Adam Is Michael?

[Dale]

I believe God created spirits via Jesus. (Collossians 1:16) The idea of spirit birth was no Joseph Smith's idea. He seems to have believed in having physical children after the resurrection. (D.&C. 132:19)The only way God clearly has spirit children is adopting physical children as his. I don't believe God uses Celestial sex to produce any heavenly children. Certainly God used mortal sex to produce billions of mortals. But I just never saw when I was LDS the truth of the spirit birth idea. I am Reorganized LDS and we reject the LDS idea of spirit birth.

DNA from a heavenly Father and mother could be used to created Adam and Eve's on future worlds. I am not in favor of Brigham Young's notion that Adam and Eve actually were never created in the garden. He believed that they moved into the garden as full grown adults from some place else.

With Adam being the Ancient of Days it's in both the LDS, and Community of Christ editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

When and where will the events of Daniel 7 take place? The events appear to happen on the earth at the time of Jesus coming. The Ancient of Days must come prior to Jesus coming as things have to be set up to recieve Jesus.

[Lachoneus]

I believe God created spirits via Jesus. (Collossians 1:16) The idea of spirit birth was no Joseph Smith's idea. He seems to have believed in having physical children after the resurrection. (D.&C. 132:19)The only way God clearly has spirit children is adopting physical children as his. I don't believe God uses Celestial sex to produce any heavenly children. Certainly God used mortal sex to produce billions of mortals. But I just never saw when I was LDS the truth of the spirit birth idea. I am Reorganized LDS and we reject the LDS idea of spirit birth.

Collossians 1:16 does not specifically mention spirits. That which is eternal, by definition, cannot be created, it cannot have a beginning.

God clearly begot all our spirits in the creation. (Heb 12:9) There is only one way to create a sentient being. Even Christ had both a Father and a mother.

What you "see" and don't "see" is irrelevant to what is true.

Our Young Men's President used to be RLDS. He now rejects the unique RLDS teachings.

DNA from a heavenly Father and mother could be used to created Adam and Eve's on future worlds. I am not in favor of Brigham Young's notion that Adam and Eve actually were never created in the garden. He believed that they moved into the garden as full grown adults from some place else.

Actually, Brigham Young taught that God did create Adam and Eve in the garden. That is where they were conceived and born and raised to maturity.

With Adam being the Ancient of Days it's in both the LDS, and Community of Christ editions of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Right!

When and where will the events of Daniel 7 take place? The events appear to happen on the earth at the time of Jesus coming. The Ancient of Days must come prior to Jesus coming as things have to be set up to recieve Jesus.

The events in Daniel 7 will take place on earth as explained to Daniel in the latter half of the chapter.

[Dale]

Van Hale has an article on the creation of spirits at his website. He answers common proof-texts LDS use to support spirit birth. He rejects you view of Hebrews 12:9 as do I. He is more articulate than I am on his interpretation so I refer you to his article. Joseph Smith during the same time D.&C. 132 was writted said spirits were uncreated in a sermon. Van Hale documents this in his article on the subject of the origin of the spirits in early Mormon thought.

I reject the idea God has a body. So he would not be Jesus literal Father. Although it's not as Anti-Mormons have made up the notion of God having sex with Mary. Though LDS clearly affirm the Father passed on his DNA to his Son.

I am ex-LDS and reject some unique LDS notions. I read all your apologetics before I left the church on these subjects. I paused on leaving the church from the early 1990's. To me D.&C. 132 was Joseph Smith's biggest mistake. I don't see the item as a true revelation. In the best case scenario he was a fallen prophet. I hate to join the Anti-Mormon activists and say he was a false prophet, but it caused me great past doubts about his prophetic claim's. The more I read it the more convinced I became it was untrue as a revelation.

Brigham Young believed the Ancient of Days was a reference to Deity so speculated about Adam-God. I am not convinced the Ancient of Days could not be God. I think some of your responses to my question is worth persuing though.

[roman]

Don't say that I have not because I already did, back in post #65, but just for you here it is again: (John 1:3 - this is a scripture)

Christ only made those things that were made. The eternal things cannot be made because they are eternal -- they always existed. Christ did not make the eternal things. How could Christ create things that already existed?

Well if thats all you got is----------------------cause I say so--------------------and because i say so-----------it is true-------------well then you have repeatedly failed to make your point. Post #65 is NOT an explanation at all. since you cannot give one------your whole argument falls apart. you are clearly spiltting hairs and playing word games to come up with you erroneous belief.

The Bible is clear--------Christ created the angels

And as to your belief that you created your children the same as God-------------you bring the God -Mary -sex argument right to the top of your lds belief----------BTW most lds will deny that belief of yours all day long-----------so your are out there in lonely land with some of your beliefs because the Bible is not on your side and either are alot of lds

[Lachoneus]

Van Hale has an article on the creation of spirits at his website. He answers common proof-texts LDS use to support spirit birth. He rejects you view of Hebrews 12:9 as do I. He is more articulate than I am on his interpretation so I refer you to his article. Joseph Smith during the same time D.&C. 132 was writted said spirits were uncreated in a sermon. Van Hale documents this in his article on the subject of the origin of the spirits in early Mormon thought.

I have read many things written by Van Hale and find them often flawed. I will look at his article on spirit birth again.

I reject the idea God has a body. So he would not be Jesus literal Father. Although it's not as Anti-Mormons have made up the notion of God having sex with Mary. Though LDS clearly affirm the Father passed on his DNA to his Son.

Joseph taught that God has a physical body: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; "

I am ex-LDS and reject some unique LDS notions. I read all your apologetics before I left the church on these subjects. I paused on leaving the church from the early 1990's. To me D.&C. 132 was Joseph Smith's biggest mistake. I don't see the item as a true revelation. In the best case scenario he was a fallen prophet. I hate to join the Anti-Mormon activists and say he was a false prophet, but it caused me great past doubts about his prophetic claim's. The more I read it the more convinced I became it was untrue as a revelation.

Joseph was never a fallen prophet. The more I read, the more I realize what a true prophet he was.

Brigham Young believed the Ancient of Days was a reference to Deity so speculated about Adam-God. I am not convinced the Ancient of Days could not be God. I think some of your responses to my question is worth persuing though.

As far as I know, Brigham Young never stated that the Ancient of Days was anyone other than Adam. Brigham Young never taught the so-called "Adam-God" theory commonly taught today.

[Lachoneus]

Well if thats all you got is----------------------cause I say so--------------------and because i say so-----------it is true-------------well then you have repeatedly failed to make your point. Post #65 is NOT an explanation at all. since you cannot give one------your whole argument falls apart. you are clearly spiltting hairs and playing word games to come up with you erroneous belief.

I am sorry that you cannot understand the explanation I have given several times now. I have tried to keep it as simple as possible. I wish you well.

The Bible is clear--------Christ created the angels

The Bible never says this. This is your interpretation of what the Bible says.

And as to your belief that you created your children the same as God-------------you bring the God -Mary -sex argument right to the top of your lds belief----------BTW most lds will deny that belief of yours all day long-----------so your are out there in lonely land with some of your beliefs because the Bible is not on your side and either are alot of lds

I have plenty of of company, thank-you.

[Dale]

You interpretation Christ didn't create spirits may be the wrong one. If he created spirits then you have been taught wrong. The spirit birth idea would be an idea of man in this worst case scenario. I would not see an idea of man proves D.&C. 132 false. No error of man by and of itself of that nature can prove any revelation false. Different interpretations right or wrong can develop around any true scripture.

With the Ancient of Day's his coming and the Actions of Michael appear on the scene similarly as far as timelines go. A peaceful situation will have to be created in order for the Ancient of Days to sit. Michael clearly had a major future role in creating that situation. It could be the same person, but the Book of Daniel does not clearly say anything about them being the same being. And no idea of Adam being either Michael or the Ancient of Days is in Daniel.

The idea of pre-existince and the idea of Angels becoming men bothers some persons of faith's. In other faith's angels and men are different species of beings.

[Lachoneus]

Van Hale has an article on the creation of spirits at his website. He answers common proof-texts LDS use to support spirit birth. He rejects you view of Hebrews 12:9 as do I.

I have reviewed Hale's article again. I wish I could find my original copy with all my notes, but life is not so simple. Nevertheless, my review reminds me of a few things.

Hale's dismissal of Hebrews 12:9 is unconvincing. He merely proposes that it is speaking of adoption. That is one interpretation, but he gives no reason why this is a better interpretation than mine. In light of the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and numerous other prophets since, I reject Hale’s interpretation. I prefer to get my doctrines from the Lord and his servants, not from radio talk show hosts.

At the end of his paper, after a lot of words, Hale ultimately concludes that

The third view is the one I suspect will prevail. The flaw in B. H. Roberts’ argument attributing this view to Joseph Smith is now overlooked. Its strength is that it combines Joseph Smith’s emphatic declaration of the eternal nature of our personal identity with the cherished view that, literally, “I am a child of God.”

The third view to which he makes reference is

3. To others our personal identity is our uncreated intelligence which became a part of our individual spirit at premortal birth. Our uncreated intelligence was incorporated into our procreated spirit.

So, after all his words, Hale ultimately admits that his personal view will not prevail. I believe Hale is right is saying that his interpretation will not prevail because Hale’s interpretation is wrong. I also believe Hale is wrong in saying that Roberts’s argument attributing this third view to Joseph Smith is flawed. I believe the flaw is in Hale’s argument, not in Roberts’s.

[Lachoneus]

With the Ancient of Day's his coming and the Actions of Michael appear on the scene similarly as far as timelines go. A peaceful situation will have to be created in order for the Ancient of Days to sit. Michael clearly had a major future role in creating that situation. It could be the same person, but the Book of Daniel does not clearly say anything about them being the same being. And no idea of Adam being either Michael or the Ancient of Days is in Daniel.

Daniel is entirely silent on the identity of the Ancient of Days. That is one reason why we continue to have prophets today - for inspired interpretations. Eph 4:11-14

The idea of pre-existince and the idea of Angels becoming men bothers some persons of faith's. In other faith's angels and men are different species of beings.

There are certainly many faiths. Yet another reason for modern prophets. Eph 4:11-14

[Ron Beron]

Come on, Ace. You know the answer. Johnny is out walking his dogma again.

Ooops! I keep forgetting not to take everything so seriously.

[Ron Beron]

Lachoneus,

Angels had a beginning when they were created by the Son. Scripture is clear that angels are created.

God's word and God's wisdom were with God. Scripture is clear that God was alone and by himself during creation. God is neither male nor female, scripture simply says "male and female created he them".

Not if you go by the scriptures and the Jewish interpretation thereof. God had wisdom by his side during creation. In Prov. 8:22-27 it says, " The Lord made me the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was formed, before the establishment of the earth...When he made the heavens, I was already there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep."

In some of the earliest versions of the bible, it states that Wisdom was present at the creation of the world. This was not some attribute of God but an actual secondary creation.

In the Fragment Targum Genesis 1:1 it states, "With wisdom did God create and perfect the heavens and the earth." And in the Targum Neophyti Gen. 1:1, "In the beginning with wisdom did God create..."

After awhile the term "In the beginning" began to be used as a sort of shorthand for the term wisdom so that they began to be used synonymously. Philo again comments, "By using different names for it, Moses indicates that the exalted, heavenly wisdom has many names, he calls it 'beginning', 'image', and 'appearance of God'."

And finally who created man?

In Genesis 1:26-27 it says, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..." Who is us and our? In Wisdom 9:1-2 it sheds a little light on the subject, "O God of my fathers and Lord of mercy, You who have made all things by Your word and by Your wisdom have formed man." Philo again clarifies the issue, "Thus it was fitting and right that when man was formed, God should assign a share in the work to His Lieutenants, as He does with the words 'let us make men,' so that man's right actions might be attributable to God, but his sins to theirs. For it seemed to be unfitting to God, the ruler of all, that the road to wickedness with the reasonable soul should be of his making, and therefore he delegated the forming of this part of his inferiors." Confusion of Tongues 179

And in II Enoch 30:8, "And on the sixth day I commanded my wisdom to create man."

Of course, the Christians saw this wisdom as Jesus. In Hymns of Faith by Ephraim it states, "The Father commanded with his voice; it was the Son who carried out the work." And in the Letter of Barnabas 5:5 it states, "And furthermore, my brothers:...He is lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the creation of the world, "Let us make man according to our image and likeness."

As to the creation of angels it states in Job 38:4-7, â??the sons of God shouted for joyâ? when He laid the foundations of the earth." Since the Jews certainly didn't have an understanding of Jesus when this was written Paul's teaching to the Colossians was based on his understanding of the nature of Jesus and not on Jewish teachings.

In summary then we can deduce the following. Wisdom was created before the beginning, before the creation of all. In addition, we can surmise that God gave this wisdom the power to help create the universe and earth all of its creations. We can also conclude that Jesus was not co-eternal with the father but was created.

[johnny]

Adam IS NOT the the Ancient One spoken of by Daniel the prophet. The Son of man, Jesus, is seen coming before the Ancient of Days -- who is the Most High God, the Father, who sits on the heavenly throne. When Christ ascended into heaven and sat at the Father's right hand it signified the inauguration of the Messiah's kingdom, the fulfilment of the prophet Daniel's vision concerning the Son of man (Dan 7:14). When Christ returns to earth, Christ's reign will be "with power and great glory" (Lk 21:27; Mt 25:31).

Spirits are NOT eternal, spirits are made. Nehemiah 9:6 says the Lord, "hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host". Colossians 1:16 specifically references spirits, it says "by him were all things created, that are in heaven ... visible and invisible". Spirits are in heaven, heaven refers to the place of the spiritual creatures. The Lord produced and gave being to spirits when he commanded (Psalm 148:2,5). The Son created spirits through a command. Spirits were not born of heavenly parents otherwise the Son would one of the heavenly parents instead of a brother.

Michael the Archangel DID NOT become the man Adam. Every spiritual soul is made immediately by God, He sends forth his spirit and they are created (Psalm 104:30). Adam became a living soul after God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7). Adam was made a living soul, the Lord makes the soul (1Cor 15:45; Jeremiah 38:16). The Lord formed the spirit of Adam within him, Adam's soul was made (Zech 12:10; Isaiah 57:16). Adam and Eve were formed (1Tim 2:3; Gen 2:8 ) .

Adam is NOT the son of a heavenly mother, he is the Son of God. The Spirit of God made Adam and the breath of the Almighty gave Adam life (Job 33:4). God is the Father of spirits (Heb 12:9). The Son was not begotten of heavenly parents, the Son was the only begotten of the Father (John 1:14). God transcends the human distinction between the sexes because he is pure spirit. He is neither man nor woman: he is God. Man, whole and entire, is willed by God.

The Father was NOT addressing a heavenly wife in Genesis 1:26-27. The Father was addressing the Son and Holy Spirit. There is one Father from whom all things are, one Son through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are (1Cor 8:6). The expression of plurality in Genesis 1:26 refers to God himself since God was alone at the time of creation and there were no other gods (Isaiah. 44:24, Jeremiah 10:11). The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine Persons who are one divine Being (God).

Many gods DID NOT create, One God created (Malachi 2:10). God made the world and all things, we are the offspring of God (Acts 17:24,29). God the Father made all things by himself, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom, by the Son and the Spirit (John 1:1; Proverbs 8:27). He made the earth by his power, he established the world by his wisdom, and stretched out the heavens by his discretion" (Jeremiah 10:11-13). Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God (1Cor 1:24).

The Early Christian Irenaeus wrote:

"For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, â??Let us make man in our image and likenessâ?? [Gen. 1:26]"

"Of his own accord and by his own power he made all things and arranged and perfected them, and his will is the substance of all things. He alone, then, is found to be God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things, visible and invisible, sensible and insensate, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power. And he has fitted and arranged all things by his wisdom; and while he comprehends all, he can be comprehended by none. He is himself the designer, himself the builder, himself the inventor, himself the maker, himself the Lord of all"

[Van Hale]

I have reviewed Hale's article again. I wish I could find my original copy with all my notes, but life is not so simple. Nevertheless, my review reminds me of a few things.

Hale's dismissal of Hebrews 12:9 is unconvincing. He merely proposes that it is speaking of adoption. That is one interpretation, but he gives no reason why this is a better interpretation than mine. In light of the teachings of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and numerous other prophets since, I reject Haleâ??s interpretation. I prefer to get my doctrines from the Lord and his servants, not from radio talk show hosts.

At the end of his paper, after a lot of words, Hale ultimately concludes that

The third view to which he makes reference is

So, after all his words, Hale ultimately admits that his personal view will not prevail. I believe Hale is right is saying that his interpretation will not prevail because Haleâ??s interpretation is wrong. I also believe Hale is wrong in saying that Robertsâ??s argument attributing this third view to Joseph Smith is flawed. I believe the flaw is in Haleâ??s argument, not in Robertsâ??s.

It seems that Lachoneus should support his criticism of my article by addressing the several statements of Joseph Smith which I present that spirits are eternal; that they have no beginning and have no end. I find it difficult to harmonize this with the widespread view that our spirits did not exist before a premortal spirit birth.

Further, I have discussed the manuscript sources for the King Follett discourse and have shown the flaw in B. H. Roberts argument. He is relying upon a faulty amalgamation of the KFD to support his speculation that we existed as intelligences prior to premortal spirit birth. I like his view - that we have always existed as individual intelligences, which were clothed with a spirit body through a premortal spirit birth. My point, which I believe is solid, is that B. H. Roberts' view is not that of JS.

Nor was his view, that of Brigham Young. BY believed that our spirits have a beginning and can also have an end. This seems contrary to the clear statements of JS. For BY, our existence as an individual began at our premortal spirit birth, where our spirit was formed from a vast body of inanimate spirit matter. The spirits, according to BY, of those who do not progress after leaving this life - the sons of perdition - will digress until their spirits are disorganized, returning to that vast body of inanimate spirit matter, and thus, will cease to exist as individuals. That spirit matter will be re-formed, through other spirit births, into new individuals. His view also seems contrary to D&C 76.

I believe that it is an accurate observation that the widespread teaching of LDS authorities after JS to the present, is that our spirits came about through a premortal spirit birth. I think this has been so widely taught that I would call it Mormon Doctrine. Less widespread is B. H. Roberts view that we always existed as individual conscious intelligences down to the time when that intelligence was clothed with a spirit body.

One of my favorite teachings of JS is that we, as individual conscious entities, have always existed and will continue to exist forever. I see no way deny that this was JS's belief, at least up to several weeks before his death. Because of my preference, I do not like BY's view, nor that of Bruce R. McConkie. B. H. Roberts' view, while not exactly that of JS, does at least protect JS's insistence that we, like God, have always existed, that is God and we as conscious individuals are eternal.

There is a rather good passage in Hebrews which seems to suggest that Christians were sons God before their conversion, but it is not Heb 12:9.