Jump to content

"my Very Own Planet"


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

I think I have an idea of where that idea that we will rule over "our own planet" came from.

OK, I am probably wrong, but this is my best guess.

1) The "fundamentalist", read apostate, version of the Adam-God theory.

Under this view, Adam-Michael was a man from another world. He died, was ressurected and recieved his exaltation. With his goddess wives he had number-less spirit children. After making spiritual bodies for these spirit children, Adam went/goes down to planets which have been made for them. He and one of his wives ,forgets, falls, has earthly children, then get translated again and return to their heavenly home.

Now, if I understand correctly, the fundies believe that more than one wife is recquired for exalation. The more wives a man gets, the more worlds he rules over. So if a man has 5 wives,thats five Eves', then he has five worlds to which he will be an Adam too etc.

Now, if we are forced to live by a monogomist relationship, under this view, each modern mormon can only have one world for he only has one wife, one Eve. You play the role of Adam and Eve once, make sure those kids get exalted, then send them off to do likewise.

So I think the "get your own planet" thing comes from a misreading of the Adam-God theory.

This might be worth researching.

ps. I am not a "fundamentalist". I stand by the Bretheren and reject the idea that Adam-Michael, father of Cain and Abel, is the father of my spirit.

Link to comment

I think I have an idea of where that idea that we will rule over "our own planet" came from.

OK, I am probably wrong, but this is my best guess.

1) The "fundamentalist", read apostate, version of the Adam-God theory.

Under this view, Adam-Michael was a man from another world. He died, was ressurected and recieved his exaltation. With his goddess wives he had number-less spirit children. After making spiritual bodies for these spirit children, Adam went/goes down to planets which have been made for them. He and one of his wives ,forgets, falls, has earthly children, then get translated again and return to their heavenly home.

Now, if I understand correctly, the fundies believe that more than one wife is recquired for exalation. The more wives a man gets, the more worlds he rules over. So if a man has 5 wives,thats five Eves', then he has five worlds to which he will be an Adam too etc.

Now, if we are forced to live by a monogomist relationship, under this view, each modern mormon can only have one world for he only has one wife, one Eve. You play the role of Adam and Eve once, make sure those kids get exalted, then send them off to do likewise.

So I think the "get your own planet" thing comes from a misreading of the Adam-God theory.

This might be worth researching.

ps. I am not a "fundamentalist". I stand by the Bretheren and reject the idea that Adam-Michael, father of Cain and Abel, is the father of my spirit.

I've never heard of any of those ridiculous ideas!!!! more wives=more worlds?? Please!!

Link to comment

I've never heard of any of those ridiculous ideas!!!! more wives=more worlds?? Please!!

I never said I agreed. Again, I probably am misreading "fundamentalist" theology. But I think a mis-reading of Adam-God theroy might be at the source of this issue. Ill contact some internet fundies and get back to you all.

Link to comment
So I think the "get your own planet" thing comes from a misreading of the Adam-God theory.
Even if so, I don't see how your theory would help defuse the charge.

I believe you may be on to something. My experience is that the person you're dealing with is trying to raise a hackle or two by raising a sensationalized one-liner. My response is typically, "A planet? Heck, no! I'm going to create a universe, maybe two."

Lehi

Link to comment

Why did those Fundamentalists introduce that Adam-God stuff in the first place? Were they seeking some sort of interplanetary hegemony? :P

I think they got the idea from your very own Brigham Young as stated in the Journal of Discourses and his "Adam is your God and the only God you have to do with." As I remember it.

I wish Pahoran was here, he could soon straighten us out with his kindly wise explanations. Where is he anyway?

Link to comment

From Jeff Lindsay's Web site;

No. We worship God the Father, the Creator of all, who created the man Adam. The scriptures and the official teachings of the Church are unmistakable on this point. There is a clear process for doctrines to become official, and nothing that could possibly be called an Adam-God doctrine ever went through that process. To understand what is actually official doctrine, please see "What is Official Doctrine?" by Stephen Robinson and "Are Brigham Young's Sermons Scripture?" by John Walsh.

Latter-day Saints grow weary of others trying to tell us what we really believe, and this is a good example. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we explain to them that we don't believe Adam was God, or that we only worship God the Father and Jesus Christ. Many anti-Mormons continue to assert that it is LDS doctrine that Adam was God. This is false, but it certainly serves the anti-Mormon agenda of making Mormons seem like a moronic cult with no connection to biblical Christianity. (See Adam, the Fall, and the Messiah: The LDS Perspective for a discussion of the very biblical LDS view of Adam's Fall and the resulting need for a Savior - something that was planned from the beginning.)

What is the basis for the anti-Mormon charges? Among the many non-canonized, unofficial statements of Brigham Young are several very puzzling quotes that seem - if he is quoted correctly - to indicate confusion about the identity of God and Adam, though in even more quotes from him he clearly speaks of Adam as the human created by God. If the quotes are correct, I can accept their gist by taking "Adam" to be a title meaning "First Father," which can be applied to God the Father as well as the earthly Adam (see Abraham 1:3 and Moses 1:34). It can also apply to Christ, who is the Father of our salvation, the Firstborn, and the Firstfruits of the Resurrection. Use of the title "Adam" is demonstrated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:45-47:

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Thus, we have a biblical example where Christ is called by the title "Adam" in a way consistent with the "First Father" concept of the LDS scripture, Abraham 1:3. Adam was the first father for mortality, while Christ is our First Father spiritually.

But we still don't really know what Brigham was trying to say in the puzzling "Adam-God" quotes. Some seem to contradict his own clear and plain teachings about the Godhead and about Adam. Many of these can be resolved by an appeal to confusing grammar and to the concept of Adam being a title (First Father). But in a lecture given in the St. George Temple, for example, he apparently taught the confusing idea that Adam was an immortal, resurrected being who became mortal again in the garden of Eden. If he has been correctly quoted, it just doesn't fit with basic teachings of the Church and the scriptures and of President Young himself on other occasions. Whatever he had in mind, he did not require others to teach such doctrine as official LDS doctrine (e.g., as canonized doctrine) nor put it into official Church materials nor ever present it for consideration as canonized doctrine. In expressing his opinions on this matter, he may have been misunderstood or he may simply have been wrong. Since he never attempted to canonize his theories, however strongly he may have felt about them, we are under no obligation to defend them. If Brigham Young had a wild theory that was inconsistent with canonized doctrine, we can shrug our shoulders and move on. Prophets, like all mortals, can be wrong and make mistakes. But we expect that official, canonized doctrines - those in the scriptures and teachings presented for sustaining votes by the general authorities and membership of the Church - can be relied on.

This point is further explained by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen in "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 109-169 (quoting from p. 141):

A private letter coauthored by President Wilford Woodruff - fourth president of the church and a contemporary of Brigham Young - and Apostle Joseph F. Smith makes clear that the Adam-God theory was never widely held nor accepted by the church as an official doctrine:

President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.

(Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, letter to A. Saxey, 7 January 1897, Family and Church History Department Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

So whatever Brigham Young actually meant when he spoke of confusing doctrines about Adam, those concepts must be relegated to the "personal opinion" file and not to official doctrine. In the Church, official doctrine comes through established, official routes, and is primarily embodied in standard works that have been presented to the Church and ratified for approval. As President Gordon B. Hinckley explained,

When all is said and done, the test of the doctrine lies in the standard works of the Church. These have been accepted in conference and assembled as our doctrinal standards." (Gordon B. Hinckley, General Authority Training Meeting, October 1, 1996, in Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley, p. 574)

Earlier opinions and writings of Church leaders and their previously published writings do not automatically become official Church doctrine when they later become President of the Church. As Joseph Fielding Smith himself stated,

"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.... You cannot accept the books written by authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man who writes is responsible not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something that is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member is duty bound to reject it. If he writes what is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation 3:203-4).

Claims that Adam is the Almighty Creator or Father of Christ do not have scriptural support. No such concept has ever been presented to the Church membership for their sustaining vote. Given the conflict of the so-called Adam-God with canonized scripture, we are, as Joseph Fielding Smith himself stated, "duty-bound to reject them."

The Adam-God theory is a fundamental issue in the imaginations of anti-Mormon writers, but is largely irrelevant in LDS theology. Anti-Mormon writings refuse to acknowledge that most of the quotes we have from Brigham Young mentioning God, Christ, and Adam correspond with what we all know and understand from the scriptures and leave no room to make LDS doctrine out of the so-called "Adam-God theory." Official LDS doctrine has always been clear that God and Adam are distinct beings and that God was the Creator and Adam was the created. We find that in the Bible, in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, in the teachings of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young. It is unmistakably taught and conveyed in the LDS Temple.

One quote from Brigham Young that has caused much confusion (at least it is commonly cited by anti-Mormon writers) is from a talk given April 9, 1852, as reported in an unofficial and sometimes questionable source, The Journal of Discourses , Vol. 1, p. 51. Here Brigham is explaining that Christ is divine and is the Son of God the Father:

"Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven...."

Here Brigham is referring to God the Father when he says "that being who was in the Garden of Eden," for the Bible and other LDS sources indeed teach that God visited Adam in the Garden of Eden and walked and talked with him there, before the Fall.

I will now quote at length on this topic from Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., from Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, p.102-106:

The statement by President Brigham Young that the Father is the first of the human family is easily explained. But the expression that he was the same character that was in the Garden of Eden has led to misunderstanding because of the implication which our enemies place upon it that it had reference to Adam. Unfortunately President Brigham Young is not here to make his meaning in this regard perfectly clear. Under the circumstances we must refer to other expressions by President Brigham Young in order to ascertain exactly what his views really were in relation to God, Adam, and Jesus Christ.

GOD: FIRST OF THE HUMAN FAMILY. Let me comment first upon the expression that God is the "first of the human family." This same doctrine was taught by Joseph Smith. It is a fundamental doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to the teachings of Joseph Smith, he beheld the Father and the Son in his glorious vision, and he taught that each had a body of flesh and bones. He has expressed it in these words:

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

He also taught that, literally, God is our Father; that men are of the same race -- the race called humans; and that God, the Progenitor, or Creator, is the Father of the human race. "In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God."

It is a doctrine common to the Latter-day Saints, that God, the Great Elohim, is the First, or Creator, of the human family.

THE FATHER WAS WITH ADAM IN EDEN. In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, it should be perfectly clear that President Young was not referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden; and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with him, and the Father taught Adam his language. It was not until the fall, that the Father departed from Adam and no longer visited him in the Garden of Eden.

Surely we must give President Brigham Young credit for at least ordinary intelligence, and in stating this I place it mildly. If he meant to convey the thought that the character who was in the Garden of Eden, "and who is our Father in Heaven," was Adam, then it would mean that this expression was in conflict with all else that he taught concerning God the Father, and I am bold to say that President Brigham Young was not inconsistent in his teaching of this doctrine. The very expression in question, "the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven," contradicts the thought that he meant Adam.

BRIGHAM YOUNG'S TEACHINGS ABOUT ADAM. Now let me present one or two expressions in other discourses by President Young -- of course, the critics never think of referring to these:

"How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated? It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as these mountains are to our mountain boys."

"How did Adam and Eve sin? Did they come out in direct opposition to God and to his government? No. But they transgressed a command of the Lord, and through that transgression sin came into the world."

"The human family are formed after the image of our Father and God. After the earth was organized the Lord placed his children upon it, gave them possession of it, and told them that is was their home. . . . Then Satan steps in and overcomes them through the weakness there was in the children of the Father when they were sent to the earth, and sin was brought in, and thus we are subject to sin."

"Our Lord Jesus Christ -- the Savior, who has redeemed the world and all things pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh. He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship him. He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by our first parents [that is Adam and Eve]."

"The Latter-day Saints believe in Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, who came in the meridian of time, performed his work, suffered the penalty and paid the debt of man's original sin by offering up himself, [they believe he] was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to his Father; and as Jesus descended below all things, so he will ascend above all things."

It is very clear from these expressions that President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He taught that Adam died and that Jesus Christ redeemed him. He taught that Adam disobeyed the commandment of the Father, or God, and was driven from the Garden Of Eden. He said that Adam was conversant with his Father in the Garden of Eden. This is believed by all members of the Church, and also that the Father was in the Garden of Eden until Adam was driven out for his transgression....

We worship God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. We have never worshipped the man Adam, husband of Eve (though Adam or "First Father" can be a title referring to God).

For more details on the Adam-God theory, see Mike Parker's page on the Adam-God theory - something that was never official LDS doctrine and still isn't. And be sure to see my new page, "Adam, the Fall, and the Messiah: The LDS Perspective." As for the possibility that even real prophets can have wrong opinions or make mistakes (something that is obvious if you read the Bible!), please see my page on prophets and also my page on the Bible.

Interestingly, at least one anti-Mormon source appears to be citing an 1856 hymn as evidence that the Adam-God doctrine was official LDS theology. Here is an e-mail I received in Sept. 2001 on this topic:

I forgot to mention an interesting fact - what do you do with your Hymns when your teaching is in them and you don't like the teaching.. In your 1856 British hymn book it has the song, "We Believe In Our God." The 3rd line reads:

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord as is plain -

However, your church has chosen to rid this doctrine - it won't happen - too many things of proof that support it. Reminds me of the scripture - nothing will be hidden.....

Ah, another case of Latter-day Saints being attacked for believing in the Bible. Here is my answer to the inquirer:

Adam was our father - at least that's how MY genealogy works out - and was made Lord of the earth. That is Biblical doctrine and LDS doctrine. Gen. 1:26 states that God gave Adam dominion over all the animals of the earth - thus making him lord (supervisor, the one with dominion) over an earthly stewardship. That's not the same as THE Lord who rules in heaven. The doctrine in the line you quote from the 1856 hymn is still with us. The fact that an old song isn't in our modern song book doesn't reflect a cover up, but probably has something to do with the quality of the hymn itself.

Again, whatever Brigham Young may have meant when he made some of his puzzling statements is simply not clear to us today. But the scriptures and official LDS doctrine are clear: the husband of Eve in the Garden of Eden was not God the Father!

Link to comment

I think I have an idea of where that idea that we will rule over "our own planet" came from.

OK, I am probably wrong, but this is my best guess.

1) The "fundamentalist", read apostate, version of the Adam-God theory.

Under this view, Adam-Michael was a man from another world. He died, was ressurected and recieved his exaltation. With his goddess wives he had number-less spirit children. After making spiritual bodies for these spirit children, Adam went/goes down to planets which have been made for them. He and one of his wives ,forgets, falls, has earthly children, then get translated again and return to their heavenly home.

...

Brigham Young (and JS's King Follet discourse) is the source of the fundamentalist version of Adam-God theory. It is still taught today in our LDS Church in our official 1997 Teachings of the President's: Brigham Young manual which was approved by the 1st Presidency and Q of the 12. However, according to Jeff Lindsay and LDS media news release logic, a recent manual approved by the Church and taught for 2 solid years in Relief Society and MPhood is NOT our "official teachings", only our scriptures and the 5 official declarations are 'doctrine' or 'official'.

So, yes, I do realize that nothing in our manuals and that nothing our prophets say today (or in the past), can actually be construed as "official doctrine". Which btw makes me wonder why we teach from the Ensign or listen to General Conference or why we are to follow the prophets if what they say today IS doctrine and IS essential for our salvation, will in the near future just be laid aside as 'mystery', 'wrong', 'false doctrine' or 'they were just speaking as men' (the pat answers to the things that don't add up today but which clearly were doctrine to the prophets just 150-100 years ago), but I digress.

Adam-God "doctrine" (quoting BY) was taught freely by Brigham Young for decades in his public addresses and in the tabernacle. He said it was doctrine and if we failed to believe it we'd be damned, he felt so good about it that he had it put into the St. George Temple lecture at the veil. And the LDS leadership just 10 years ago felt so good about it they gave it official sanction (my view) by having it re-printed for OUR DAY.

I made the mistake of quoting from the BY Manual 9 years ago in a sacrament talk on "the fall of Adam and Eve", and I was put to task for teaching false doctrine out of our own manual, which made my head spin...and it's not stopped spinning since. So yes, I am a bit sensitive on this subject.

If you'll kindly turn to your manual, Teachings of The President's of The Church: Brigham Young (chapter 7, plan of salvation). http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne...contentLocale=0

"We are the spirit children of God.

No human being has had power to organize his own existence. Then there is a greater than we. Are we our own in our bodies? Are we our own in our spirits? We are not our own. We belong to our progenitorsâ??to our Father and our God [see Acts 17:29] (DBY, 50).

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits [see D&C 76:24], and they were brought forth and lived with him. Then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, â?¦ consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth (DBY, 50)."

"...the Father actually begat the spirits...and they were brought forth and lived with him". --- this means, we have a literal Father in Heaven. We were "begat" (think sexual union) and then "brought forth" (maybe from an eternal nusery?) and we lived with him as spirits, in the CK. Since He is in the Celestial Kingdom, that means we too were there, as his spirit children, and with Him as our Heavenly Father. Typical previous heavenly family and home setting idea that we're taught in the Church today.

"Then he commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as he had been created in this flesh himself". --- "He" being our Heavenly Father, the Man who just the sentence before was the one who begat our spirit bodies. He was "...created in this flesh himself", meaning: He too was 'fleshy' (meshes nicely with the King Follet discource of JS), meaning HE had a body and lived in "THIS flesh", meaning an earthly mortality just as WE, his children do.

"...by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth" --- This is now talking about ADAM. This is still the same "He" from the beginning of this section, He being our Father in Heaven. Adam is the one who BY and others have taught, repeatedly, who partook of the materials of this earth and had a change come over his celestial resurrected body so that instead of producing spirit bodies, he'd produce physical bodies.

"...consequently the tabernacles of his children were organized from the coarse materials of this earth." --- meaning, He (Adam), because his system became "charged with" the course materials of this earth, now produced children that were NOT made of spirit substance, but earthy-course-material-substance.

Clearly, the person who produced the physical bodies that you and I now have is ADAM (per the Garden of Eden in Missouri story). Clearly also, BY teaches us that Adam is our Father in Heaven who begat us in Heaven (think sexual union and spirit-babies being produced) and with whom we were brought to live with for eternity.

The link below gives you the 'charged with' quote and also shows that this SAME "Father" (Adam) is the one who physically fathered (think sexual union) Jesus.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mjeBej1is...dFwKMQV9ZNddMSY

I realize this is now "false doctrine" and that "we don't understand it" or that BY was 'just a man' when he taught it as doctrine and essential for our salvation for decades. However I also realize that it is indeed in our recent manual. Did I mention my head is spinning (and no, not like in The Exorcist). :P

Tootles.

Link to comment
Though of course, it is NOT official doctrine just because it IS an official teaching in our church TODAY, approved by our prophets,

The Church does not distinguish between official doctrine and official teaching.

and that BY said it was doctrine and essential for our salvation that we understand who God is and that He is Adam.

My claim is that BY in no way taught anything like the proposed Adam-God theory. Taking all his statements into context (JoD, WWJ, etc.), he appears to have taught that God the Father and Heavenly Mother were AN 'Adam and Eve' who, by partaking of the physical fruit in the garden, were able to beget the physical bodies of the Adam and Eve who fell by partaking the forbidden fruit.

I came to this conclusion on my own while discussing it with st9, but someone beat me to the punch here.

However, such is also not presented as doctrine by the Church and I don't subscribe to either Adam-God or Elden Watson's Adam Sr./Adam Jr. I happen to be a theistic evolutionist.

I made the mistake of quoting from the BY Manual 9 years ago in a sacrament talk on "the fall of Adam and Eve", and I was put to task for teaching false doctrine out of our own manual, which made my head spin...and it's not stopped spinning since. So yes, I am a bit sensitive on this subject.

I understand. But perhaps you were reading more into the manual than was actually there?

Link to comment

The Church does not distinguish between official doctrine and official teaching.

My claim is that BY in no way taught anything like the proposed Adam-God theory. Taking all his statements into context (JoD, WWJ, etc.), he appears to have taught that God the Father and Heavenly Mother were AN 'Adam and Eve' who, by partaking of the physical fruit in the garden, were able to beget the physical bodies of the Adam and Eve who fell by partaking the forbidden fruit.

I came to this conclusion on my own while discussing it with st9, but someone beat me to the punch here.

However, such is also not presented as doctrine by the Church and I don't subscribe to either Adam-God or Elden Watson's Adam Sr./Adam Jr. I happen to be a theistic evolutionist.

I understand. But perhaps you were reading more into the manual than was actually there?

Interesting. I suppose that could be a fit. Our literal heavenly father and heavenly mother came down, with their celestialized bodies, had a picnic of sorts dining on the course materials of this earth, then when they were sufficiently 'earthy' on their insides, made a baby Adam and a baby Eve, then they (Adam and Eve) grew up...and started our planet.

IF this theory is right, me and my wife, once we're in the CK, will go to our planets and have romantic picnics which charge our celestial bodies with earthy-stuff so we produce earthy-offspring (but just 1 boy and 1 girl), raise them a bit (or have others do so) and then be off to do the same on other planets.

Seems like a lot of travel and work...I hope there's a better way...doesn't seem very efficient to me.

Thanks for the alternative thinking...I can't quite get my head around it though (spinning too fast for things to sink in likely).

What is "actually there" in the manual, as I read it, has Heavenly Father begeting us as spirits first, then he came down and provided physical bodies by having his body changed and that He is Adam.

The Adam and Eve story, as presented in the scriptures and Temple, has Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit (or course materials of this earth, or whatever it represents) and then THEY 'fall' and then THEY can have babies but before that they could NOT (BOM, quoting Eve).

Having HF & HM coming down for the picnic and then producing Adam & Eve and then leaving Adam & Eve on their own...means that TWO sets of parents had to partake of 'materials' to produce our present earthy bodies for later on Adam and Eve also had to partake of 'fruit' to have children -- according to Eve in the BOM).

My head is still spinning.

Link to comment

Does anyone know what the church beliefs and doctrines are? Even President Hinckley seems unsure? Some know exactly what they believe but it differs from what others believe. Brigham Young knew exactly what he believed but now there's a lot of questions about his claims.

I've claimed for years that there is no where one can go and find a solid offical answer to questions about church doctrines.

Link to comment

Does anyone know what the church beliefs and doctrines are?

I think G-d probably does... maybe.

Even President Hinckley seems unsure?

Unsure, or cautious?

Some know exactly what they believe but it differs from what others believe.

Belief is different than knowledge.

Brigham Young knew exactly what he believed but now there's a lot of questions about his claims.

I would hope that he knew what he believed. Now, what he knew to be fact might be a different matter.

I've claimed for years that there is no where one can go and find a solid offical answer to questions about church doctrines.

There is no one place:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."

History of the Church 5:517

Doctor Steuss

PhD in Odiferous Obfuscation

Link to comment

I think G-d probably does... maybe.

Unsure, or cautious?

Belief is different than knowledge.

I would hope that he knew what he believed. Now, what he knew to be fact might be a different matter.

There is no one place:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons."

History of the Church 5:517

Doctor Steuss

PhD in Odiferous Obfuscation

That does not sound very nice at all! "Oidferous obfuscation"? Which organization of study did you receive this degree from and how many years did it take you to graduate?

:P

Link to comment

Her Amun,

Was Joseph Smith a "fundamentalist"?

The following statement given by the late Anson Call of Bountiful in the year 1877 to Thomas Wm. Whitaker of Centerville, while he was building the new house in Bountiful for the late Anson Call. I was with my father in the erection of this building, was intimately acquainted with Brother Call, did much for him, took notes from him on early church history, translated the same and later gave personally to President Joseph F. Smith. At the time I gave him Brother Call's statement about closing the store in Nauvoo and other matters, President Joseph F. Smith said to me, 'Johnny, we are very happy to get this very important statement from Brother Anson Call, it clears up some matters that he alone could do, and it completes some historical matters heretofore lacking in the church history. We are delighted to get this statement' At the same time I handed President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors the following statement from the same Anson Call and which he told me I could use as the statement from Anson Call, as I desired.

HOW WAS THE WORLD INHABITED?

The following is a statement of the late Anson Call of Bountiful:

On one occasion when Brother Joseph [smith] was cutting wood, there came to him some brethren and I was among them. We said, 'Brother Joseph, we have some questions to ask, and we will cut your wood while you answer them' 'all right', said Joseph, and we went into the house. Joseph placed his arms across his knees, bent over as if in meditation, and then said, 'now for your questions.'

We said to him; 'what about the creation of the world; how was it inhabited?' Joseph answered and said; 'I will tell you how it was. You and I were in the spirit world at the grand council, and there we were spirits together. We saw and heard that council, and heard them talk of formation of the world and we were among those when the morning stars sang together and when the sons of God shouted for joy. We were among those who had more courage than others and therefore we came down here and took bodies. Some who did not have the courage said, 'Father, we have fought Satan face to face here in the spirit world and helped to cast him down there and now to go down and fight him again face to face, we are afraid we shall never return to thy presence and would prefer a less degree of glory and go some other of your creations where we are sure of -returning.' 'Yes, you and I had more courage and came down here of our own agency and choice.'

Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet - an immortalized being and brought his wife, Eve, with him, and by eating of the fruits of this earth became subject to death and decay and he became of the earth earthly, was made mortal and subject to death. 12th Ch. Rev. 7 and on.

Now, after we had proven our worthy before God that we were willing to go through temporal sufferings, privations and trials that we did spiritually, we were chosen or elected, and we merited our prize or reward according to the works we did in the spirit world; but we were not chosen or elected until we had shown by our works to our Heavenly Father that we were willing to go through what He might permit us to, and we were not deprived of our agency.

In the Grand Council in heaven there were some spirits that did not take part in the great rebellion at all. They were called neutral spirits: they were on the fence, and when Cain killed his brother Able, God placed a skin of blackness upon him as the first of Adam's race and through the posterity of Ham this seed was propagated through the flood. And the neutral spirits in heaven possess these black bodies. And after the flood no doubt Noah must have found him doing some little low trick for he said: 'cursed, cainaan, a servant of servants shalt thou be to thy brethren.' And those neutral spirits in heaven preferred to take the body of a negro rather than have no body at all.'

--Reflections of John M. Whitaker, BYU Harold B. Lee Library, Call # Mar. M270.1 W58r.

Edit:

Here's another pertinent quote -- a section of a poem criticizing Joseph Smith's teachings, published in the Warsaw Message newspaper, in Warsaw, Illinois, February 7, 1844 under the title "Buckey's Lamentations for the Want of More Wives" :

5.

A TENFOLD glory -- that's the prize!

Without it you're undone!

But with it you will shine as bright

As the bright shining sun.

There you may shine like mighty Gods,

Creating worlds so fair --

At least a WORLD for every WIFE

That you take with you there.

Link to comment

Well there's always this Midrash from Rabbi Akiva:

The Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future call all of the pious by their names, and give them a cup of elixir of life in their hands so that they should live and endure forever. . . . And the Holy One, blessed be He, will in the future reveal to all the pious in the World to Come the Ineffable Name with which new heavens and a new earth can be created, so that all of them should be able to create new worlds. . . . The Holy One, blessed be He, will give every pious three hundred and forty worlds in inheritance in the World to Come.
Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

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