One of the Hardest Conepts for Me to Grasp...

[BCSpace]

Within Mormon theology this is known as the Adam-God Theory

I disagree that there ever was an Adam God theory taught by BY at all.

[Je Vois Tout]

I disagree that there ever was an Adam God theory taught by BY at all.

http://www.mrm.org/topics/god-father/adam-...divine-doctrine

[Doctor Steuss]

I disagree that there ever was an Adam God theory taught by BY at all.

I recall a thread where you and John W were discussing this (as a bit of a tangent, IIRC), but later I was unable to find it. Do you happen to remember the thread title?

[BCSpace]

I disagree that there ever was an Adam God theory taught by BY at all.

http://www.mrm.org/topics/god-father/adam-...divine-doctrine

A sophomoric (and antiMormon) attempt that only hints at what was said in the WWJ.

Les yeux sans visage

[BCSpace]

I disagree that there ever was an Adam God theory taught by BY at all.

I recall a thread where you and John W were discussing this (as a bit of a tangent, IIRC), but later I was unable to find it. Do you happen to remember the thread title?

I don't. But me and st9 had quite a private message discussion on it. However, here is a link that shows the direction I tend to go. It is also mentioned in the FAIRwiki under "Adam"....

DIFFERENT THOUGHTS - #7 ADAM - GOD

Here is an excerpt...

Two Adams

Brigham Young believed that one of the names of God, our Heavenly Father is Adam, and in many of President Young's discourses he referred to God the Father using that name. There are therefore two Adams, and although President Young did not use the designation, it will be simpler for us in the following discussion to distinguish between the two individuals by referring to them as Adam Sr. (When referring to God, our Heavenly Father) and Adam Jr. (When referring to the embodied archangel, Michael, who partook of the forbidden fruit, fell, and became the father of Cain, Able and Seth etc.). It follows that there are also two Eves, and although in English the designation is never used with women, we shall distinguish between them as Eve Sr. and Eve Jr. This understanding allows us for the first time to correctly interpret a well known biblical passage.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. [Genesis 3:20, (see also Moses 4:26)]

To whom does the pronoun "she", who was the mother of all living, refer? It cannot refer to Eve Jr., because although she was Adam's wife, she was not the mother of anyone at the time. She had never had a child, nor would she be able to have one until after the fall.

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. [2Ne 2:22-23]

It was Eve Sr. to whom Adam was referring who was the mother of all living. Adam was saying: I will name her after my mother, just as I was named after my father. This explanation allows a simple understanding of one of Brigham Young's most difficult statements, found in the Wilford Woodruff Journals. Wilford Woodruff recorded Brigham Young as saying:

"Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam." [WWJ 7:152, Aug 31, 1873]

Note how easily this correlates with the statement quoted above by Brigham Young that Eve was taken from the side or bowels of her father.

Similarly, one would expect the mother of all living to be the spouse of the father of all living. And who is the father of all living? The following is from the Lectures on Faith.

2. Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.

3. First, the idea that he actually exists.

4. Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.

5. Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding it can become perfect and fruitful, abounding in righteousness, unto the praise and glory of God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

6. Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of his existence came into the world, as well as the fact of his existence, we shall proceed to examine his character, perfections, and attributes, in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in him for life and salvation, but the reasons that all the world, also, as far as the idea of his existence extends, may have to exercise faith in him, the Father of all living. [Lectures on Faith, Lecture 3, p.33, emphasis added]

The almost universal question asked by those hearing of two Adams for the first time is: "If there are two Adams, why didn't Brigham Young just say so instead of leaving his talks so confusing?" There are two distinct answers to this question, and we will present one of them now, and save the other to a more appropriate place which will be treated later.

Actually Brigham Young and others did on many occasions distinguish, or at least try to distinguish, between Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. He did not use those particular designations, but that is because it was not the vernacular of the time. The terms Jr. and Sr. were legal terms, and were frequently used in writing, but they were not common terms employed while speaking. Brigham Young did on occasion refer to the Prophet as Joseph Smith Jun., but he never did refer to the father of the Prophet as Joseph Smith Sen. In every instance in speaking of the father of the Prophet, he used the more common term, "Father Smith." The following paragraph is a good example of the way in which such designations were used at that time.

I have reflected much concerning the family of the grandfather and father of Joseph the Prophet. Their family connections were very extensive; and it has been a subject of deep regret to me that there were so few in that large circle who have been valiant for the truth since the death of the Prophet. Still I do not know but that Joseph had quite as many of his connections valiant for the truth, in proportion to their number, as Jesus had; for Jesus had many brothers and sisters, and the most of them were opposed to him, and continued so during the greater part of their lives. I used to think, while Joseph was living, that his life compared well with the history of the Saviour; though the most of father Joseph Smith's family have believed and obeyed the Gospel, and have lived their religion in a good degree. Many of them are not here. Some of them I have known in the Eastern States that never have gathered with us. But the old stock are pretty much dead, and I do not know but what all of them are. Father John Smith was the last one, in this Church, of the brothers of father Joseph Smith; and he died, and is buried here. Grandmother Smith lived in Kirtland a short time after she gathered. [Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.97, Brigham Young, August 2, 1857, emphasis added]

Brigham Young was not consistent in using the words "Father Adam" to refer to Adam Sr. and "Adam" or "our father Adam" to refer to Adam Jr., but in most instances in which he refers to both Adams in the same discourse, he does attempt to make that distinction. It is inconsistent to complain that Brigham Young did not specify that there were two Adams, and at the same time refuse to understand the words which Brigham Young chose to tell us just that. Others of the general authorities also used the term Father Adam to refer to Adam Sr. Note in the following that Orson Hyde is discussing the instruction given "of" Father Adam, not "to" Father Adam.

There is hardly ever a commandment given to any person or persons before whom a temptation is not placed to decoy them, if possible, from an obedience to that commandment. Our parents in the garden of Eden had had but little experience in this world; and it seemed that they must have a trial corresponding with the experience and knowledge they had of things as they were. The instruction of Father Adam was, "of all the trees in the garden thou mayest eat, excepting one; and in the day thou eatest of that, thou shalt surely die." The Lord said, Adam and Eve, you may enjoy yourselves; but there is one tree I command you that ye shall not eat of; for in the day that ye do, ye shall surely die." [JD 5:16, Orson Hyde, June 14, 1857]

There is another scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants which in its original form distinguishes between the two Adams. When this account of Joseph Smith's vision was first published in the Deseret News on September 4, 1852, someone, knowing that Michael was Adam, felt that the sentence did not make sense and modified it. Subsequent publications in Millennial Star and History of the Church have retained the modification. The account has since been incorporated into Section 137 of the Doctrine and Covenants in its modified form. In the current edition of the Doctrine and Covenants it reads

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept; [D&C 137:5]

In its original form, however, it read

I saw Father Adam, and Abraham and Michael and my father and mother, my brother Alvin that has long since slept, [Dean Jessee, The Papers of Joseph Smith, vol 2, p 157.]

In 1861 in speaking of this same vision of Joseph Smith's, Heber C. Kimball maintained the distinction between Adam and Father Adam as he related what Joseph Smith saw. He said that it was Adam who opened the gate of the Celestial City, but it was Father Adam who led them to the throne to be crowned

This brings to my mind the vision that Joseph Smith had, when he saw Adam open the gate of the Celestial City and admit the people one by one. He then saw Father Adam conduct them to the throne one by one, when they were crowned Kings and Priests of God. I merely bring this up to impress upon your mind the principles of order, but it will nevertheless apply to every member of the Church. [JD 9:41, Heber C. Kimball, March 17, 1861]

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't. But me and st9 had quite a private message discussion on it. However, here is a link that shows the direction I tend to go. It is also mentioned in the FAIRwiki under "Adam"....

DIFFERENT THOUGHTS - #7 ADAM - GOD

Here is an excerpt...

Thank you. I've been trying to figure out how to reconcile his comments with other comments where he differentiated between "Eloheim" and "Michael." This makes sense. There are a few aspects that Iâ??m going to have to think about a bit though, as they arenâ??t squaring for me yet.

Thanks again.

[Mudcat]

I appreciate you all laying your thoughts out for me. I think I have a much better perspective on this issue. I don't want to ask any questions yet...its a lot of info to process and think about. But I did want to say thanks for taking the time.

[BCSpace]

Thank you. I've been trying to figure out how to reconcile his comments with other comments where he differentiated between "Eloheim" and "Michael." This makes sense. There are a few aspects that Iâ??m going to have to think about a bit though, as they arenâ??t squaring for me yet.

Thanks again.

You're welcome!

I appreciate you all laying your thoughts out for me. I think I have a much better perspective on this issue. I don't want to ask any questions yet...its a lot of info to process and think about. But I did want to say thanks for taking the time.

[speaking for all] You're welcome!

[Doctor Steuss]

I appreciate you all laying your thoughts out for me. I think I have a much better perspective on this issue. I don't want to ask any questions yet...its a lot of info to process and think about. But I did want to say thanks for taking the time.

Just keep in mind that any of my comments may not necessarily reflect actual LDS doctrine. They're just my personal musings.

[Severian]

Didn't Brigham Young and Orson Pratt have a bit of a disagreement over this now non-existent issue?

When did it disappear anyway?

[Paul Ray]

Just keep in mind that any of my comments may not necessarily reflect actual LDS doctrine. They're just my personal musings.

Ditto.

If someone wants to know the official doctrine of the LDS church they should learn from our Lord's apostles and/or God, personally.

[Connolly]

As an Evangelical Christian, I beleive God always was and matter, man, etc...is all his work.

Its my understanding that LDS theology teaches that God was a man first...and became an "exalted man" God who then organized our world, us, etc... out of pre-existing matter.

So, if God was a man and their was a God that made him (following the same line of logic) and was at one point a man....and so on. Well, it sort of sets a scenario for an infinite number of Gods streaming back through time. Each one apparantley creating their own worlds from pre-existing matter. Here are my questions about this theory.

Was there a first God, if so was he a man first?

Who made matter or was it constant?

If matter is finite...why haven't we already run out?

. If you have something like this in previous posts feel free to paste'em in. I know there are a lot "thinkers" on this site..your input is most welcome. BTW, I will probably ask more questions along the way

Thanks,

Mud

Keep in mind that we believe that you have always existed, that there never was a time, when you, the being using the alias Mudcat, did not exist. Apply that to your logical extension, then there never was a time when God did not exist, and if he has a god, then there never was a time when that being did not exist. In other words, the only difference between your idea that God has always existed and ours, is that we add you (and all others) to the eternities.

[Mudcat]

Just keep in mind that any of my comments may not necessarily reflect actual LDS doctrine. They're just my personal musings.

In my mind...what you think..is what you believe and I think people communicate better when they speak from the perspective of what they believe about what they have been taught than simply passing on what they have been taught.

[Son]

Regardless of the religion, the question of who or if God was created, speaking of the original first

God Almighty so to speak, has always been a hamster wheel that most are not prepared to have or receive an answer.

son

[Obiwan]

As an Evangelical Christian, I beleive God always was and matter, man, etc...is all his work.

Its my understanding that LDS theology teaches that God was a man first...and became an "exalted man" God who then organized our world, us, etc... out of pre-existing matter.

Then you would be wrong in the first part of that understanding (as are all anti-mormons).

LDS theology is ONLY that we can become like the Father and inherit all he has, on his right hand as the Christ, that we are his literal spiritual children, etc. That we are as he (in embryo), and he is as us (exalted).

LDS unofficial Church wide inspiration is that the Father was a man once (like Christ).

LDS believe that "all things" are Eternal. So, there is no God was a man "first".

As to the second part, God Created/Organized through Christ his earth, made our body's out of it, etc.

LDS believe both matter and spirit is Eternal. As Christ with his Resurrected body as one with his spirit is Eternal.

If matter is finite...why haven't we already run out?

Matter can be neither created or destroyed, but only changed.

Never learned basic science?

Matter is Eternal, thus Infinate.

Mortality is simply the day of our probation where we learn to "control" matter and spirit.

[Joshu]

[note the word Berosheit....see Library: Joseph Smith's Translation Of Genesis 1:1

Without trying to derail the thread, I'm a little disappointed with the Jewish anti-Mormons. I have tremendous respect for the Jewish intellectual tradition but it looks like in this case they learned all their tricks from regular anti-Mormons. I'm sure we can count on them to step it up in the future though.

[Mudcat]

7,000 year old Earth? What do you think? Is there an offical stand on this the LDS church takes?

Saw something on an evolution post and thought it applied here as well.

Before you answer....here is what I beleive. You could call it the "Mudcat hypothesis."

I think the earth could be billions of years old...its age...really doesnt matter. I think God made the Earth all of creation etc... in six days. You see, Adam and Eve were immortal as long as they were in a sinless state. Scripture records the life of Adam in years. However, if that recorded life span reflects his life from the day he became mortal, not the day he was formed, then the question would be...how long did Adam and Eve remain in a sinless state.

[Gillebre]

Adam and Eve remained in a sinless state for as long as was necessary to prepare them, and to prepare the Earth to receive them.

My personal view of evolution? The Earth is in fact...very old, as scientists claim, however that is reconciled by the fact that we know from scripture, the earth was PREPARED before it was populated with humans. It had to be made ready for us, and I think it makes sense for that process to take a long time (note that time is nothing to the Godhead). As far as dinosaurs, I think they were part of that preparation time. Why? Maybe so when they died, fossils would remain to spark our interest, or make us think.

I think that the lifespan of humanity, as we know it (with Adam on down, from the fall), is 7000 years. I do not see the creation as 7 days literally, as we understand them...because that doesn't make sense, to me. If time is nothing to God, then why do it in 7 days exactly? Maybe a day isn't 24 hours...but many many years? Dunno. interesting line of thought.

Everything that was here before us, was put here to prepare the Earth for us - we may not understand the exact details of how it was done, or even the little whys...but I can tell you, I have the faith to recognize it isn't a necessity for my salvation to know at this point.

Some day, I will know, by His desire to tell me; just like His mysteries will be unfolded to the faithful...we must work on His time, not our own.

[Son]

7,000 year old Earth? What do you think? Is there an offical stand on this the LDS church takes?

Saw something on an evolution post and thought it applied here as well.

Before you answer....here is what I beleive. You could call it the "Mudcat hypothesis."

I think the earth could be billions of years old...its age...really doesnt matter. I think God made the Earth all of creation etc... in six days. You see, Adam and Eve were immortal as long as they were in a sinless state. Scripture records the life of Adam in years. However, if that recorded life span reflects his life from the day he became mortal, not the day he was formed, then the question would be...how long did Adam and Eve remain in a sinless state.

If you remember one thing, it is that a day to the lord is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day to the lord.

So Adam and Eve were in the garden for 1 God hour. Or 1/24th of a thousand yrs.

[Hammer]

As an Evangelical Christian, I beleive God always was and matter, man, etc...is all his work.

Its my understanding that LDS theology teaches that God was a man first...and became an "exalted man" God who then organized our world, us, etc... out of pre-existing matter.

So, if God was a man and their was a God that made him (following the same line of logic) and was at one point a man....and so on. Well, it sort of sets a scenario for an infinite number of Gods streaming back through time. Each one apparantley creating their own worlds from pre-existing matter. Here are my questions about this theory.

Was there a first God, if so was he a man first?

Who made matter or was it constant?

If matter is finite...why haven't we already run out?

. If you have something like this in previous posts feel free to paste'em in. I know there are a lot "thinkers" on this site..your input is most welcome. BTW, I will probably ask more questions along the way

Thanks,

Mud

Where did your God originate? Sorry, your post causes me to ask questions as well.

What is matter that it cannot generate more of itself? For instance, where did I come from in the light of my conception was only made up of 'matter seed'?

If matter couldn't generate and increase along with everything God has dominion over, there would be no trees, fruit, compost, etc.

[urroner]

Personally, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden account as recorded in the scriptures. I realize that I'm going to be condemn by several for saying that. I believe that the early civilizations weren't very good at philosophy, but they were very good at telling stories, so when they wanted to explain the beginning of mankind, the Garden and Adam and Eve account was a great way of doing it. The only problem is, as the understanding of this culture disappeared, so did the understanding of the story.

Even within the Church, I have never understood how Adam and Eve could be totally lacking in their knowledge of what was right and what was wrong or why God would create them totally ignorant of the difference between right and wrong. I have come to believe that, in the story, they knew the difference and it wasn't until they chose to not act in harmony with God's will were they kicked out of the Garden. I can see a bit of that story in everybody's life, especially mine.

[Hammer]

Personally, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden account as recorded in the scriptures. I realize that I'm going to be condemn by several for saying that. I believe that the early civilizations weren't very good at philosophy, but they were very good at telling stories, so when they wanted to explain the beginning of mankind, the Garden and Adam and Eve account was a great way of doing it. The only problem is, as the understanding of this culture disappeared, so did the understanding of the story.

Even within the Church, I have never understood how Adam and Eve could be totally lacking in their knowledge of what was right and what was wrong or why God would create them totally ignorant of the difference between right and wrong. I have come to believe that, in the story, they knew the difference and it wasn't until they chose to not act in harmony with God's will were they kicked out of the Garden. I can see a bit of that story in everybody's life, especially mine.

To some extent I agree. We are all as Adam and Eve, we are given to choose and if we choose wrong-- well we definitely get a better picture of what is right and wrong and the consequences are death, spiritually speaking. We are now in a teletial world. Hell -- so to speak. The powers that be are corrupt and definitely run by the god of this world.

Just as the scriptures all testify of Christ as does every creation testify of its creator, so even does all the scriptures explain this life's experience in one form or another. Taking 'time' out of the stories and applying only the principles of existence and experience, we all can find ourselves somewhere in the scriptural accounts.

Prophecies are the ultimate experience and they come to pass over and over again in each of our lives individually and in the world as a whole.

Very intriquing.

However, I don't know that there wasn't a 'beginning' with an Adam and Eve. In fact according to our current knowledge, we understand that all worlds have a beginning and therefore Adam and Eve.

Reality can also be symbolic. Or should I say-- symbolism can also be presented in reality?

[urroner]

If matter is finite...why haven't we already run out?

In modern physics, universes are being created and destroyed all the time.

In "String Theory," our universe was created when part of a 11+ dimensional universe collapsed in on itself and the dimensions that we can't see today (we live in a 4 dimensional universe with time being one of the dimensions) "curled up" and became matter and energy.

Here is an interesting site that talks about what happened before the Big Bang: What existed before the Big Bang? It even gives some ex nihilist hope, but it really doesn't.

Armed with string theory, Kaku and others speculate that before our Big Bang, there were simply more universes. â??Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe,â? he says. Imagine a bubble bath where each bubble represents a universe. In this multiversal tub that existed before our Big Bangâ??and still exists todayâ??universe bubbles are colliding, popping, budding new bubbles, expanding and contracting. If this scenario really exists, â??Big Bangs happen all the time,â? says Kaku.

Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. This seemingly tranquil nothingness universe was actually unstable and some physicists believe that a fluctuation in the vacuum caused our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Like a bubble in a bath, our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles.

This â??quantum leapâ? involved four of the dimensions of the empty universe, which now frame the universe we live in. Expanding suddenly, this event sparked the Big Bang and caused the further expansion which created matter and continues to push the galaxies apart today. Meanwhile, the seven remaining dimensions shrunk to an almost inconceivable size, much smaller than an atom.

Good stuff people.

[urroner]

To some extent I agree. We are all as Adam and Eve, we are given to choose and if we choose wrong-- well we definitely get a better picture of what is right and wrong and the consequences are death, spiritually speaking. We are now in a teletial world. Hell -- so to speak. The powers that be are corrupt and definitely run by the god of this world.

I might be treading upon shaky ground here and if I go too far, mods, you can delete this post with no complaint from m, but aren't we told in the temple that Adam and Eve represents each of us? We need to bend our will to be in harmony with God's will and until then, we can not return back to His presence permanently.

[Severian]

Personally, I don't believe in the Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden account as recorded in the scriptures. I realize that I'm going to be condemn by several for saying that. I believe that the early civilizations weren't very good at philosophy, but they were very good at telling stories, so when they wanted to explain the beginning of mankind, the Garden and Adam and Eve account was a great way of doing it. The only problem is, as the understanding of this culture disappeared, so did the understanding of the story.

Even within the Church, I have never understood how Adam and Eve could be totally lacking in their knowledge of what was right and what was wrong or why God would create them totally ignorant of the difference between right and wrong. I have come to believe that, in the story, they knew the difference and it wasn't until they chose to not act in harmony with God's will were they kicked out of the Garden. I can see a bit of that story in everybody's life, especially mine.

Good for you. You should be given a Celestial gold star for using your noggin.