 6:24.
Children, keep yourselves from idols, 1 Jn. 5:21.
Wo unto those that worship idols, 2 Ne. 9:37.
The idolatry of the people of Nephi brought upon them their wars and destructions, Alma 50:21.
Every man walketh after the image of his own god, D&C 1:16.

Adam-God still seems to be a fairly popular belief in the church.  My question is this, if Adam-God is false, does praying to and worshiping Adam (a man) constitute idolatry?  Why or why not?  If it is true, then are the rest of us worshiping a false God? 

When the members can't even agree on who their God is, shouldn't the Church make an official statement about Adam-God?  If it is true, I would like to know to worship Adam.  If it is not, I would like to know for assurance that I am not practicing idolatry.  Shouldn't idolatry in the church be a serious enough priority for that?  Or, are we all worshiping the same God and it doesn't really matter how we perceive him or call him?

Secondarily, how important is it to know the name of God?

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that it is very important, and I tend to agree. 

Quote

How important is God’s name? Consider the model prayer that Jesus Christ gave. It begins this way: “Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.” (Matthew 6:9) Later, Jesus prayed to God: “Father, glorify your name.” In response, God spoke from heaven, saying: “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.” (John 12:28) Clearly, God’s name is of the utmost importance.

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/jehovah-meaning-of-gods-name/

Does it seem strange that we can't even agree on what the name of God is?  Adam? Jehovah? Elohim? Ahman? All of the above?  If we don't know the name of God, how can we glorify it in our worship?  The phrase "praise thy name" is mentioned 88 times in the scriptures.  So, what is his name? Who is God?  Doesn't it seem like we should all be on the same page with this as a church?  To me it seems like a good reason for an official declaration to put an end to division and contention in the church.  That is as basic as it gets.  We should all be on the same page on this very fundamental level in my opinion.  What do you all think?

I don't want this thread to be another debate about Adam-God.  Please don't argue for or against Adam-God and keep your discussion to the points made above. 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Adam-God still seems to be a fairly popular belief in the church.  My question is this, if Adam-God is false, does praying to and worshiping Adam (a man) constitute idolatry?  Why or why not?  If it is true, then are the rest of us worshiping a false God? 

Worshiping a "man" couldn't constitute idolatry since in Mormonism God is an exalted man, Christ was a mortal man, etc.
And worrying about worshiping a false God is as silly as when evangelicals accuse us of worshiping a false Christ.  There is only one Christ and only one God. 
The difference is in our understanding of their attributes, not their identity.  Now Orson Pratt felt we should worship God's attributes, not God the person.  Brigham disagreed.
If it is the attributes we worship I could see an issue with worshiping a man, but it isn't.  It is the person we worship, regardless of attributes.

Quote

When the members can't even agree on who their God is, shouldn't the Church make an official statement about Adam-God?  If it is true, I would like to know to worship Adam.  If it is not, I would like to know for assurance that I am not practicing idolatry.  Shouldn't idolatry in the church be a serious enough priority for that?  Or, are we all worshiping the same God and it doesn't really matter how we perceive him or call him?

They have and they did.  According to the Church Adam-God is heresy.  That is the current official statement.  (Now, in Brigham's day you could get disciplined for not accepting it and it was taught in the St. George temple.  Its officialism is still some what debated).  But if your concern is about the Church's official statement, it's been made.  Don't worship Adam or believe Adam-God.
If your concern is truth, you need to figure that for yourself.  Church policy doesn't determine what is true.

Quote

Secondarily, how important is it to know the name of God?
The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that it is very important, and I tend to agree. 

Does it seem strange that we can't even agree on what the name of God is?  Adam? Jehovah? Elohim? Ahman? All of the above?  If we don't know the name of God, how can we glorify it in our worship?  The phrase "praise thy name" is mentioned 88 times in the scriptures.  So, what is his name? Who is God?  Doesn't it seem like we should all be on the same page with this as a church?  To me it seems like a good reason for an official declaration to put an end to division and contention in the church.  That is as basic as it gets.  We should all be on the same page on this very fundamental level in my opinion.  What do you all think?

Joseph taught that eternal life is based on knowing God.  Whether that is the same thing or a reference to a personal relationship has always been a bit vague.
I don't think names matter.  
President Woodruff said

  • "Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject.... Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things?... God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.... We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever, that should be sufficient for us to know." (Wilford Woodruff, April 7, 1895, Mill. Star 57:355)

and even Brigham Young said

  • I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern your or my welfare. I expect in my remarks I shall allude to things that you search after as being absolutely necessary for salvation in the kingdom of God. It is true if you are faithful, and diligent there are things that will be fully made known to you in due time--at the proper time, according to the will of the Lord.  LDS General Conference -- October 8, 1854

I think that increasing in understanding and doctrine are vital in the gospel (https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22?lang=eng) but if Adam-God troubles a member they should absolutely leave it alone right now, and just keep studying, reading, and praying.  It is the quintessential "put it on the shelf" doctrine.

Quote

I don't want this thread to be another debate about Adam-God.  Please don't argue for or against Adam-God and keep your discussion to the points made above. 

I tried, but I don't know that that is possible.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Worshiping a "man" couldn't constitute idolatry since in Mormonism God is an exalted man, Christ was a mortal man, etc.

It could if you are worshiping an exalted man who is not our God. 

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And worrying about worshiping a false God is as silly as when evangelicals accuse us of worshiping a false Christ.  There is only one Christ and only one God. 
The difference is in our understanding of their attributes, not their identity.  Now Orson Pratt felt we should worship God's attributes, not God the person.  Brigham disagreed.

What constitutes "identity"?  Isn't a name central to a person's identity? The scriptures counsel us to "praise his name".  Without the name, aren't you just worshiping God's attributes?  

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They have and they did.  

A conference talk does not constitute an official declaration.  It has to be canonized like the other ones.  The "heresy" comment was from McConkie at a BYU devotional.  Not official. 

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't think names matter.  

 The scriptures seem to think they do.  Brigham thought it matters.  Joseph thought it mattered too.  

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

President Woodruff said

  • "Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject.... Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things?... God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.... We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever, that should be sufficient for us to know." (Wilford Woodruff, April 7, 1895, Mill. Star 57:355)

 If it doesn't matter who God is, then what is idolatry?

 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, pogi said:

 

It could if you are worshiping an exalted man who is not our God. 
No other God's before me - correct.  But if the only difference is a name or an attribute that's not the same as another God.

What constitutes "identity"?  Isn't a name central to a person's identity? The scriptures counsel us to "praise his name".  Without the name, aren't you just worshiping God's attributes?
 The scriptures seem to think they do.  Brigham thought it matters.  Joseph thought it mattered too.  
No, a name matters, but not in that way.  It depends how you define the name of God.

  • The French say Dieu, the Spanish say Dios.  The word used for God doesn't change who God is.
  • We are also speaking of offices here.  Eloheim, Jehovah, Adam, Christ - all offices.  And offices can be held by different individuals.  Do you sustain your Bishop because you know his name is Fred, because of his attributes, or because he is your Bishop.  Which of the three is the focus - the individual, the attribute, or the office.

A conference talk does not constitute an official declaration.  It has to be canonized like the other ones.  The "heresy" comment was from McConkie at a BYU devotional.  Not official. 
It was declared a heresy by President Kimball, not McConkie, and I believe it was in General Conference.  Whether that makes the denouncement any more official than the pronouncement by Brigham would get us back into the Adam-God debate.

 If it doesn't matter who God is, then what is idolatry?
Idolatry is the worship of a false God, not a misunderstood identity.  It is by definition choosing to worship a different God.  All of Christianity worship the same God and Christ.  We just understand them differently.  Adam-God is no different.  We still worship our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ who died for us.  Just because there are differences of opinion on the people in those offices doesn't equate to worshipping the flying spaghetti monster or a golden calf.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Adam-God still seems to be a fairly popular belief in the church.  My question is this, if Adam-God is false, does praying to and worshiping Adam (a man) constitute idolatry?  Why or why not?  If it is true, then are the rest of us worshiping a false God? 

When the members can't even agree on who their God is, shouldn't the Church make an official statement about Adam-God?  If it is true, I would like to know to worship Adam.  If it is not, I would like to know for assurance that I am not practicing idolatry.  Shouldn't idolatry in the church be a serious enough priority for that?  Or, are we all worshiping the same God and it doesn't really matter how we perceive him or call him?

Secondarily, how important is it to know the name of God?

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that it is very important, and I tend to agree. 

Does it seem strange that we can't even agree on what the name of God is?  Adam? Jehovah? Elohim? Ahman? All of the above?  If we don't know the name of God, how can we glorify it in our worship?  The phrase "praise thy name" is mentioned 88 times in the scriptures.  So, what is his name? Who is God?  Doesn't it seem like we should all be on the same page with this as a church?  To me it seems like a good reason for an official declaration to put an end to division and contention in the church.  That is as basic as it gets.  We should all be on the same page on this very fundamental level in my opinion.  What do you all think?

I don't want this thread to be another debate about Adam-God.  Please don't argue for or against Adam-God and keep your discussion to the points made above. 

I think D&C 93 helps a lot in this regard (verse 19): "I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name*, and in due time receive of his fulness." Juxtaposed with verse 31, "Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light," we might see what constitutes idolatry along with other kinds of sin that are to be forsaken (verse 1).

* differs from language to language, so understanding the role as so-named is essential. This gets into the meaning of the phrase, "in my name," which is not so much literal as it is a reference to the sanction, authority or sake by which something is done or guaranteed. Idolatry would be unsanctioned or non-sanctioned worship.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Adam-God still seems to be a fairly popular belief in the church.  My question is this, if Adam-God is false, does praying to and worshiping Adam (a man) constitute idolatry?  Why or why not?  If it is true, then are the rest of us worshiping a false God? 

When the members can't even agree on who their God is, shouldn't the Church make an official statement about Adam-God?  If it is true, I would like to know to worship Adam.  If it is not, I would like to know for assurance that I am not practicing idolatry.  Shouldn't idolatry in the church be a serious enough priority for that?  Or, are we all worshiping the same God and it doesn't really matter how we perceive him or call him?

I've heard some Christians say they pray to the Holy Spirit because He is God. This is not supported by scripture. Jesus had us pray to the Father in His own name. Until that is changed, I think praying to a man is error. The job of the Holy Spirit is to confirm truth and protect us - If we pray to the Father for guidance, He will ensure the Holy Spirit gives it to the extent we are entitled to it. There is no scripture to indicate Adam is YHWH. None. Not even BY said that. As Michael, he holds some major keys, but I think one is going to have to pray to the Father and do His will if Michael is going to turn those keys. The question of "idolatry" is pretty simple. It's not. Unless one makes an idol of Adam and starts praying to it. However, it may be improperly placing another before the Father. Adam is our earthly spiritual father - not our heavenly one - he is the first earthly being to exercise a priesthood key. This key is pretty heavy duty stuff, but doesn't make him our Heavenly Father. 

Quote

Secondarily, how important is it to know the name of God?

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that it is very important, and I tend to agree. 

Does it seem strange that we can't even agree on what the name of God is?  Adam? Jehovah? Elohim? Ahman? All of the above?  If we don't know the name of God, how can we glorify it in our worship?  The phrase "praise thy name" is mentioned 88 times in the scriptures.  So, what is his name? Who is God?  Doesn't it seem like we should all be on the same page with this as a church?  To me it seems like a good reason for an official declaration to put an end to division and contention in the church.  That is as basic as it gets.  We should all be on the same page on this very fundamental level in my opinion.  What do you all think?

Be patient about the "official declaration." God fully intends for His name to be published to all the earth. 

Is His name important? Yes. But not fully knowing it nor understanding it is going to cause anyone to sin or go to Hell. Understanding His name is to understand the Godhead. That's why it's important. When you understand His name you know why He told Yeshua, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." This begs the question 'when did he glorify it the first time?' I have pointed this out on this forum before, but will repeat it here, because I do believe it is important. The Hebrew letters of YHWH, yod, heh, vav, heh, have individual meanings which were settled before Israel came out of Egypt. When YHWH gave Moses this name, these letters had meaning, and it is - Behold the nail, behold the hand (YHWH is read backwards into English). The name means I am life/the word. Yeshua taught us something critical here - "my words are life." - all you following what you think Paul says, listen up --  So, why does the Father have this name? Is this the name Yeshua inherited per Hebrews? If so, how? These are questions traditional Christianity never pursued, because they were too busy debating the man-made problems of the finer points of the trinity such as the nature of Christ(2 natures or one, etc) 

How is this name pronounced? Is it Jehovah? Well, no. The JWs are wrong here. That is actually probably closer than Yahweh. Yahweh comes from mixing the consonants of YHWH with the vowels of Adon. It was a way to hide the true pronunciation which Jews are superstitious about. Hebrew has no hard J sound. That came from the first German translations. Yehovah or Yahowah are the closest transliterations I have come up with - it kind of depends on the transliteration system used - I have never heard Him pronounce His name, so that's the best I can do. 

How can there be YHWH the Father and YHWH the Son? They are one/echad according to scripture. Echad is often used as a composite one rather than an absolute one which is yachid. The man and the woman shall be echad/one flesh. The same word is used for echad YHWH. How are they one? This goes back to what I have been saying about the Father - Son relationship. They are one much like man and wife are one. Yeshua taught this somewhat subtly. He did whatsoever He saw the Father do. That is how He inherited the Father's name.... and how come He will be called the Eternal Father - no more to return to corruption.

"Doesn't it seem like we should all be on the same page with this as a church?" It will happen, because those who will not believe will be cut off. But to end on a cheerier note, the Church doesn't have to worry about it just yet... But the day will come when YHWH alone shall be exalted. Amen.

Thanks Pogi

P.S. I hope the Church does not contend over this subject - I guess you are more referring to Adam. I've said my piece.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It could if you are worshiping an exalted man who is not our God. 
No other God's before me - correct.  But if the only difference is a name or an attribute that's not the same as another God.

What constitutes "identity"?  Isn't a name central to a person's identity? The scriptures counsel us to "praise his name".  Without the name, aren't you just worshiping God's attributes?
 The scriptures seem to think they do.  Brigham thought it matters.  Joseph thought it mattered too.  
No, a name matters, but not in that way.  It depends how you define the name of God.

  • The French say Dieu, the Spanish say Dios.  The word used for God doesn't change who God is.
  • We are also speaking of offices here.  Eloheim, Jehovah, Adam, Christ - all offices.  And offices can be held by different individuals.  Do you sustain your Bishop because you know his name is Fred, because of his attributes, or because he is your Bishop.  Which of the three is the focus - the individual, the attribute, or the office.

A conference talk does not constitute an official declaration.  It has to be canonized like the other ones.  The "heresy" comment was from McConkie at a BYU devotional.  Not official. 
It was declared a heresy by President Kimball, not McConkie, and I believe it was in General Conference.  Whether that makes the denouncement any more official than the pronouncement by Brigham would get us back into the Adam-God debate.

 If it doesn't matter who God is, then what is idolatry?
Idolatry is the worship of a false God, not a misunderstood identity.  It is by definition choosing to worship a different God.  All of Christianity worship the same God and Christ.  We just understand them differently.  Adam-God is no different.  We still worship our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ who died for us.  Just because there are differences of opinion on the people in those offices doesn't equate to worshipping the flying spaghetti monster or a golden calf.

No other God's before me - correct.  But if the only difference is a name or an attribute that's not the same as another God.

Identity is composed of nothing more than name and attributes.  If I received a letter in the mail addressed to Frank the Doctor from Manhattan, I would not open the letter.   

 

It was declared a heresy by President Kimball, not McConkie, and I believe it was in General Conference.  Whether that makes the denouncement any more official than the pronouncement by Brigham would get us back into the Adam-God debate.

Kimball called it "false doctrine", but it was McConkie who called it "heresy".  I guess they are pretty much the same thing though. 

That is exactly right though, what makes one pronouncement more official then the other?  That is precisely why this issue is not settled.  Without a canonized pronouncement, our people will continue to disagree on who God (that is a big deal in my mind), and misunderstand scripture, including the Book of Moses, Genesis, and the endowment.  It is pretty important to get straight. 

Idolatry is the worship of a false God, not a misunderstood identity. 

A misunderstood/false identity is a false God.  For example, Jesus warned of false Christ's.  That is simply a case of misunderstood identity.  If I claim that Noah is God, or Moses, or Frankie next door, is that not a false God? 

Either the first man was the Father of our spirits, or he wasn't.  If he wasn't, then praying to him as if he was, is no different than praying to Frankie next door. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I've heard some Christians say they pray to the Holy Spirit because He is God. This is not supported by scripture. Jesus had us pray to the Father in His own name. Until that is changed, I think praying to a man is error. The job of the Holy Spirit is to confirm truth and protect us - If we pray to the Father for guidance, He will ensure the Holy Spirit gives it to the extent we are entitled to it. There is no scripture to indicate Adam is YHWH. None. Not even BY said that. As Michael, he holds some major keys, but I think one is going to have to pray to the Father and do His will if Michael is going to turn those keys. The question of "idolatry" is pretty simple. It's not. Unless one makes an idol of Adam and starts praying to it. However, it may be improperly placing another before the Father. Adam is our earthly spiritual father - not our heavenly one - he is the first earthly being to exercise a priesthood key. This key is pretty heavy duty stuff, but doesn't make him our Heavenly Father. 

Be careful not to argue for or against Adam-God here.  It is fine to state which side you are on, but lets not go beyond that. Thanks!

So you do believe that those who believe in Adam-God are violating the first of the 10 commandments?   That's a pretty big one!  That is on the level of apostasy.  If so, doesn't it seem like the Church has a huge responsibility to clear up this mess that a President started?

This really puts the church in a pickle.  If worshiping Adam constitutes apostasy, then couldn't it be argued that a prophet of God led the church, and continues to lead members astray?  Perhaps this is why they are hesitant to make such a pronouncement?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Be patient about the "official declaration." God fully intends for His name to be published to all the earth. 

Good advice. 

The one name that I think we can all agree on is Ahman.  Why don't we use that more often in church?

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
2 hours ago, pogi said:

Identity is composed of nothing more than name and attributes.  If I received a letter in the mail addressed to Frank the Doctor from Manhattan, I would not open the letter.   

Kimball called it "false doctrine", but it was McConkie who called it "heresy".  I guess they are pretty much the same thing though. 

That is exactly right though, what makes one pronouncement more official then the other?  That is precisely why this issue is not settled.  Without a canonized pronouncement, our people will continue to disagree on who God (that is a big deal in my mind), and misunderstand scripture, including the Book of Moses, Genesis, and the endowment.  It is pretty important to get straight. 

A misunderstood/false identity is a false God.  For example, Jesus warned of false Christ's.  That is simply a case of misunderstood identity.  If I claim that Noah is God, or Moses, or Frankie next door, is that not a false God? 

Either the first man was the Father of our spirits, or he wasn't.  If he wasn't, then praying to him as if he was, is no different than praying to Frankie next door. 

1. Identity is a lot more than a label (name) and a personality/biological trait (attribute).  Both can and are changed regularly without a loss of identity.  Besides, we still don't know the actual name of God - it hasn't been revealed.  We only know his offices and titles.  (Ahman notwithstanding).

2. I don't know what difference an official canonized statement or pronouncement would make. Without revelation to back it up it remains opinion with no bearing on truthfulness.  It would make a creed, official but not necessarily true.

3. "Either the first man was the Father of our spirits or he wasn't."

True.  None of that changes that when we pray to God, our Heavenly Father we are all heard by the same being, even if we all vary in knowledge or understanding as to his personal details.  We aren't praying to different Gods, just different understandings of the being holding the office.  And since nobody has a perfect understanding of the being we call God I don't see that idolatry fits.

You may have a PhD in Math and I may barely understand fractions.  The words sine and tangent may not apply to math for me as they do for you.  Either way, that's not the same as you studying math and me studying history.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pray to the Father as Christ instructed. Is this supposed to be a hard question?

Apparently knowing his identity is required.

Link to comment

I had to think long and hard before I decided to respond to this topic, but here I am.

First, I have never read anything from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff about “Adam-God”. So this could be considered a CFR on them teaching “Adam-God”. What they did teach was the true nature of God, the identity of Adam and the true Garden story. It is my opinion that anyone that suggests these men had anything to do with “Adam-God” is ignorant of what these men taught and what “Adam-God” actually is.

Ever since the First Vision, the Identity of God has been known. He is the Father of our spirit bodies and the Father of Jesus Christ's physical body and as such he is called The Father and the one Christ designated as whom to address in our prayers in Jesus' name.

The word Adam refers to the role of the first man on earth, the one whose posterity inhabits this earth. In the temple we are instructed that we are to consider our self's (males) as though we are Adam, indicating the opportunity we will have to be the first man on an earth with our posterity to inhabit that earth. And indeed, what we learn at the veil refers to that possibility. Which raises the significant likelihood that God was an Adam even if not our Adam. But neither of those two possibilities changes the identity of God or our relationship to him in terms of  who we address in our prayers.

So to me this is one of those things I addressed in the Topic on this forum about Pet Peeves.

Edited by co-eternal
Link to comment
10 hours ago, pogi said:

The worship of Adam is unsanctioned or non-sanctioned by the modern church.  Wouldn't that classify as idolatry then?

I think it sufficient to classify the worship of Adam as unsanctioned / non-sanctioned. To praise the name of God, or to worship in His name, is to is to honor His authority, sanctioned practices (those revealed through the keys), and purposes (His work and glory). It doesn't matter what the proper noun of God is according to our spoken or written language. For example, Adam gave names to the animals, which I take to mean placing them within their proper order within his stewardship so as to fulfill the purpose of their creation (a rose by any other name would smell as sweet). When we worship God, we are to do it in His proper, revealed order. The prophets, even Brigham Young, have been pretty clear about worshiping the Father in the name of Christ; that seems about as simple and standardized an approach as I can think of.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pray to the Father as Christ instructed. Is this supposed to be a hard question?

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Apparently knowing his identity is required.

Identity matters.  Lets see how long your membership lasts if each time you pray in sacrament you pray to Father Adam, Father Baal, Father Molech the God of Abraham (that is just messed up), or to one of your ancestors who you claim to be the Father of our spirits; in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the homeless dude downtown.  Identity matters.

Look at all the genealogy work we do as a church.  We do it because identity and lineage matters.  When doing the work for your ancestors, not any Tom, ****, or Harry will do, no, you need the Tom Doe born in Lancashire on May 7, 1842 to mother Jane Doe, and married to Heather Richards, born 1838.  We do the work because it matters.  Lineage matters.  The identity of our God is a matter of lineage. 

Maury Povich made a living off of "Who's the baby daddy?" episodes, because identity matters.  The issue of Adam-God is basically a matter of "who's the baby daddy?"  It matters.  I can't comprehend why anyone would think that it wouldn't matter.  Why does it matter with our ancestors, but not with our God?

 

 

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, pogi said:

So you do believe that those who believe in Adam-God are violating the first of the 10 commandments?   That's a pretty big one!  That is on the level of apostasy.  If so, doesn't it seem like the Church has a huge responsibility to clear up this mess that a President started?

This really puts the church in a pickle.  If worshiping Adam constitutes apostasy, then couldn't it be argued that a prophet of God led the church, and continues to lead members astray?  Perhaps this is why they are hesitant to make such a pronouncement?

I don't recall BY ever telling anyone to pray to Adam, so I'm not sure there is a "mess" to clean up. Personally, I've never heard of anyone in the Church praying to Adam, but I would certainly advise against it. The Father's title is El Elyon, which means the Most High Power - closest I can render it in English. Next time you go to the temple, listen closely, and you will hear it in the Endowment - the "Most High." That is not a title of Yeshua. Yeshua is the Son of the Most High per Luke. Adam? No, not him either. Yeshua does have the title El Shaddai or the Power which weans from the breast (Most such as Robert will dispute this). You will find El Shaddai mostly in the Old Testament. He appears to Abram, and this is the first usage found in the Torah. Jesus told his accusers "before Abraham, I am," and "no one has seen the Father at any time." Orthodoxy followed the Septuagint translation of El Shaddai as the The Almighty God, and I believe errantly made Him the Father in their creeds. Anyway, to pray to Adam I believe is at present to improperly place him above the Most High Power. There is no command to do it, so don't do it. 

I believe praying to Yahowah would be fine. It is in the OT thousands of times - I think He is trying to tell us something there.... I have never prayed in that name, but it is the name of the Father and Son, but note the angel/messenger of YHWH also has His name in him. I have always prayed to my Father, and have gotten good results. Yeshua specifically instructs us to pray that way, so I see no need for change. It is a very personal title, and I think helps to place me in the right frame of mind. The Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent is 'Ab or Abba(the Father). Yeshua may have been making a specific point with that particular usage.

Quote

Good advice. 

The one name that I think we can all agree on is Ahman.  Why don't we use that more often in church?

Well, I don't know that can be traced to any specific Hebrew word. The Hebew verb aman means to strengthen or confirm in the sense of affirmation or consent. The nation of Lot was known to Israel as Aman or Amman, and I believe may have had some prophets. Perhaps, the modern English word "man" has some derivation from it... I believe the "Adamic language" was a Sumerian one. Incidentally, Sumerian is considered to be a non-related language in its own family. Aramaic and Hebrew were in part eventually derived from it, but linguists do not consider them related. The dream of a perfect language I believe is a false hope. Words inherently carry with them some ambiguity, because of their inability to perfectly capture ideas. The Father probably communicates more by what we would consider telepathy. Although He does not need words, He uses them, because in our fallen state we generally have no telepathic capabilities. 

Do you know what Ahman means? I confess, I do not. I therefore hesitate to use it. I will probably research it a bit, meditate and pray on it. I do not wish to offend anyone, but I don't put a lot of stock in the Pratt brothers, so I will not accept Orson's take on it without some confirmation on my own that I should change. I don't have a problem in referring to Yeshua as Ahman, but I am not presently planning to pray in that name. If the Lord wishes us to change, I am sure He will inform us. 

Link to comment
On 12/15/2017 at 2:52 AM, co-eternal said:

I had to think long and hard before I decided to respond to this topic, but here I am.

First, I have never read anything from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff about “Adam-God”. So this could be considered a CFR on them teaching “Adam-God”. What they did teach was the true nature of God, the identity of Adam and the true Garden story. It is my opinion that anyone that suggests these men had anything to do with “Adam-God” is ignorant of what these men taught and what “Adam-God” actually is.

Ever since the First Vision, the Identity of God has been known. He is the Father of our spirit bodies and the Father of Jesus Christ's physical body and as such he is called The Father and the one Christ designated as whom to address in our prayers in Jesus' name.

The word Adam refers to the role of the first man on earth, the one whose posterity inhabits this earth. In the temple we are instructed that we are to consider our self's (males) as though we are Adam, indicating the opportunity we will have to be the first man on an earth with our posterity to inhabit that earth. And indeed, what we learn at the veil refers to that possibility. Which raises the significant likelihood that God was an Adam even if not our Adam. But neither of those two possibilities changes the identity of God or our relationship to him in terms of  who we address in our prayers.

So to me this is one of those things I addressed in the Topic on this forum about Pet Peeves.

We all know what you believe about Adam being God.  This thread is not a discussion or debate for or against that position.

Link to comment
On 12/15/2017 at 7:27 AM, Gray said:

Is it? It's a belief in the FLDS church, but I don't believe that many LDS hold to it.

Maybe I just attract Adam-God believers.  They seem to be plentiful in my life.  It is anecdotal, but I somehow doubt that my experience with them is unique.  It is a definitely a minority position, but it does seem to exist.

Link to comment
On 12/14/2017 at 5:29 PM, pogi said:

Adam-God still seems to be a fairly popular belief in the church. 

I don't know where you're getting this idea.....I never knew this half-baked doctrine existed in my active days (not because of my ignorance). I never witnessed a debate among faithful either...But I'm writing about 1990's.... Now we have internet, it's different. I still wouldn't buy even 10% of membership believing this doctrine.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't know where you're getting this idea.....I never knew this half-baked doctrine existed in my active days (not because of my ignorance). I never witnessed a debate among faithful either...But I'm writing about 1990's.... Now we have internet, it's different. I still wouldn't buy even 10% of membership believing this doctrine.

I think it came as a surprise to Pogi that some of the forum members subscribe to it, which we all saw in recent discussions.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, pogi said:

We all know what you believe about Adam being God.  This thread is not a discussion or debate for or against that position.

All I did was to show that we pray to God the Father regardless of Adam's Identity. I did not argue one way or the other as to what that identity is. If you are trying to imply something other than that, well that is your history.

But I doubt you actually do know what I really think or believe.

Edited by co-eternal
Link to comment
4 hours ago, pogi said:

Maybe I just attract Adam-God believers.  They seem to be plentiful in my life.  It is anecdotal, but I somehow doubt that my experience with them is unique.  It is a definitely a minority position, but it does seem to exist.

Interesting, I guess it just depends on who you know.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

All I did was to show that we pray to God the Father regardless of Adam's Identity. I did not argue one way or the other as to what that identity is. If you are trying to imply something other than that, well that is your history.

But I doubt you actually do know what I really think or believe.

My comment was in response to your CFR.  I don’t want to argue about who said what about Adam-God.  The point is that some in the Church believe that Adam, the first man of this earth, is God the Father.  That belief is what I am referring to as “Adam-God”.  

I agree with your point that we all pray to God the Father.  But my question is this:  Does the identity of that God matter?  Does it matter if the man that you think is your father, really isn’t?  Doesn’t the true identity of your earthly father matter?  Why should it be any different with our Heavenly Father?  See my response above as to why I think identity matters.

I may not know everything you think or believe regarding this so called “doctrine”, but that is besides the point.  This thread is not about that topic.

 

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

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