Adam God Doctrine

[wenglund]

Wow. Incredible. (Actually, I feign surprise as I know your view on this from an earlier thread. But still, this view is incredible.) I will partially agree with you but say: "Why worry about it at all since Adam-God never was never put to the Church as official doctrine and is not taught by the Brethren today?"

I prefer to state it this way: "Why worry about it at all since the three-fold mission of the Church is not at all dependant upon it--as evinced by the little or no mention of it within the Church over the last 100+ years."

Or, I might state it this way: "Why worry about it since, at this point, it doesn't lend itself to, and may even detract from, our achieving the ultimate objective to become the very best people possible and to grow in joy, love, value, and meaningfulness one to/with another.

Then, again, I may say the same regarding a number of topics raised on this board.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

consiglieri:

Those are the statements that I am in reference to. I don't believe that BRM was stretching the term Father to include sexual relations. That seems just too inconsistent with the man.

In vitro fertilization is now old hat. So it probably isn't too hard for God to have even better ways.

Sounds goods. See you there.

[alter idem]

Well, I thought it was relevant because flyonthewall wrote that "we die once". My point is that it's possible to take a scripture very literally based on assumption, and then come to an extremely wrong conclusion as a result. For example, EV's mention how the Bible states that "no man has seen God at any time" and thus rule out the possibility that the First Vision occurred as described by Joseph Smith. If we understand, though, that no natural man has seen God except when transfigured by the Spirit, as stated in the D&C, we can see how the above scripture is not incompatible with the First Vision.

Thanks for the clarification--I see what you were alluding to.

He does seem to have thought through the implications of saying too much:

Yes, I think that he figured that out. This is especially clear when we see that he stopped teaching it in public after 1861.

[alter idem]

Hi Alter Idem,

I am aware of this seeming contradiction in the concept I presented. I will study again about this matter. And I will ask my friend Bob about it.

You may not know, but I am not LDS. I should be, in my convictions, but I was cast out of the church because of my beliefs. There were no other charges against me besides my beliefs.

I believe in the revelations found in the Second Book of Commandments. These revelations include further understanding of God and of Adam, and the understanding they give is different than any developed by fundamentalists pouring over President Young's teachings. For instance, the 2BC clearly teaches that Adam was NOT the physical father of the Savior. Also, the 2BC identifies who the Holy Ghost is.

I accept the 2BC because of spiritual witnesses, but I cannot always prove all its teachings from previous revelations. It was my study of Adam-God teachings that led me to find the 2BC revelations initially.

Again, as far as your question, I know that Alma teaches that the resurrection unites the body and spirit for ever. It may be, nontheless, that in the case of those who go on to become Adams and Eves on future worlds they are not considered fully resurrected until after they perform their duties on a second mortal earth as Adam and Eve. Possibly the Lord will give us revelation concerning this matter through the 2BC prophet --who is 79 years old and doing quite well. And I admit he is the Bob I was referring to above.

Richard

Thanks, Richard. I'd be interested to see what your Prophet has to say on this.

I was aware that you are no longer LDS and that you believe in the 2nd Book of Commandments. You've been very forthright about your beliefs on the board--something I appreciate.

I am familiar with the 2nd Book of Commandments--have read some of it online--not so familiar with your Prophet or whether you belong to an organized church or not.

Personally, I do not believe it is inspired, but I respect your right to believe it is, and to discuss topics from that point of view.

Again, as far as your question, I know that Alma teaches that the resurrection unites the body and spirit for ever. It may be, nontheless, that in the case of those who go on to become Adams and Eves on future worlds they are not considered fully resurrected until after they perform their duties on a second mortal earth as Adam and Eve.

This is an interesting thought, thanks.

[alter idem]

What BY actually taught was that by partaking of the physical fruits in the Garden, Heavenly Father and Mother were able to beget the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus, Heavenly Father and Mother, became an Adam and Eve (Sr.) to Adam and Eve (Jr.). Therefore, Adam Sr. is our God and Adam Jr. is the one who partook of the forbidden fruit, fell, and begat Kain, Abel, Seth, etc.

This is all explained in the link I provided in this post in the link above. The Church does not teach this (or the Adam-God) theory. I personally don't accept the Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory or the Adam-God theory as truth. I personally accept evolution as the method of God's creation.

You said this on the thread in the CK at Mormondiscussions. The problem is you've got no evidence to make the claim that this is what B.Young "actually taught". On the other thread, you cited Elden Watson as your evidence, however, he had no evidence to make that claim either. This is what Bro. Watson said;

Adam was not a resurrected being

One of the worst misconceptions which has been caused by incorrectly interpreting some of Brigham Young's statements is that Adam and Eve were resurrected beings when they entered the garden of Eden. Correct doctrine respecting this topic is most easily demonstrated by reviewing some of Amulek's teachings in the 11th chapter of the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon. In verse 45, Amulek states:

Alma 11:45

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

From this verse it is evident that once an individual is resurrected, he can never die again, because the spirit and body are inseparably connected through the resurrection. Not only can resurrected beings never die, they can never even become mortal again, because mortality is corruption, and after the resurrection they can no more experience corruption. That Adam did die is universally acknowledged throughout the four standard works:

Elden Watson does not provide evidence to refute that Brigham Young taught that Adam and Eve were immortal, resurrected beings-and we have a number who said he did. Watson's view seems to be that it's not scriptural therefore it's not possible that B.Young taught it. Watson seems to believe that we should look at what B.Young meant, rather than what he said. So his interpretation is that it was not the immortal beings who "fell"--they produced Adam and Eve, who in turn, fell.

This revision of Adam/God, saying that Heavenly Father and Mother came to earth, ate fruit so they could produce two children, Adam and Eve (our first parents) who then, were the ones who fell, cannot be what B.Young was teaching--we know this from Orson Pratt's reaction to what he heard Brigham Young teach.

Of the doctrine, Orson Pratt said;

I have heard Brigham say that Adam is the father of our spirits, and he came here to earth with a resurrected body,to fall for his own children, and I say to him that it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death; that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were sustained by revelation.

Elden Watson's says that B.Young has been "incorrectly interpreted"--but I just don't see how Orson Pratt, who knew Brigham Young, heard him preach this and was even able to argue it with him, could have "incorrectly interpreted" him!

I think Orson Pratt's comments make it clear B.Young was indeed teaching this--and I'm not sure how anyone can come to a different conclusion--unless they ignore O.Pratt's criticisms.

[erichard]

....

Ironically, as far as I can tell, the idea that still has currency in the Church about Jesus being sired through a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary actually has as its source Brigham Young . . . only when he said God the Father, he meant Adam!

...

Hi consiglieri,

Your thinking seems right to me.

There is a lot of irony associated with the Adam-God "bone of contention". One I said earlier in this thread: Brigham Young prepared the Temple endowment ceremony for the church. One cannot accept the Temple ceremony and then be consistent to reject other related teachings that President Young gave.

Richard

[erichard]

consiglieri:

BY knew the Bible as well as anyone. The Bible has Mary as a virgin and not "Knowing" any man.

Hi thesometimesaint,

The Bible teaches that Mary would be a Virgin, but where does it teach she would not know any man? She eventually had several children.

She was a Virgin, but she did not remain a Virgin.

Notice this quote from Luke 1:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? [this was before the events of the next verse happened]

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, AND the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

This quote "can" be understood to mean that TWO beings will attend the conception of Christ. The Holy Ghost will be there to protect her. And the Highest (Jehovah) will overshadow her. From this she will give birth to the Son of God-- the Only Begotten Son of God.

Richard

[erichard]

... I'd be interested to see what your Prophet has to say on this.

...

alter idem,

OK, I was talking with Bob today and brought up Alma 11:45 and we talked about it. I quote it here:

Now, behold, I [Amulek] have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

Our conclusion was that this is not the Word of the Lord, but the words of a recent convert. Amulek had the true Spirit, and was truly serving the Lord, and the Lord will justify his words-- and yet his words can still seem to contradict with later revelations given to mankind. Everything Amulek says does apply to Adam and Eve's resurrection as we understand, it just does not fully happen until they complete their work on this earth.

Notice these previous verses

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

This seems to contradict the doctrine that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three separate beings, as taught in our day. But I again believe that the Lord will somehow justify Amulek's words.

We believe Adam was faithful to his Savior on a previous earth. He was given a celestial resurrection and became Michael the "Archangel". Remember, an Angel is taught as being a resurrected person.

As a Joint-Heir with his Savior he and his kingdom prepared the Spirit children for this earth; and he was a co-creator of our present earth. He came and fell that these spirits could gain mortal bodies. When he "died" his spirit separated from his body, as in the death of any, but his body remained and remains incorruptible as Amuluk says.

After his death Adam was given the office of being the Holy Ghost. The idea that the Holy Ghost has never lived in the flesh is hard to understand. How could he be prepared for such power and calling? Have you ever seen a child who was ready for such power and responsibility?

But Adam is the father of our spirits, and loves us his children. He understands all the temptations of the flesh having overcome them. It makes perfect sense that He would be the Spirit of truth to teach his children, the holy spirit of promise to seal all their covenants, the one to shield Mary from the presence of Jehovah, and the one to eventually take up his body again at Adam-Ondi-Ahman and organize his kingdom again on this earth as the "ancient of days".

So in understanding the works of Adam we understand better what it will mean to become a Joint-heir with the Savior.

Richard

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns --

have become Gods, even the sons of God -- are made Kings of

kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of

propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first

of their operations with regard to organizing a world.

Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and

then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they

do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will

have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must

have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will

go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the

fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is

diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to

enable them, according to the established laws, to produce

mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even

the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that

we have a father. Adam is my Father; (this I will explain

to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he

is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that

I have not a father. (JD 6:274-275, August 28, 1852; also

printed in Deseret News, September 18, 1852)

Before me I see a house full of Eves. What a crowd

of reflections the word Eve is calculated to bring up! Eve was the

name or title conferred upon our first mother, because she was actually

to be the mother of all the human beings who should live upon this earth.

I am looking upon a congregation designed to be just such beings.

--Millennial Star 31:267; President Brigham Young; 1869.