CV75 Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Yeah, the fruit of the tree of life is usually believed to give immortality so it might be what was meant. I haven’t gone into a deep dive on that topic though to figure out if that was likely the meaning of the tree of life when it was written. I am convinced though that based on context and the opinions of experts that ‘dying in the 24 hour day you eat the fruit’ is most likely was meant by the writer. A lot of the Book of Genesis is pretty weird. One of the things I have been meaning to look into is why the descendants of Cain and the descendants of Seth use so many of the same names or nearly the same names in their genealogies. I wonder if they took one list and shuffled the names around to make the other. Interesting that some experts hold the position I shared and others hold the position you shared about the word “day” in the warning about death (2:17). Here’s what I have: "In the day" (bəyôm): This phrase often functions idiomatically in the Old Testament to mean "when" or "at the time that," rather than a literal 24-hour day. Other biblical examples use this phrasing for events that did not occur within a single calendar day (e.g., 1 Kings 2:37, where Solomon warns Shimei that "on the day you go out... you shall surely die," but Shimei was executed later upon his return). https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/85628/in-genesis-217-some-translations-omit-in-the-day-while-some-contain-the-phra#:~:text=In%20Gen%202:17%2C%20the,would%20die%20the%20same%20day. You shall surely die" (môt tamût): This is a Hebrew idiom using the infinitive absolute with the imperfect verb from the same root ("dying you shall die"). This repetition is a grammatical way to convey the certainty and inevitability of the consequence, rather than the immediacy of a single, instantaneous event. https://biblicalhebrew.org/use-of-infinitive-absolute-emphasis-through-verb-repetition.aspx#:~:text=The%20infinitive%20absolute%20serves%20multiple%20functions%20depending,frequency%2C%20or%20severity%20of%20the%20verb's%20action. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/94279/what-is-the-significance-of-the-term-die-die-%D7%9E%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%AA-m%C3%BB%E1%B9%AF-m%C3%BB%E1%B9%AF-at-genesis-2#:~:text=As%20this%20article%20explains%2C%20repetitions,(year%20year)%20=%20each%20year What do you have that indicates what the writer originally meant? I thought there was no definitive writer of the text as it is by now a compilation of multiple authors, editors and scribes long after Moses lived, the earliest being those from 9th (southern kingdom) and 8th (northern kingdom) centuries BC (all Hebrew nonetheless, explaining the two idioms). 1
Calm Posted December 7, 2025 Author Posted December 7, 2025 (edited) 1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said: I just meant the show in general, not necessarily this episode- which I haven't watched. Out of likely over a dozen or so, I don’t think I have seen an episode that wasn’t cranked up and overly enthusiastic about the ‘latest’ finds (most of the new stuff is new, some wasn’t) and trash talking critics. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there, I have only seen a small percentage after all. Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm
Calm Posted December 7, 2025 Author Posted December 7, 2025 (edited) 31 minutes ago, CV75 said: that some experts hold the positio The first link….why would you call an anonymous someone online an expert? Dan Fefferman, the third link, has a Master’s of Divinity, but says nothing about what training he has in Biblical Hebrew. Middle link is the most credible. Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm
The Nehor Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 7 hours ago, Stargazer said: There's a varied set of co-hosts, with Cardon Ellis being the only common personage. The channel is a mixed bag. As for trust, "prove all things," as Paul said. If I had unlimited time I would but if I find a source to regularly not be credible I move on to other sources. It is easier and safer to learn from people who are careful about the facts and (despite the bias everyone has) attempt to present it in a way that is not misleading or loaded. People who confidently and enthusiastically spread misinformation are a dime a dozen and I generally don’t spend time on them. 1
JLHPROF Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 15 hours ago, Stargazer said: I agree. But picking and choosing which ones we prefer, as opposed to which ones are true, as if there was a cafeteria somewhere, could be mighty shortsighted. As for Adam-God, I don't know if you've ever watched the Ward Radio YouTube channel, but they were discussing this the other month. If you're not familiar with Ward Radio, I have to warn you that it tries be entertaining as well as thoughtful, so be prepared for some cringy presentation (at least in my opinion). Oh, and by the way, one of the presenters in this episode, Austin Falter, in his youth, was an old home-teaching companion of mine. Great kid. I saw that. It's absolutely wrong. Just not accurate history at all.
CV75 Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 (edited) 12 hours ago, Calm said: The first link….why would you call an anonymous someone online an expert? Dan Fefferman, the third link, has a Master’s of Divinity, but says nothing about what training he has in Biblical Hebrew. Middle link is the most credible. Given the hosting site's overall reputation for participants and sourcing rules, the community on the whole is more expert than me ! And Dan Fetterman is too! If you have experts by your estimation that either share or refute any in the links I listed, please provide them. This part of the thread was simply a mild indulgence since my main focus is that people can make and keep their covenants whichever conclusion they accept from whichever expert. And I try not to overindulge! Edited December 7, 2025 by CV75
Kevin Christensen Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 (edited) On 11/30/2025 at 12:46 PM, teddyaware said: Most Latter-Day Saints are unaware of the fact that the church acknowledges t=there are instances in the scriptures when the sacred name Jehovah is applied to God the Father. Psalms 110:1 provides a perfect example of when this occurs: 1) The LORD (Jehovah) said unto my Lord (Christ), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstools. (Psalms 110) ‘Many members may be surprised to learn that the Latter-Day Saint Bible’s Topical Guide includes a reference section under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,” and another reference section under the heading “Jesus Christ, Jehovah.” Included under the heading “God the Father, Jehovah,” are also verses that speak of Christ as being the Father of Heaven and Earth and the Father of our salvation. From the Topical Guide… God the Father, Jehovah See also Godhead; God the Father, Elohim; Jesus Christ, Jehovah; Witness of the Father my God … my father’s God, Ex. 15:2. Lord God of Israel our father, 1 Chr. 29:10. father of the fatherless … is God, Ps. 68:5. his name shall be called … The mighty God, The everlasting Father, Isa. 9:6 (2 Ne. 19:6). thou, O Lord, art our father, Isa. 63:16. My father, thou art the guide of my youth, Jer. 3:4. I am a father to Israel, Jer. 31:9. in Christ Jesus I have begotten you, 1 Cor. 4:15. will be a Father unto you … saith the Lord, 2 Cor. 6:18. Christ was the God, the Father of all things, Mosiah 7:27. being the Father and the Son, Mosiah 15:2. The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God, Mosiah 15:3. these are his seed, Mosiah 15:11. Christ … who is the very Eternal Father, Mosiah 16:15 (Alma 11:38). the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, Alma 11:39. Jesus Christ … the Father of heaven and of earth, Hel. 14:12(Ether 4:7). I am the Father and the Son, Ether 3:14. as many as receive me … become the sons of God, D&C 11:30(25:1; 35:2; 39:4; 45:8; 50:43). Fear not, little children, for you are mine, D&C 50:41. inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God, D&C 76:24. See also Ex. 4:22; John 17:6–12, 20–24; 2 Cor. 6:18; Eph. 1:3–6; D&C 76:58–59; 93:21–22. And there is this observation by Methodist Biblical scholar, Margaret Barker in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God: "there were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord." She also observes that "All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between EI Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered." That particular observation is very helpful in dealing with references to Christ, who has a father, also being a father to those humans who covenant with him. Brant Gardner wrote in his Second Witness commentaries that this distinction between Fathers works for all of the Book of Mormon references. See https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book A summary of Barker's approach is here: https://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf But her book, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God has far more detail. And in considering Latter-day Saint readings, I've read several supposedly objective and definitive commentaries on the evolution of understanding that do not mention some telling lines in some of the most popular hymns. "Jesus once of humble birth, now in glory comes to earth, Once a meek and lowly lamb, now the LORD the Great I AM." and "Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah, Jesus annointed that prophet and seer." Since these were composed by Parley P. Pratt at least 60 years before Jesus the Christ and the First Presidency Statement, it seems to me that some Latter-day Saint thinkers understood long before that. As to Psalm 110, it was a ritual Temple text, something to be performed, with layers of representation, of the LORD (who represents his Father, El Elyon, God Most High) speaking to the Melchizedek (where Melch Zedek means Righteous King) High Priest (often also the King), who represents the LORD in the Temple rituals). Also, Barker points out that in the New Testament, Jesus is always designated as the Son of El Elyon, and never the Son of Jehovah. He is recognized as LORD, not the son of the Lord. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Tooele, UT Edited December 8, 2025 by Kevin Christensen Details and typo 1
Calm Posted December 7, 2025 Author Posted December 7, 2025 (edited) 6 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I saw that. It's absolutely wrong. Just not accurate history at all. Love to hear the details. It was frustrating that they didn’t pull up more and just wasted time gushing. Are you claiming the “or” is actually supposed to be “our”, that is not a mistake? Also what about the Ben Rich journal entry? I see the punctuation as a very debatable choice, but the two other finds seem on point and solid. Or perhaps you were just saying the framing was off? IMO, the history they used to place the finds in context was surprisingly lacking what I would assume they would know, the Orson Pratt-Brigham Young disagreement, but perhaps they felt that was covered by the guest pointing out the different parts of the Adam-God theory and the only one that matters is whether or not Brigham taught that Adam was Elohim. There were also close contemporaries of Brigham sharing the same ideas they are saying were not what Brigham meant, I believe, and that was ignored along with contemporary disagreement with Brigham. I know basic summary of a contrasting view of history, but it would be great to see it in detail. Edited December 7, 2025 by Calm
JLHPROF Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 1 minute ago, Calm said: Love to hear the details. It was frustrating that they didn’t pull up more and just wasted time gushing. Are you claiming the “or” is actually supposed to be “our”, that is not a mistake? Also what about the Ben Rich journal entry? I see the punctuation as a very debatable choice, but the two other finds seem on point and solid. Or perhaps you were just saying the framing was off? IMO, the history they used to place the finds in context was surprisingly lacking what I would assume they would know, the Orson Pratt-Brigham Young disagreement, but perhaps they felt that was covered by the guest pointing out the different parts of the Adam-God theory and the only one that matters is whether or not Brigham taught that Adam was Elohim. There were also close contemporaries of Brigham sharing the same ideas they are saying were not what Brigham meant, I believe, and that was ignored along with contemporary disagreement with Brigham. I know basic summary of a contrasting view of history, but it would be great to see it in detail. It's the old "Brigham was misquoted" argument that was used decades ago. I think it was Petersen but I might be misremembering. It ignores the dozens of teachings, temple records, and quorum records. History shows Adam God was absolutely taught.
Calm Posted December 7, 2025 Author Posted December 7, 2025 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: It's the old "Brigham was misquoted" argument that was used decades ago. I think it was Petersen but I might be misremembering. It ignores the dozens of teachings, temple records, and quorum records. History shows Adam God was absolutely taught. So no details? That’s okay, I know not everyone has the amount of free time and interest level I do. What site do you believe has the most accurate reconstruction of Brigham’s beliefs in this area?
JLHPROF Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 7 minutes ago, Calm said: So no details? That’s okay, I know not everyone has the amount of free time and interest level I do. What site do you believe has the most accurate reconstruction of Brigham’s beliefs in this area? I don't know any site that puts together the teachings. But some of the historical documentation can be found all over. This site contains a lot of the historical discourses and records. https://www.adamgod.com/ And then you only need to google or look into the history like with Orson Pratt or Bishop Bunker, to find records. Now if you're looking for explanation and clarification on what it all means that's much harder. But the idea that it was never taught (as Ward Radio claimed) has no truth to it. 1
Calm Posted December 7, 2025 Author Posted December 7, 2025 40 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: But the idea that it was never taught (as Ward Radio claimed) has no truth to it. Given their criticism of members for just accepting what others (in this case, they see the source as antimormons) tell them is true without examining the claims, it’s rather hypocritical, imo. 1
Calm Posted December 7, 2025 Author Posted December 7, 2025 48 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: But some of the historical documentation can be found all over. This site contains a lot of the historical discourses and records. https://www.adamgod.com/ This got my brain going and I checked out Mormonr, which is my usual first stop these days for anything controversial, so I don’t know why I have been spacing on it for this. https://mormonr.org/qnas/0JPssK/adam_god_theory I may have asked you this before as my memory is going to ‘is this Deja vu?’ Mormonr seems quite thorough on this topic in its collection of sources, but what do you think of the discussion? Do you see them downplaying the importance of the teachings (as in it’s non canonical and was only ever semi-official even if taught publicly, so best to call the set of teachings a theory rather than doctrine even if some ideas in it are officially taught still; it was only publicly taught for a few decades while denounced for over a century)?
JLHPROF Posted December 7, 2025 Posted December 7, 2025 I would say they are downplaying a little, but the data there alone is enough to make the Ward Radio video less a bombshell and more a bold faced lie. As it shows: ---------------------- "Adam-God teachings were published in Church magazines,[71] hymnals,[72] sermons,[73] private gatherings,[74] and in teachings in the St. George Temple.[75] Was this ever an "official" doctrine? Sort of. Adam-God theory was publicly asserted by leaders of the Church. It was referred to as a "doctrine" by Brigham Young and other leaders,[76] and ideas were taught in the St. George Utah Temple in the "Lecture at the Veil"[77] which explained the creation, the exaltation of Adam and his descendants, Adam and Eve being the parents of our spirits, and the mission of Jesus as the Savior." The real irony I see is that while in the last decade or so the Church themselves have become more honest in their representation of History, this in turn has produced a small but vocal movement among members pushing a newly sanitized revisionist history concerning many aspects of Church history. It's fascinating to watch. 1
The Nehor Posted December 8, 2025 Posted December 8, 2025 On 12/6/2025 at 8:16 PM, CV75 said: Interesting that some experts hold the position I shared and others hold the position you shared about the word “day” in the warning about death (2:17). Here’s what I have: "In the day" (bəyôm): This phrase often functions idiomatically in the Old Testament to mean "when" or "at the time that," rather than a literal 24-hour day. Other biblical examples use this phrasing for events that did not occur within a single calendar day (e.g., 1 Kings 2:37, where Solomon warns Shimei that "on the day you go out... you shall surely die," but Shimei was executed later upon his return). https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/85628/in-genesis-217-some-translations-omit-in-the-day-while-some-contain-the-phra#:~:text=In%20Gen%202:17%2C%20the,would%20die%20the%20same%20day. You shall surely die" (môt tamût): This is a Hebrew idiom using the infinitive absolute with the imperfect verb from the same root ("dying you shall die"). This repetition is a grammatical way to convey the certainty and inevitability of the consequence, rather than the immediacy of a single, instantaneous event. https://biblicalhebrew.org/use-of-infinitive-absolute-emphasis-through-verb-repetition.aspx#:~:text=The%20infinitive%20absolute%20serves%20multiple%20functions%20depending,frequency%2C%20or%20severity%20of%20the%20verb's%20action. https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/94279/what-is-the-significance-of-the-term-die-die-%D7%9E%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%95%D6%B9%D7%AA-m%C3%BB%E1%B9%AF-m%C3%BB%E1%B9%AF-at-genesis-2#:~:text=As%20this%20article%20explains%2C%20repetitions,(year%20year)%20=%20each%20year What do you have that indicates what the writer originally meant? I thought there was no definitive writer of the text as it is by now a compilation of multiple authors, editors and scribes long after Moses lived, the earliest being those from 9th (southern kingdom) and 8th (northern kingdom) centuries BC (all Hebrew nonetheless, explaining the two idioms). From what I have read the bulk of scholars think the 24 hour time period is the more likely. It can mean either but from what I can tell the bulk believe that in this context the more likely meaning is within 24 hours. It is not a certainty though.
CV75 Posted December 8, 2025 Posted December 8, 2025 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: From what I have read the bulk of scholars think the 24 hour time period is the more likely. It can mean either but from what I can tell the bulk believe that in this context the more likely meaning is within 24 hours. It is not a certainty though. Which of these scholars are not associated with young earth creationism, in other words, who take this interpretation only as a strict reading of the text, and that the the idiom was not applied to it? 1
longview Posted December 8, 2025 Posted December 8, 2025 On 12/7/2025 at 2:46 PM, JLHPROF said: The real irony I see is that while in the last decade or so the Church themselves have become more honest in their representation of History, this in turn has produced a small but vocal movement among members pushing a newly sanitized revisionist history concerning many aspects of Church history. It's fascinating to watch. BYU scholars years ago studied the words of BY and determined the he has contradicted himself several times. The scholars cannot even classify the parts. No wonder BY could not proceed with normal process for canonization of this mass of confusion. In my Gospel Library app I have scores of annotations tagged with "Adam": Adam cannot be God the Father because: God is pure and holy thus cannot be subject to another fall the fall introduced carnal and corrupt state the scriptures teach that NO unclean thing can be in His Presence God already had been through a plan of redemption once in a previous Eternal Round which was sufficient for His own permanent Salvation Adam and Eve did become subject to death of the mortal body thus they were dependent on the Atonement of Jesus Christ which is a serious contradiction because God does NOT need His Son Jesus to save Him! Therefore the Adam God Theory is false. Alma 22:13 Book of Mormon 13 And Aaron did expound unto him the scriptures from the creation of Adam, laying the fall of man before him, and their carnal state and also the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world, through Christ, for all whosoever would believe on his name. Adam was NOT begotten of God the Father (Elohim) in the flesh, only Jesus had the distinction of being borned of God with a physical body through Mary a physical mortal being. Thus disproving the Adam God Theory. Jesus is the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. According to the temple endowment liturgy, God the Father (Elohim, a resurrected being) and Jehovah (Jesus, a spirit being in the First Estate) and Michael (the archangel, also a spirit being in the First Estate) came down to Earth for the purpose of forming a Terrestrial body for Michael. Thus Michael was placed into that body and became known as Adam. The liturgy explicitly states that Adam had forgotten all which implied that the veil of forgetfulness had been placed on his mind. This leads to several theological problems: Why would God the Father NEED to forget His purposes? Why would God the Father need to go through another "Plan of Redemption", another corruption, another physical mortal death, and another resurrection? Why would God the Father need to RELY on the Atonement of Jesus for Himself? But Adam certainly did need it! Why would God the Father and Eve need to be tempted by Lucifer to partake of the Forbidden Fruit? Why would God the Father need to have a Terrestrial body prepatory to the Fall? Why not go directly from Celestial state to the Telestial? Why would God the Father set Cherubim and a flaming sword to guard the way of the Tree of Life in order to prevent Adam and Eve from partaking of it? See Moses 4:28. Supporters of the Adam God Theory have to go through a great deal of contortions to make distinctions between God the Father and Michael. Why would Elohim and Jehovah (Jesus) be giving Adam and Eve a choice between having children or NOT partaking of Forbidden Fruit? 2 Nephi 25:12 Book of Mormon 12 But, behold, they shall have wars, and rumors of wars; and when the day cometh that the Only Begotten of the Father, yea, even the Father of heaven and of earth, shall manifest himself unto them in the flesh, behold, they will reject him, because of their iniquities, and the hardness of their hearts, and the stiffness of their necks. Doctrine and Covenants 29:40–43 Doctrine and Covenants 40 Wherefore, it came to pass that the devil tempted Adam, and he partook of the forbidden fruit and transgressed the commandment, wherein he became subject to the will of the devil, because he yielded unto temptation. 41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed. 42 But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son. 43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe; The Only Begotten means that Adam could not have been God the Father. Adam and Eve bore multiple children. Therefore the Adam God Theory is contradictory. Alma 13:9 Book of Mormon 9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen. This disproves the Adam God Theory. If Adam was God the Father then he should not have died (body and spirit never to be divided). [February 20, 2023, 7:10 AM] And God the Father cannot repeat His personal experience with being subject to the Fall and it's attendent corruption. He did not need go through the Second Estate again. Once is enough for every person. (Lucifer and his angels have deprived themselves of the opportunity to go through the Second Estate.) Alma 11:45 Book of Mormon 45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption. "To go no more out" is powerful evidence against the Adam/God heresy. For Heavenly Father cannot leave His exaltation to go through the Fall again and to be subject to corruption and death again. To be dependent on Atonement of His son Jesus more than once. Alma 7:23–25 Book of Mormon 23 And now I would that ye should be humble, and be submissive and gentle; easy to be entreated; full of patience and long-suffering; being temperate in all things; being diligent in keeping the commandments of God at all times; asking for whatsoever things ye stand in need, both spiritual and temporal; always returning thanks unto God for whatsoever things ye do receive. 24 And see that ye have faith, hope, and charity, and then ye will always abound in good works. 25 And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out. this completely destroys the Adam/God theory [February 10, 2023, 10:15 AM] Before the Fall of Adam, all of God's creations were in Paradisiacal State. Including all living things that were not subject to death. This Adam was definitely Michael the Archangel. 2 Nephi 2:22–23 Book of Mormon 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. protection of the House of Israel; eternal increase; blessings of temple covenants. The God of Israel is Jehovah. Which is Jesus Christ. Both Abraham and Adam are subordinate to and dependent on Jesus/Jehovah. Therefore Adam is NOT the same person as God the Father. Abraham 2:8–11 Pearl of Great Price 8 My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee. 9 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee above measure, and make thy name great among all nations, and thou shalt be a blessing unto thy seed after thee, that in their hands they shall bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations; 10 And I will bless them through thy name; for as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after thy name, and shall be accounted thy seed, and shall rise up and bless thee, as their father; 11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal. Another evidence against Adam/God theory. Heavenly Father is a resurrected being which body and spirit never to be separated again. Therefore Adam was NOT Heavenly Father. Moses 6:12 Pearl of Great Price 12 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. This is a clear and concise relationship between the three of them: The Lord God is Heavenly Father The Only Begotten is Jesus Adam is definitely not Heavenly Father Adam is dependent on Jesus This proves Adam/God theory is false. Moses 4:28 Pearl of Great Price 28 And I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, Moses 4:25 Pearl of Great Price 25 By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return. Another confirmation that Adam (Michael) is distinct from Heavenly Father. See verse 3. Here are Adam and Eve WAITING in the spirit world for four thousand years for Jesus to perform the Atonement. Jesus the FIRSTFRUIT of the resurrection. THEN Adam and Eve finally gets to be resurrected. Doctrine and Covenants 137:5 Doctrine and Covenants 5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; Michael = Adam Gabriel = Noah Raphael? Is it Moses? Doctrine and Covenants 128:21 Doctrine and Covenants 21 And again, the voice of God in the chamber of old Father Whitmer, in Fayette, Seneca county, and at sundry times, and in divers places through all the travels and tribulations of this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! And the voice of Michael, the archangel; the voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood; giving line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, and there a little; giving us consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope! This indicates that there were no progenitors for Adam and Eve's physical bodies but by the organising power of God's word. Doctrine and Covenants 84:16 Doctrine and Covenants 16 And from Enoch to Abel, who was slain by the conspiracy of his brother, who received the priesthood by the commandments of God, by the hand of his father Adam, who was the first man— There are three persons: God the Father (Creator), Jesus Christ (the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh) and Adam (NOT begotten of God the Father, is subject to death and is dependent on the Atonement of Christ). Jesus does not command Heavenly Father, neither does He forgive Him. Therefore Heavenly Father was NOT Adam. Adam must act in the name of Christ. Moses 6:51–53 Pearl of Great Price 51 And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh. 52 And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions, and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye shall ask, it shall be given you. 53 And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were still in their disembodied state dependent on their Savior Jesus Christ for their resurrection. This disproves the "Adam God Theory". Doctrine and Covenants 138:38–39 Doctrine and Covenants 38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all, 39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithful daughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God. Alma 42:2 Book of Mormon 2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life— It is clear that Adam and Eve needed the Atonement of Christ. Thus Adam is NOT the same person as God the Father. Thus Adam and Eve were subservient to both God the Father and Jesus. Moses 5:10–12 Pearl of Great Price 10 And in that day Adam blessed God and was filled, and began to prophesy concerning all the families of the earth, saying: Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God. 11 And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient. 12 And Adam and Eve blessed the name of God, and they made all things known unto their sons and their daughters. this power is His priesthood. His creations are done with priesthood templates? this implies that Adam was NOT begotten somewhere else and brought to earth? That God organized Adam's physical body from the dust of the earth by His Word through the power of the priesthood? This disproves the Adam God Theory. Chiasmus: a- For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth --b- which earth was created by the power of his word. --b'- Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, a'- and to speak and man was created Jacob 4:9–10 Book of Mormon 9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure? 10 Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works. 1 Timothy 2:13–14 New Testament 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Adam did not have a birthing progenitor but was formed by God? First man implies it was not God that partook of the fruit in order to take on fallen nature? Abraham 1:3 Pearl of Great Price 3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me. The Fall implies corruption. Therefore Heavenly Father was NOT Adam. Moses 6:48 Pearl of Great Price 48 And he said unto them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we are made partakers of misery and woe. Moses 6:45 Pearl of Great Price 45 And death hath come upon our fathers; nevertheless we know them, and cannot deny, and even the first of all we know, even Adam. Doctrine and Covenants 116:1 Doctrine and Covenants 1 Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet Adam is the archangel, NOT God the Father, NOT the Most High. Adam a prince. NOT even in the Godhead to be among God the Father, Jehovah (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost. Doctrine and Covenants 107:54–56 Doctrine and Covenants 54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel. 55 And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever. 56 And Adam stood up in the midst of the congregation; and, notwithstanding he was bowed down with age, being full of the Holy Ghost, predicted whatsoever should befall his posterity unto the latest generation. This shows that Adam is UNDER the presiding authority of Jesus Christ or Jehovah. Doctrine and Covenants 78:14–16 Doctrine and Covenants 14 That through my providence, notwithstanding the tribulation which shall descend upon you, that the church may stand independent above all other creatures beneath the celestial world; 15 That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; 16 Who hath appointed Michaelyour prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life. Doctrine and Covenants 27:11 Doctrine and Covenants 11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;
Calm Posted December 9, 2025 Author Posted December 9, 2025 (edited) 49 minutes ago, longview said: Adam cannot be God the Father because: God is pure and holy thus cannot be subject to another fall the fall introduced carnal and corrupt state the scriptures teach that NO unclean thing can be in His Presence God already had been through a plan of redemption once in a previous Eternal Round which was sufficient for His own permanent Salvation Adam and Eve did become subject to death of the mortal body thus they were dependent on the Atonement of Jesus Christ which is a serious contradiction because God does NOT need His Son Jesus to save Are these points from Brigham or scriptures? I do believe your above argument is logical, just wondering if this is Brigham contradicting himself as I agree he did (whether it was different, new ideas or he lost track of his own reasonings as I do quite often or he was using terms inconsistently (which has been my understanding of what caused contradiction in his later comments in the past, but I haven’t checked each or possibly even the majority of cases as I have never been systematic about it, so who knows) Your questions 2 and 3 have always made Adam-God a nonstarter for me. The rest of your reasoning and use of scripture is very thorough. I am impressed. Edited December 9, 2025 by Calm 1
The Nehor Posted December 9, 2025 Posted December 9, 2025 8 hours ago, CV75 said: Which of these scholars are not associated with young earth creationism, in other words, who take this interpretation only as a strict reading of the text, and that the the idiom was not applied to it? Pretty much all of them weren’t young earth creationists. 1
longview Posted December 9, 2025 Posted December 9, 2025 51 minutes ago, Calm said: Are these points from Brigham or scriptures? From the scriptures. Are you familiar with the church app Gospel Library? Have you done any electronic highlighting using the phone or the desktop PC? I love to do annotations. I have 1861 annotations from years of study and meditation. Elements of an annotation can include any combinations of title, personal notes, the highlighted scripture, tags, notebooks, links to any number of other scriptures.
Calm Posted December 9, 2025 Author Posted December 9, 2025 23 minutes ago, longview said: From the scriptures. Are you familiar with the church app Gospel Library? Have you done any electronic highlighting using the phone or the desktop PC? I love to do annotations. I have 1861 annotations from years of study and meditation. Elements of an annotation can include any combinations of title, personal notes, the highlighted scripture, tags, notebooks, links to any number of other scriptures. I need to break my mind block on using digital scriptures for scripture study. I have tried a few times. It just doesn’t feel as mentally and emotionally immediate or maybe it’s intimate as the weight of a book and turning pages. Maybe your post will do it. I do like annotating.
JLHPROF Posted December 9, 2025 Posted December 9, 2025 6 hours ago, longview said: BYU scholars years ago studied the words of BY and determined the he has contradicted himself several times. The scholars cannot even classify the parts. No wonder BY could not proceed with normal process for canonization of this mass of confusion. In my Gospel Library app I have scores of annotations tagged with "Adam": Adam cannot be God the Father because: The point I was making had nothing to do with whether Adam-God was true or false. I was addressing the intellectually dishonest trend trying to claim Brigham never taught it. It's the same dishonest trend claiming Joseph wasn't a polygamist. Or that there was no priesthood restrictions on race until after Joseph died History is what actually happened, for better or worse. Amd Brigham (and other Apostles) absolutely taught Adam God, whether they were right or wrong. 3
Calm Posted December 9, 2025 Author Posted December 9, 2025 4 hours ago, JLHPROF said: that there was no priesthood restrictions on race until after Joseph died I know of not teaching slaves without consent of their masters. What other ones are you thinking of?
longview Posted December 9, 2025 Posted December 9, 2025 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: The point I was making had nothing to do with whether Adam-God was true or false. So why do you want to keep harping on this? Many of your posts seems to reflect some kind of resentment or utter disappointment in the imperfections of past church leaders? We can be "sorrowful" that Joseph Smith allowed himself to be worn down by the persistent hectoring by Martin Harris to "borrow" the 116 page manuscript. But this was an important lesson for Joseph AND for the church. Don't know what lessons God had in mind for NOT setting BY straight on the AGT confusion. Maybe He was allowing the members to make personal efforts to search the scriptures and clarify doctrines. It seems Orson Pratt did make a serious review and did strongly oppose many of the brethren on this topic. Most likely others made that effort also. Thus AGT was NOT canonized but remained in limbo for some reason. 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: I was addressing the intellectually dishonest trend trying to claim Brigham never taught it. My experience of the last several decades is that church leaders including Kimball and Hinckley did acknowledge that AGT was propounded but it was steadily ground down to be "non-doctrinal" to be set aside. That is NOT a trend but a struggle for clarification. 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: It's the same dishonest trend claiming Joseph wasn't a polygamist. Not by church leaders. There were documentation from as early as 1831. Section 132 was explicit for Emma to accept this principle. Hyrum Smith tried valiantly to persuade her. That was NOT a trend but a fear on Joseph's part for greatly added persecution and violence. 11 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Or that there was no priesthood restrictions on race until after Joseph died. Not true. I used chatGPT to dig up the reference for Elijah Abel: "That man was Elijah (sometimes spelled “Able”) Abel. He was ordained an Elder (and later a Seventy) in the 1830s and is the best-known Black man to have held priesthood in Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Scholars and Church records also record later recollections — notably by Zebedee Coltrin and by statements made by Joseph F. Smith — claiming Joseph Smith was later said to have been commanded to withdraw or declare Abel’s ordination void; historians debate the reliability and meaning of those later recollections." Coltrin is recorded as saying that Abel was “dropped from the quorum” when the Prophet learned of his lineage. (Minute/notes of the May 31, 1879 meeting.)
CV75 Posted December 9, 2025 Posted December 9, 2025 18 hours ago, The Nehor said: Pretty much all of them weren’t young earth creationists. That's great -- who can you recommend I look up?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now