Michael Is Part Of The Trinity

[ed2276]

Come now, gentlemen, and let us reason together.

Joseph Smith restored the principle that men are gods in embryo; that as God is, man once was; and that as God is, man may become.

It is commonly believed, with support from general authorities of the Church, that upon being exalted, we will each, together with our spouse, be the God of one world. From that station, we will people that one world with our spirit offspring; to whom we will act as God.

This does not mean that we will not have our same Gods above us, for those who are our Gods now will be our Gods then. But as to the inhabitants of our first world, they will have a different order of things than do we, because they will have us as the God immediately (and exclusively) over their one world, and yet will have other Gods above us; those Gods being our Gods now.

I guess in reply , Consig , I would just say that I agree with you about the exaltation of man and our relation to our own children who inhabit our own creations. I think we will be saying to those who inhabit our own creations , "You shall have no other gods before me" and some clever fellow will come to the conclusion that this means there are indeed others who in fact exist and are gods , but that to him and his fellow human beings there is "but one God".

Note that while you wrote that each of us will be the god of one world , I wrote "creations". I don't think that we will be limited to just one world ; we may even create our own universes , which is a far greater speculation on my part than that we will create more worlds than one. It just seems to me that our God's work never ceases , that He continues to have children and create worlds , not just a world , and if we are to be like Him then we also will continue to have children after the final renewal of our one lost world. Therefore , as there is no end to our seed I also believe there will be no end to our creative endeavors. We will also say "Worlds without number have I created....".

Now, having said all of this, the question may be asked:

Who stands in relation to this earth as we will stand in relation to our first world?

It cannot be Elohim, for we read that he is God of the universe, not just of this world.

Ah , but you do note that Eloah IS the God of our world. Therefore Eloah does have a relation to us on this world. And what relation is that? Jesus said that Eloah is His Father and God and our Father and God. In Hebrews , God is called the Father of (our) spirits. I have always understood it to be LDS teaching that we are the offspring of God the Father , who Jesus calls His own Father and God as well as ours. Now , are you proposing that Michael is Jesus' Father and God? If this is where your conclusion leads I can't follow you there.

Now , if Eloah is our Father (father of our spirits) and He is the God over this world , though He has created many worlds and is God and Father over all His other creations , He does indeed stand in relation to us here as we will stand in relation to our own children ; that is , we will be Father and God to them just as Eloah is to us.

It cannot be Jesus Christ as Jehovah, for we read that "by him and through him and of him the worlds are and were created," not just this world.

I agree with you here to the extent that Jesus does not stand in relation to us as we will stand to our own children. Jesus is not the Father of our spirits. Though Jesus is our Lord , Saviour and Redeemer , the God of Israel and a member of the Godhead , He always deferred to the Father (Eloah).

And if the immediate God of this world is not Elohim nor Jehovah, who then is it?

In not accepting your premise that Eloheim cannot be the immediate God of this world , I have to say that Eloheim (Eloah) is the God who stands in relation to us as we will stand to our own children.

And if we in our exalted state will be the parents of the spirits of those who inhabit our first world, who then are the mother and father of our spirits?

Heavenly Mother and Eloah.

And does it not make sense to at least accept the possibility that the Father of our spirits may be the immediate God of planet Earth? And that this Father of our spirits is neither Elohim nor Jehovah, but some other individual?

Not to me.

____________________

And would it not make sense to think that, after the inhabitants of our first world have gone on to exaltation, that we as their parent and God would remain their parent and God, and would would be at their head forever?

Yes , their parent and God would so remain , not one of high rank whom was sent to do a work for their parent and God . Though that individual be called Archangel or Prince , who presides over the human family yet that Prince would still not be their Father and God. Is the servant greater than the master who sent him?

And if we can say that of ourselves, would it not also make sense for the God who is the immediate God of planet Earth?

Yes. Believing , as I do , that Eloah is the immediate God that you are describing , I would say that as He (Eloah) stands in relation to us on this world we will so stand to our children on our world.

And if that is the case, would that not also shed light into the following passage from the Doctrine and Covenants?

D&C 107:54 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.

In the sense that Michael is the immediate God of this world? Not to me.

Michael was blessed and called Prince and Archangel. Multitudes of nations would come forth from him. Sounds like the same promise given to Abraham and we know that Abraham is now a god. Now , if Abraham received the same promise as Michael , and Abraham is a god while Michael is only a Prince and Archangel , who would be the immediate god of this world if we follow your thoughts to their conclusion? Michael was called Prince over us forever , at the head of the human family , but not our god nor father of our spirits. Abraham was told that a multitude would come forth from him and Abraham is now a god , but not father of our spirits or our god.

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thank you for sharing them.

[Drewm777]

But then again, perhaps I am an apostate. Sorry Drew, on this Saturday afternoon I have a few other things to do besides responding to your long long long post, most of which is irrelevant to any theory about Adam being the H.S., although some of it is. If it is apostate to speculate about things we don't have alot of information about you need to include B.Y., Eliza Snow, and a host of others on that list. Being wrong is not the same as being apostate.

Sargon

I'm pretty sure I have no long, long, long, posts anywhere. My longest post isn't even a post (in the sense of being original) really, and doesn't ask for a response. I simply requoted every quote that has been used mostly by others on the thread against the notion of Michael being the Holy Ghost and put them into one place. If you go back and read the thread you'll see that and you'll see the context that was given for them and how they pertain to the issue. I didn't ask for a response other than to suggest that it would be nice if someone on the other side of the issue would compile the quotes for the other view. I simply was compiling for the reader's enjoyment.

Lastly, I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything about apostasy or called anyone an apostate. If I told you all of my views of the gospel, I'm sure many would think I was an apostate. I'm not that quick to judge. However, on this issue, I have a strong opinion and have expressed it. I think it's fair that others do the same without taking offense.

I'll go back and place my comments in bold in that post since you missed the meaning.

[MormonMason]

Wow! Where are all of CMZs posts? I came back to respond to the post where he sarcastically said "Good for Charles Penrose! Not everyone is at the same level of gospel knowledge" or something to that effect, and it, along with each and every single post by him in this thread is flat gone. Too bad, that. Crazy thing is that I never addressed him specifically as an apostate (even though he thinks I did, kept accusing me of doing it and even apparently managed to convince a couple other people here that I did), and I have tried to make it clear several times over a few pages of posts that I was not addressing him but for some reason he could not let the non-issue go and made it the focus of the thread. I even found a PM in my box just a few moments ago where he continued to go off about it. Kind of strange behavior to do that no matter how many times I tried to explain to him that I was not addressing him and then for him to go through and delete out every single one of his posts including all of your past ones in a thread, too.... Oh well. Guess for the time being I'll go back to other things I should be doing right now, anyway.

[MormonMason]

Where do you think they got their ideas? Many "apostate" ideas were once accepted doctrines among earlier Saints. What makes you think the Adam/Michael/Holy Ghost wasn't speculated on in earlier times?

I agree that in some cases this is true. However, in the case of the subject of this thread, I have repeatedly asked CMZ to provide direct statements from General Authorities of the Church that explcitly teach this idea about Michael supposedly being the Holy Ghost. All he had provided up to the time be went through and deleted each and every single one of his posts from this thread was nothing more than quotes that one could infer anything one wants unless the context was examined. Then the quotes fell apart.

You find it strange that it bothers him? You don't think it would be upsetting for someone to imply you're an apostate? Personally, I'd be offended at that insinuation--I'd assume other good members of the church would be too.

I find it strange that it bothers him because I never said that he was an apostate or that I thought he was one. He made my comments about apostates and their actions as though they were directed to him and made several attempts to get me to say that I referred to him. I refused to back down and then asked several questions of him, all the while denying that I was addressing him specifically. Each time I tried to bring it back to the subject but he would not let what he thought I said go, in spite of all attempts at clarication and returning to the subject of the thread.

It's a theory..it's certainly not "doctrine" and I don't believe anyone here was claiming it was. I find it interesting to consider and read the different arguments for and against....Isn't that what the board is for?

I would not even ascribe the word theory to it. I would more consider it an hypothesis rather than a theory. Theories have at least something to substantiate an interpretation. So far as the quotes that were being given are concerned, they can substantiate nothing, which is why I asked for more explicit quotes than what CMZ had been posting. It would appear that this thread is now dead and that he likely will not be returning to it any time soon.

The other part of the problem that exists in this thread, for me particularly, is that there are things I have wanted to say about certain things regarding Michael and such but cannot speak them. I have seen visions, have prophesied and watched my prophecies come to pass, both during my mission and for years afterward, have received a number of revelations over the years, some of which I have written (although I do not intend to publish them or quote them in public forums, a thing I once did and displeased the Spirit of the Lord thereby) and some of which I have not, have come to understand a number of the mysteries of the Kingdom, could set forth the order of the hierarchy of the heavens and the relationship to the various dispensations of time, and have come to understand the correlation and relationship between intelligence, spirit and element, how intelligence becomes spirit in the organizing of spirits, spirit's relationship to element and the commonalities that are shared by both element and spirit, and so forth.

In my position, were I ever to fall from the faith and leave this Church, I already know what my fate would be, and that fate would not be a good one. Let's just say that there is no glory and much darkness there.

My biggest problem is that much of what I know regarding these things cannot be communicated in such a forum as this and some of it is unlawful for man to utter. I was about to address a comment concerning something brought up in this thread but I have been forbidden to do so by the Holy Ghost. Obeying that injunction is the hardest thing of all right now because I want to share it and make a point on a particular issue, all the while knowing that I cannot without causing the Spirit to withraw. I have made the mistake of causing the Spirit to withdraw in the past by communicating things that ought not to be communicated, and I do not wish to repeat such mistakes.

But, this much I can say, and even here it is walking the line closely in doing so, and that is that I know without a doubt that the idea that Michael was the Holy Spirit in the creation is false. The related idea that Joseph Smith also was the Holy Ghost also is false. The person who is the Holy Ghost now is the same who was the Holy Ghost in the creation and in the Grand Council, where and when everlasting covenant was made between the persons of who the Godhead is comprised. Whether or not you or others accept that on the basis of what I have now said is not important. There are those who are here who will believe what they will believe no matter what I say. Besides that, I cannot set doctrine for the Church and it is not my position to do so or within my purview to do so. I may be a prophet and even at times a seer (whether or not I am believed in this claim also is of little consequence) but I am by no means the President of the Church or in any position to dictate the affairs of this Church to the Church or any member thereof.

[consiglieri]

Brigham Young taught that God the Father was the father of Jesus' spirit and also the father of all of our spirits:

Wouldn't it make more sense if we created our own universe, as you seem to recognize that Elohim did?

1. Brigham Young taught that God the Father was the father of Jesus's spirit and all our spirits, that is true. But when Brigham Young said this, he had Adam in mind, not Elohim. One of the fundamental problems with the AGT is that it subordinates Jesus to Michael, when the scriptures seem pretty clear it is the other way round.

2. I do not recognize that Elohim created his own universe, at least not in the way I think you mean. I doubt very much that Elohim was "exalted yesterday," if you will pardon the expression. That was a long time ago and he has already created his first world and his faithful children from that world have long since gone onto their exaltation and the creation of worlds. What I am suggesting is a concept that takes into account a universe of gods already in existence that are Elohim's exalted children (and grandchildren). We are somewhere down the line. The question is where . . . and who is in between.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I have a problem with your basic premise, namely: "It is commonly believed, with support from general authorities of the Church, that upon being exalted, we will each, together with our spouse, be the God of one world."

What if it's not one world, but we, like Elohim, have a whole universe of our own? Any quotes you'd have on this topic would be useful

Great question!

See my above response about Elohim.

Elohim, I think, is not like the spiritual equivalent of the Big Bang.

He did not become who he is and what he is immediately upon his exaltation, any more than I expect we will. I think it is line upon line and precept upon precept, even after death.

As Joseph Smith put it, it will be a long time after our death (did he say "resurrection"?) before we learn everything there is to know about exaltation?

It is this unspoken premise that Elohim has always been ruling the universe that tends to cause LDS to view things two-dimensionally. Brigham Young challenged this, and thought through the implications of the doctrines Joseph Smith taught, though I think Brigham Young came to a few wrong conclusions in the process.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

1. Brigham Young taught that God the Father was the father of Jesus's spirit and all our spirits, that is true. But when Brigham Young said this, he had Adam in mind, not Elohim. One of the fundamental problems with the AGT is that it subordinates Jesus to Michael, when the scriptures seem pretty clear it is the other way round.

Are you suggesting that Jesus is the Jehovah that is Michael's superior in the creation?

(I'm a little confused about what your proposed version of Adam-God is.)

Oh, also, Benjamin Johnson said that Joseph Smith taught "that there were twelve kingdoms or planets, revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave an equal division of His time or ministry: that now was His time to again visit the earth." I'm not sure which Lord this refers to (i.e. the Father or the Son) but it's at least more than one planet.

[erichard]

... One of the fundamental problems with the AGT is that it subordinates Jesus to Michael, when the scriptures seem pretty clear it is the other way round. ...

...

I agree, by the way. Clearly, Jesus is the head of all mankind.

Have you ever read Boyd Kirkland's "Jehovah As Father -- The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine" ?

It is clear that in the early church Jehovah was NOT Jesus-- even though the Book of Mormon says otherwise. Some scriptures clearly denote Jesus as different than Jehovah.

Joseph did not understand everything immediately. Oh, and neither do we have it all now, we can be sure.

So one of the ways the I have reconciled the scripturally contradictory A/G quotes is to accept that Jehovah was the Savior of the previous earth. (Jesus is the Jehovah of this earth) President Young clearly taught that every earth has its own Savior.

Michael was thus a joint-heir with his Savior-- Jehovah-- from that previous earth. And Eloheim is the Adam from the previous earth-- or it could also be said that Eloheim is the council of gods-- that includes the Adam from the previous earth-- that directed Jehovah and Michael in creating this earth.

And when this earth is celestialized, Jehovah (Jesus) with go with those who become Michaels (Abraham, Joseph Smith, etc) under the direction of the Council of gods and create further worlds for the Spirit children of that Michael.

Clear as mud?

Richard

[consiglieri]

Are you suggesting that Jesus is the Jehovah that is Michael's superior in the creation?

(I'm a little confused about what your proposed version of Adam-God is.)

Oh, also, Benjamin Johnson said that Joseph Smith taught "that there were twelve kingdoms or planets, revolving around our solar system, to which the Lord gave an equal division of His time or ministry: that now was His time to again visit the earth." I'm not sure which Lord this refers to (i.e. the Father or the Son) but it's at least more than one planet.

Hi, kamenraider.

Benjamin Johnson's quote sounds like a slight elaboration of the interesting and infrequently remarked-on parable in D&C 88; but I do not think the number 12 used there is anything other than symbolic; nor do I think the location of said planets is in our solar system.

I can understand that you would be "confused" about my "proposed version." A lot of times when these things are discussed, people (such as myself and also BY, I think) tend to talk about a little piece here or a little piece there, and it sounds like somebody is being intentionally mysterious; and I am sure I have probably come across that way so far in this thread. If so, I apologize, because it also sounds like somebody is being coy and pompous when doing so. That was not my intent.

So that there be no confusion on what I think (and I stress that it is just what I think), I will set it forth below:

1. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Elohim lived in mortality on a world. He was faithful and gained his exaltation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Jehovah.

2. Jehovah was faithful and gained his exaltation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Michael.

3. Michael was faithful and gained his exalation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Consiglieri.

a. I do not, as some have done, say that there are two Jehovahs, or two Michaels, or two Elohims. Every individual retains his identity (though obviously not his function) throughout this paradigm.

b. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), split the identity of Jesus from Jehovah, saying that they are two different personages. For purposes of this paradigm, the being identified as Jehovah is the same being who came to this earth as Jesus Christ to provide an atonement for "the worlds." (D&C 76.24).

c. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), subordinate Jehovah/Jesus to Michael.

d. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), restrict the efficacy of Jesus' atonement to the inhabitants of this earth.

I appreciate your interest. Perhaps having just set it all out there will aid in the discussion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Clear as mud?

Richard

No, I think it is pretty clear. One of the things I strive to do when thinking about this is give a priority to the scriptures and also to statements by Joseph Smith. I think that statements by others, though church leaders, should be given less weight, especially should they contradict the scriptures or Joseph Smith.

Your example of Jesus in the Book of Mormon clearly stating that he was the one who gave the law to Moses on Sinai is a good illustration--that statement, because scripture, and because unequivocal, should not be contradicted in any proposed paradigm.

At least that's how I see it.

Thanks for your post.

--Consiglieri

[Drewm777]

Hi, kamenraider.

Benjamin Johnson's quote sounds like a slight elaboration of the interesting and infrequently remarked-on parable in D&C 88; but I do not think the number 12 used there is anything other than symbolic; nor do I think the location of said planets is in our solar system.

I can understand that you would be "confused" about my "proposed version." A lot of times when these things are discussed, people (such as myself and also BY, I think) tend to talk about a little piece here or a little piece there, and it sounds like somebody is being intentionally mysterious; and I am sure I have probably come across that way so far in this thread. If so, I apologize, because it also sounds like somebody is being coy and pompous when doing so. That was not my intent.

So that there be no confusion on what I think (and I stress that it is just what I think), I will set it forth below:

1. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Elohim lived in mortality on a world. He was faithful and gained his exaltation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Jehovah.

2. Jehovah was faithful and gained his exaltation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Michael.

3. Michael was faithful and gained his exalation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Consiglieri.

a. I do not, as some have done, say that there are two Jehovahs, or two Michaels, or two Elohims. Every individual retains his identity (though obviously not his function) throughout this paradigm.

b. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), split the identity of Jesus from Jehovah, saying that they are two different personages. For purposes of this paradigm, the being identified as Jehovah is the same being who came to this earth as Jesus Christ to provide an atonement for "the worlds." (D&C 76.24).

c. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), subordinate Jehovah/Jesus to Michael.

d. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), restrict the efficacy of Jesus' atonement to the inhabitants of this earth.

I appreciate your interest. Perhaps having just set it all out there will aid in the discussion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This is an interesting theory. How does it relate to your belief that Michael is the Holy Ghost?

Second, if Jesus is Jehovah and Jehovah was already exalted before the creation of the world, did Jehovah lay of his resurrected body somehow to become the babe in the manger? Is this a version of the "multiple mortal probations" concept?

[Drewm777]

I think it's worth noting that some "concerned Christians" are talking about this thread and have linked to it.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/board//...831&forum=3

Dear Concerned Christians,

I hope you're enjoying the show. I think you should be concerned, because your attitude is not become of someone who professes believe in Jesus. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the terrors of hell.

[alter idem]

Second, if Jesus is Jehovah and Jehovah was already exalted before the creation of the world, did Jehovah lay of his resurrected body somehow to become the babe in the manger?

This idea is also part of the Adam/God theory that Brigham Young believed. Orson Pratt vehemently disagreed with it because it suggested that Adam was already resurrected and then came to live as a mortal again on our earth. I also find this part of the theory hard to accept--I think most of us would have problems with this part of his theory as we look forward to entering God's rest and not having to live through a mortal experience with all it's suffereings again! I can't imagine poor Adam and Eve having to live through almost 1,000 years of a telestial life and all it entails when they thought they were done with that part of the test.

[alter idem]

I think it's worth noting that some "concerned Christians" are talking about this thread and have linked to it.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/board//...831&forum=3

Dear Concerned Christians,

I hope you're enjoying the show. I think you should be concerned, because your attitude is not become of someone who professes believe in Jesus. I'm sure I don't need to remind you of the terrors of hell.

To any non-LDS reading this thread: This is not doctrine. It's a theory--I guess it's not even a theory by MormonMason's opinion--and it's one that 95% of LDS have never even heard of so don't be surprised if LDS you know have no clue what is being discussed on this thread. I'm a lifetime member of almost 50 years and I learned it in the last two years--on this board. I was shocked by the suggestion the first time I heard it. And I suspect that if the LDS population heard it, the majority would discount it immediately too.

Don't you guys ever speculate? Ya know, "how many angels can dance of the head of a pin?" We're not discussing doctrine, we are speculating. If you never do that--as you guys discuss the Bible, then I don't know how to explain it to you, but we LDS find it an interesting pastime-which is one reason why we enjoy these discussion boards..

We still know what's doctrine and what isn't.

[erichard]

...that statement, because scripture, and because unequivocal, should not be contradicted in any proposed paradigm. ...

I completely agree with your point. The Scriptures must have first priority in doctrine.

Hence, we have to accept this:

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ONE God, INFINITE and ETERNAL, without end. Amen. ---D&C 20:28

That is why I also do not accept President Young's teachings that seem to place Jesus as subordinate with Adam.

But I do not believe that the doctrine that each earth has its own Savior is in contradiction to the Book of Mormon teachings about the Savior. There is only ONE Infinite Savior-- but it is a lineage of finite saviors-- Jesus being one of them. Gasp, so I do believe that the F, S and HG are held by different personages on different earths. They are individuals, but they are all united as one.

Joseph began the process of revealing the reconciliation between the finite begotten [created] person of Jesus and the one infinite, uncreated "Savior" . Brigham Young listened to Joseph, and tried to explain it the best he understood. The church needs further revelation to finally get it right.

The Greek Philosophers who developed the creeds also knew this reconciliation needed to be made, but the idealized immaterial God they imagined did not come by revelation.

I do appreciate your conciliatory dialogue.

Richard

[kamenraider]

Hi, kamenraider.

Benjamin Johnson's quote sounds like a slight elaboration of the interesting and infrequently remarked-on parable in D&C 88; but I do not think the number 12 used there is anything other than symbolic; nor do I think the location of said planets is in our solar system.

I can understand that you would be "confused" about my "proposed version." A lot of times when these things are discussed, people (such as myself and also BY, I think) tend to talk about a little piece here or a little piece there, and it sounds like somebody is being intentionally mysterious; and I am sure I have probably come across that way so far in this thread. If so, I apologize, because it also sounds like somebody is being coy and pompous when doing so. That was not my intent.

So that there be no confusion on what I think (and I stress that it is just what I think), I will set it forth below:

1. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Elohim lived in mortality on a world. He was faithful and gained his exaltation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Jehovah.

2. Jehovah was faithful and gained his exaltation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Michael.

3. Michael was faithful and gained his exalation, went on to create a world and populate it with his spirit children. One of these children was Consiglieri.

a. I do not, as some have done, say that there are two Jehovahs, or two Michaels, or two Elohims. Every individual retains his identity (though obviously not his function) throughout this paradigm.

b. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), split the identity of Jesus from Jehovah, saying that they are two different personages. For purposes of this paradigm, the being identified as Jehovah is the same being who came to this earth as Jesus Christ to provide an atonement for "the worlds." (D&C 76.24).

c. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), subordinate Jehovah/Jesus to Michael.

d. I also do not, as some have done (apparently including BY), restrict the efficacy of Jesus' atonement to the inhabitants of this earth.

I appreciate your interest. Perhaps having just set it all out there will aid in the discussion.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I came up with a remarkably similar take on Adam-God when I was younger. When I realized that Brigham Young taught that Jesus was Adam/Michael's spirit son I no longer regarded my version as possibly being correct though. Also, it would require throwing out some official Church statements.

The statement of Brigham Young that Adam had lived with "the Lord" on an earth like this and "was well acquainted with the Lord and was one of His mess mates" seems relevant somehow to these questions, as does this one from Heber C. Kimball:

When we escape from this earth, we suppose we are going to heaven? Do you suppose you are going to the earth that Adam came from? that Eloheim came from? where Jehovah the Lord came from? No. When you have learned to become obedient to the Father that dwells upon this earth, to the Father and God of this earth, and obedient to the messengers He sends--when you have done all that, remember you are not going to leave this earth.

--Heber C. Kimball, JD 1:356

I guess such a view of Adam-God as yours would require belief in "multiple mortal probations" of some sort as well.

(I wrote this a few hours a go but ran off to church before I could post it, so excuse any redundancy)

[redwave]

Won't work. Jesus will come to Michael at Adam-ondi-Ahman. Jehovah = Jesus and Michael and Jehovah worked closely together. Therefore, Jesus is not Michael. Jehovah's Witnesses say he is, too, though. It has been and is an official part of their doctrine for now.

Try this point of view. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the devil, and satan ...: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. Revelation 12: 7-9.

The two great adversaries here mentioned are Michael and the dragon. We know who the dragon is; it is the fallen angel Lucifer or satan because Revelation 12:9 identifies him.

Who is Michael? The name Michael is mentioned in Daniel, Jude and Revelation, and each time it is in the context of the great controversy with Lucifer, with Michael commanding the angelic host. The designation â??archangel here refers to more than highest angel, but to leader of the angels. The name Michael means â??He that is what God is,â? and only Christ qualifies for that position. Who would contend with Satan over the body of Moses (Jude 9) other than Christ Himself? The voice of the archangel that calls forth the dead at the second coming of Christ can only be the voice of Christ Himself.

For the Lord Himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ shall rise first. 1 Thessalonians. 4:16 (Voice of the Son of man, John 5:28)

In the Old Testament, Christ is called the â??Angel of the Lordâ? or the â??Angel of His Presenceâ? and Michael is the Ruler of Godâ??s people.

â?¦ Michael your rulerâ?¦ Daniel 10:21

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great Prince which standeth for the children of thy people: Daniel 12:1

â?¦ the Angel who redeemed me from all evil â?¦ Genesis 48:16

For He said, surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so He was their Savior. In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; Isaiah 63:8,9

Only Christ can claim to rule, save and redeem His people.

Genesis 48:16 refers to the Angel who has redeemed me from all evil. Only Christ has redeemed anyone from all evil. He is also referred to as the captain of the Lordâ??s host. In Joshua 5:13,14, Joshua meets the captain of the Lordâ??s host and falls down to worship Him. Only God, and not angels may be worshipped. Revelation 22:8-9.

I am not jehovah's witness, but if they believe Michael is Jesus great.

[consiglieri]

This is an interesting theory. How does it relate to your belief that Michael is the Holy Ghost?

Second, if Jesus is Jehovah and Jehovah was already exalted before the creation of the world, did Jehovah lay of his resurrected body somehow to become the babe in the manger? Is this a version of the "multiple mortal probations" concept?

I honestly don't know exactly what the "multiple mortal probations" concept is, but yes, this theory would posit that Jehovah did lay down his resurrected body in order to come to mortality . . . just as his Father did before him.

And just as Michael did in order to come to this earth as Adam, and again when he died, thus freeing up his spirit to be the Holy Ghost when he switched places with Jesus at Easter.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

This idea is also part of the Adam/God theory that Brigham Young believed. Orson Pratt vehemently disagreed with it because it suggested that Adam was already resurrected and then came to live as a mortal again on our earth. I also find this part of the theory hard to accept--I think most of us would have problems with this part of his theory as we look forward to entering God's rest and not having to live through a mortal experience with all it's suffereings again! I can't imagine poor Adam and Eve having to live through almost 1,000 years of a telestial life and all it entails when they thought they were done with that part of the test.

I hear what you are saying.

And good for you for taking what we are proposing in the past with relation to Elohim, Jehovah and Adam, and casting it forward into the future as it might affect us.

On the other hand, I think that we are the one Church that talks about eternal progression; continuing to advance and progress; and not just sit on clouds for the rest of time playing harps and singing hosannas.

Perhaps this theory might pull back a corner of a curtain for a peek at what lies in store?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

But I do not believe that the doctrine that each earth has its own Savior is in contradiction to the Book of Mormon teachings about the Savior.

I agree with you that this teaching is not in contradiction with the Book of Mormon.

Where I think it contradicts scripture is in D&C 76:24, where it is said of Christ that "through him, and by him, and of him the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof begotten sons and daughters unto God."

The plural of "worlds" has "worlds" of meaning in this context.

This revelation appears clear on its face that Christ not only created a plurality of worlds, but also that his atonement extends to the inhabitants of that plurality of worlds.

This is where the OSOW ("One Savior One World") theory gets into trouble, I think. (Okay, I just made that acronym up.)

I have often thought that I wish Brigham Young had been asked what he thought of D&C 76:24, and how he could still believe in OSOW in light of that passage. I know of no indication that he was aware of the contradiction presented.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I came up with a remarkably similar take on Adam-God when I was younger. When I realized that Brigham Young taught that Jesus was Adam/Michael's spirit son I no longer regarded my version as possibly being correct though. Also, it would require throwing out some official Church statements.

The statement of Brigham Young that Adam had lived with "the Lord" on an earth like this and "was well acquainted with the Lord and was one of His mess mates" seems relevant somehow to these questions, as does this one from Heber C. Kimball:

I guess such a view of Adam-God as yours would require belief in "multiple mortal probations" of some sort as well.

(I wrote this a few hours a go but ran off to church before I could post it, so excuse any redundancy)

Yes, I am seeing that the phrase "multiple mortal probations" would have application to this proposal.

I think that, with an eternity behind us, and an eternity before us, nobody should get too cocksure about what has been or what lies in store.

You are right that Brigham Young taught that Jesus was Adam/Michael's spirit son. I think that is where he went wrong. It seems pretty obvious from the scriptures that Jesus is not an inferior being to Adam/Michael, but that it is rather the other way round.

This theory by Brigham Young made him conclude that there was OSOW (see above for acronym definition); which made him cross D&C 76:24.

It also forced Brigham Young to split the identities of Jesus and Jehovah, in spite of the fact the Book of Mormon has Jesus saying he is the one who gave Moses the law on the mount, which the Bible indicates was Jehovah.

So this one concept by Brigham Young (that Jesus is Michael's spirit son) ran him into all these problems. I think that is a pretty good sign that is the place where he went wrong.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[MormonMason]

...The name Michael means “He that is what God is,” and only Christ qualifies for that position....

No, Michael is Hebrew and is a question: "Who (is) like God?" It does not identify anyone or state anything regarding what someone is; it asks a simple rhetorical question. Here is how it breaks down:

Mi = who?

(is)

cha = kha = like

'El = God

Michael is also stated to be NOT the Chief Prince, but is said to be 'achad hassarim hari'shonim (English: "ONE OF the chief princes or rulers." (See Daniel 10:13). That means that there are more than one chief prince amongst the angels. Other nations had angelic "princes" as well but Michael was Israel's prince. But, Michael was but one of the most important princes, according to the Bible.

Additionally, Latter-day revelation identifies Michael as Adam and as the Ancient of Days. Still won't work.

[CMZ]

I have a new theory:

Michael = Jehovah = Elohim = Adam = Jesus Christ = Joseph Smith = Quentin L. Cook = Don Carlos Smith = The Holy Ghost

And I can prove it!

[kamenraider]

How about CMZ = Michael?

[CMZ]

Well, part of CMZ = Michael.