Bruce R. McConkie on Adam-God

[HiJolly]

It's scriptural. D&C 27:11, 116:1, 138:38

And here:

9

[Jason]

And here:

Yes. D&C 116 specifically refrences Daniel. But in Daniel the Ancient of Days is not specifically identified as Adam, so there was no point in citing it as scriptural evidence that Adam is also known as the Ancient of Days.

[HiJolly]

Yes. D&C 116 specifically refrences Daniel. But in Daniel the Ancient of Days is not specifically identified as Adam, so there was no point in citing it as scriptural evidence that Adam is also known as the Ancient of Days.

(sigh)

You're seriously missing my point, but I don't want to belabor it.

HiJolly

[Jason]

(sigh)

You're seriously missing my point, but I don't want to belabor it.

I'm not missing it, I'm dancing around it until you decide to make it yourself, pulling faces.

[HiJolly]

I'm not missing it, I'm dancing around it until you decide to make it yourself, pulling faces.

R-i-i-i-g-h-t-t.....

HiJolly

[consiglieri]

I'm not missing it, I'm dancing around it until you decide to make it yourself, pulling faces.

It appears you are also dancing around the issue in the other Adam-God thread, Jason.

I have just posted there, calling you on the carpet for your unwillingness to engage the references you yourself demanded.

I am interested in seeing what you have to say for yourself . . . if you can find it in you to stop dancing around for a minute.

--Consiglieri