Adam God & the Divine Council

[WalkerW]

I'm seeing a pattern of going to any length to avoid the context of the Bible

And I'm seeing a pattern of going to any length to cling to your dogma and presuppositions even though history contradicts it.

but i understand

It is very apparent that you don't.

So I guess your saying that there is no such thing as angels

Your guess would be wrong. "Angel" means "messenger."

Is Lucifer really a fallen god then

To the author's of the Bible, Satan was considered a "son of God." The NET commentary on Isaiah 14 states, "Apparently these verses allude to a [Canaanite mythological] story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur."

The rest of your questions come from a faulty premise of "no angels." Plus, you've shifted goal posts from ancient Israelite belief to my personal beliefs.

[BCSpace]

I have, and it is a attempt to for lack of better words, to save face for BY and the office of the prophet. I've talked to LDS members who wouldn't even attempt to use it as an argument.

You're talking to one who has, and quite successfully.

[WalkerW]

Markk has yet to engage any information. He just keeps saying "but it contradicts with the context of the Bible," yet cannot defend his position. It was the same thing in the Joseph Smith gun thread.

I have little patience or desire to converse with someone who cannot engage this info with at least some intellectual honesty.

[David T]

Assuming also that BY also believed the doctrine of the Church, it is impossible for BY to be referring to Adam (Michael) as God the Father

As one who rejects the Elden Watson hypothesis, I think it's important to make clear that the 'doctrine of the church' was very much in a state of flux during the time Brigham Young made his several contradictory speculations. I personally think he may have recieved, as did Lorenzo Snow, a small snippet of revelation, "Adam is our father and god, and the only god with which we have to do", and attempted to correlate that with other things he understood Joseph to have taught. Elsewhere, many things wrong with the Adam Jr. Sr. Hypothesis have been pointed out (based on Brigham Young's explicit writings at what he meant at certain times, such as the lecture at the veil).

Nevertheless, the Temple does restore, in order, the core elements of three most ancient teaching myths of ancient Israel, that have recently been associated with the ancient Temple:

1. The Epic of Creation & Divine Council

2. The Raising up of Adam as divine king/priest, and Casting off from Eden, the Mountain of God, as a mortal after choosing forbidden wisdom brought by the Watcher Asael.

3. Shemiyazah corrupting the posterity of Adam with counterfeit wisdom (or religion/philosophies), while Enoch ("The Intiate")resists, and is brought into the presence of Angels who teach him true Wisdom, and is granted the Name that binds the Everlasting Covenant. He ascends to the presence of God, and regains his Kingship, and becomes an angel.

There is definite room for 'adam-as-god' - but it's not in the direction where Brigham Young went with it.

[Lachoneus]

. . . (based on Brigham Young's explicit writings at what he meant at certain times, such as the lecture at the veil).

This statement contains two major errors:

1. The Lecture at the Veil is not one of Brigham Young's "explicit writings." Instead, it was delivered orally by Brigham Young on 1 February 1877 in the St. George Temple. It was recorded by L. John Nuttall and J.D.T. McAllister under President Young's direction. Later President Young corrected and approved it for use in the St. George Temple.

2. That which is commonly (and erroneously) called "the lecture at the veil" in the Adam-God context is not the Lecture at the Veil used in the St. George Temple. Instead, it is part of a statement delivered orally by Brigham Young as part of an after dinner discussion with several others in his private residence in St. George on 7 February 1877. L. John Nuttall wrote a summary of this statement from memory in his private journal on 8 February 1877.

[Markk]

Hi Walker,

And I'm seeing a pattern of going to any length to cling to your dogma and presuppositions even though history contradicts it

HuH, Again my question was/is to David is basically how did he arrive at his conclusion when Gen. says "formed". Are you saying history contradicts that God created Adam, that He " formed" him from dust, (dry earth).

Maybe we should take another approach here walker, what does "formed" literally mean, and then applying that to the context of the verse at hand what is the author saying?

Your correct on one thing, it is my dogma and presupposition that God created Adam, and that Adam was the first man and not a divine being in a pre existence. You claim he is a divine being, and I suppose a god, correct me if I am wrong, and that Eve was his god wife in the pre existence? I have asked for a Biblical cfr, and am still waiting.

So again what does "formed" mean, do a word study ( used 60 plus times) and let me know?

Your guess would be wrong. "Angel" means "messenger."

Please expound on this. What does LDS theology teach that angels are by nature, just let me know your understanding here, no need for pastes and cuts. Do you believe angel are just gods who's job is being a messenger? Hoe does this relate with those that do not enter into eternal marriage in the CK?

Markk has yet to engage any information. He just keeps saying "but it contradicts with the context of the Bible," yet cannot defend his position. It was the same thing in the Joseph Smith gun thread.

I have little patience or desire to converse with someone who cannot engage this info with at least some intellectual honesty.

I've asked you over and over to deal with my question to David, Gen. uses the word "formed", in which David did not address in his paper, that's the context of all this walker, and you have avoided it like the plague...why? As for the Gun, the same thing, I asked for proof it was taught in church in a certain time period, pre Internet, still waiting, one institute manual and one seminary manual was all I got?

Like always you and other pile on and make it a personal attack on me, but hey I'm public works PM I take crud all day, I Can wait until you want to address the question, what does "formed" mean in the context or Gen. 2 ?

Take care

Mark

[Olavarria]

Hey Walker,

Thanks for drawing our attention to this connection.

I'm with you in the sense that I believe that a proper understanding concerning the biblical view of Adam as a god clearly illustrates some of the fundamental ways in which Brigham was truly inspired. Nonetheless, Brigham took the concept theologically into areas that I find incredibly fascinating, but am simply not prepared personally to accept as literal truths. Not to worry though, we're just going to have to wait and see. We're still in the initial stages of the period "in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest" (D&C 121:28).

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[ed2276]

"..and man became a living soul..." That indicates he was not living before he was formed. Also Eve was created from Adam's rib, hardly indicative of pre existance. "...which they twist and distort as they do the rest of scripture to their own destruction..." St. Peter.

What that indicates is the body which the Lord formed from the dust of the earth was not living until the "breath of life" (spirit of man) was put into the nonliving form. It does not indicate that the breath of life (spirit of man) itself was nonliving before it entered the body. You may, of yourself, presume that is what that indicates, but that is not what the scripture itself indicates.

A plain reading of the English text clears it up, however if one has preconceived doctrine that differs then one must strain the reading to extrapolate something quite foreign to corroborate his viewpoint.

How about a plain reading of the Hebrew text instead? Or of the Greek? Then, with other scriptures to guide you, as well, perhaps your plain English reading might not support the preconceived doctrine (Adam--his spirit--was not living before his spirit was "breathed" into his earthly form) with which you approach the subject.

To untwist your "indication" that Adam wasn't living before his "breath of life" entered his formed body we need only look to James:

Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

It is the spirit of man, "breath of life", which gives the body life; not the body which gives the spirit of man life. In Adam's case, with respect to his formed body, it was not alive until his spirit entered into it. James states that when the spirit of man leaves the body the body is dead. James does not say that the spirit of man, upon leaving the body dies, or ceases to exist.

In fact, the spirit of man continues to exist after it leaves his body:

Ecc 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

The body shall return to the dust from which it was formed, and the spirit will continue to exist and return to God, who gave it.

It follows that if God gave the spirit that the spirit which gave life to the dust, the formed body, must have been in existence and available for Him to give. As the scripture says :

...and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Indicating that Adam's spirit--breath of life--was outside Adam's formed body and the body was nonliving until Adam's spirit was breathed into that body, which spirit once inside the body gave the formed body life.

This means that the spirit of man, for however brief a period, must have been in existence outside the body prior to being put "into" the formed body; and since it is the spirit which gives the body life, as the body without the spirit is dead, life itself must be in the spirit of man; which means that Adam's spirit was living and pre-existed his mortal life.

How long of a period of time the spirit of man pre-exists his mortal life is another question. It is undoubted, as clearly manifested in scripture, that man's spirit, after it departs from his mortal body lives on forever, without need of a mortal body for life.

[Markk]

What that indicates is the body which the Lord formed from the dust of the earth was not living until the "breath of life" (spirit of man) was put into the nonliving form. It does not indicate that the breath of life (spirit of man) itself was nonliving before it entered the body. You may, of yourself, presume that is what that indicates, but that is not what the scripture itself indicates.

How about a plain reading of the Hebrew text instead? Or of the Greek? Then, with other scriptures to guide you, as well, perhaps your plain English reading might not support the preconceived doctrine (Adam--his spirit--was not living before his spirit was "breathed" into his earthly form) with which you approach the subject.

To untwist your "indication" that Adam wasn't living before his "breath of life" entered his formed body we need only look to James:

It is the spirit of man, "breath of life", which gives the body life; not the body which gives the spirit of man life. In Adam's case, with respect to his formed body, it was not alive until his spirit entered into it. James states that when the spirit of man leaves the body the body is dead. James does not say that the spirit of man, upon leaving the body dies, or ceases to exist.

In fact, the spirit of man continues to exist after it leaves his body:

The body shall return to the dust from which it was formed, and the spirit will continue to exist and return to God, who gave it.

It follows that if God gave the spirit that the spirit which gave life to the dust, the formed body, must have been in existence and available for Him to give. As the scripture says :

Indicating that Adam's spirit--breath of life--was outside Adam's formed body and the body was nonliving until Adam's spirit was breathed into that body, which spirit once inside the body gave the formed body life.

This means that the spirit of man, for however brief a period, must have been in existence outside the body prior to being put "into" the formed body; and since it is the spirit which gives the body life, as the body without the spirit is dead, life itself must be in the spirit of man; which means that Adam's spirit was living and pre-existed his mortal life.

How long of a period of time the spirit of man pre-exists his mortal life is another question. It is undoubted, as clearly manifested in scripture, that man's spirit, after it departs from his mortal body lives on forever, without need of a mortal body for life.

Hi Ed,

Literally what does the word "formed" mean in Gen 2?

Mark

[Zakuska]

Your guess would be wrong. "Angel" means "messenger."

Personally... I like when God himself is called an Angel.

Gen 48

15

[WalkerW]

HuH, Again my question was/is to David is basically how did he arrive at his conclusion when Gen. says "formed".

He explained this. I don't see what doesn't register. "From the dust" is shown to have connection with enthronement.

Are you saying history contradicts that God created Adam, that He " formed" him from dust, (dry earth).

I'm saying history contradicts your assertions about the existence of other gods in Israelite theology.

Maybe we should take another approach here walker, what does "formed" literally mean, and then applying that to the context of the verse at hand what is the author saying?

I already answered this. It means "fashioned."

You claim he is a divine being, and I suppose a god, correct me if I am wrong, and that Eve was his god wife in the pre existence? I have asked for a Biblical cfr, and am still waiting.

David has already explained this in great detail. He gives plenty of CFRs. You simply reject the Near East culture as a context for interpreting the Bible. That isn't my problem.

So again what does "formed" mean, do a word study ( used 60 plus times) and let me know?

Fashioned, like I said.

What does LDS theology teach that angels are by nature

As far as I know, children of God. Those that don't reach exaltation are just that: those that don't reach exaltation.

I've asked you over and over to deal with my question to David, Gen. uses the word "formed", in which David did not address in his paper, that's the context of all this walker, and you have avoided it like the plague...why?

I answered what "formed" meant a while ago. It means "fashioned." You need to pay attention. It doesn't help your case seeing that this does not imply some kind of creatio ex nihilo.

As for the Gun, the same thing, I asked for proof it was taught in church in a certain time period, pre Internet, still waiting, one institute manual and one seminary manual was all I got?

It wasn't all you got. You got annihilated in that discussion.

Like always you and other pile on and make it a personal attack on me, but hey I'm public works PM I take crud all day, I Can wait until you want to address the question, what does "formed" mean in the context or Gen. 2 ?

Allow me to give you my original answer several posts ago:

David's information has nothing to do with the word "formed," "fashioned," or "maker." It has to do with the phrase "from the dust."

[Markk]

Hi walker,

David's information has nothing to do with the word "formed," "fashioned," or "maker." It has to do with the phrase "from the dust."

David said that Adam was divine before he came here, formed, fashioned or maker contradicts that, it's tough to get you to acknowledge this and discuss it but I have patience, How could Adam have been divine if God formed, fashioned, and made him. Context demands that God made Adam from earth. I'm trying to get you to elaborate on this, I'll wait.

It wasn't all you got. You got annihilated in that discussion.

I got piled on by the choir, I'm used to that, but it was never established that the LDS church taught that in the time period set forth. Annihilated..LoL, if that how you view these conversations more power to you, I was annihilated for telling my experience, and many others experience, in our being raised in the LDS church...classic.

O'well

Take care

Mark

[WalkerW]

David said that Adam was divine before he came here

Technically, no he didn't, but whatever.

formed, fashioned or maker contradicts that

How?

it's tough to get you to acknowledge this and discuss it but I have patience

I answered your meaning of "formed" several posts ago, yet you kept asking the same question. It isn't my fault you overlooked it. And just asserting that it contradicts doesn't make it so. You need to explain your position.

How could Adam have been divine if God formed, fashioned, and made him.

He fashioned Adam from the dust of the earth. Ok. This isn't creatio ex nihilo, so I don't see the problem.

Context demands that God made Adam from earth.

It certainly does.

I'm trying to get you to elaborate on this, I'll wait.

What do you want? You need to explain your position instead of being ambiguous and just assume everyone is interpreting it the same way you do.

but it was never established that the LDS church taught that in the time period set forth.

Yes it was. Many times.

Annihilated..LoL

I certainly LOLed when you got annihilated.

if that how you view these conversations more power to you

If you want to deny that you weren't more power to you

I was annihilated for telling my experience, and many others experience, in our being raised in the LDS church...classic.

You have a tendency of attributing comments to things they were never meant to be attributed to. You got annihilated on your assertion that it wasn't taught. I don't really care about your personal experience. Your assertion is what was false. Blaming the Church for your ignorance is just ridiculous.

[Zakuska]

So lets give some verses the Evangelical spin (ie god=Idol) and see how silly they become...

Pslams 86

8 Among the Idols (gods) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.

Why would David compare God to stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak? More over how can stalks and stones do Works? For Gods works to be compared to.

Psalms 95

3 For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all Idols (gods).

Why would David call God a king of stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak?

Pslams 97

7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye Idols (gods)

8 Zion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of thy judgments, O Lord.

9 For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all Idols (gods).

How exactly do king of stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak, Worship God?

Psalms 135

5 For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all Idols (gods).

Why would David call God a king of stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak?

Pslams 136

2 O give thanks unto the God of Idols (gods): for his mercy endureth for ever.

Why would God create Idols?

Pslam 138

1 I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the Idols (gods) will I sing praise unto thee.

Why would David singing to Idols? Isn't God supposed to be his only God?

[Markk]

So lets give some verses the Evangelical spin (ie god=Idol) and see how silly they become...

Pslams 86

8 Among the Idols (gods) there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works.

Why would David compare God to stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak? More over how can stalks and stones do Works? For Gods works to be compared to.

Psalms 95

3 For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all Idols (gods).

Why would David call God a king of stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak?

Pslams 97

7 Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye Idols (gods)

8 Zion heard, and was glad; and the daughters of Judah rejoiced because of thy judgments, O Lord.

9 For thou, Lord, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all Idols (gods).

How exactly do king of stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak, Worship God?

Psalms 135

5 For I know that the Lord is great, and that our Lord is above all Idols (gods).

Why would David call God a king of stalks and stones who neither hear talk nor speak?

Pslams 136

2 O give thanks unto the God of Idols (gods): for his mercy endureth for ever.

Why would God create Idols?

Pslam 138

1 I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the Idols (gods) will I sing praise unto thee.

Why would David singing to Idols? Isn't God supposed to be his only God?

Who were these idols? What god did the represent, if your claim is that they are real who are they?

Psa 96:5 For all the gods of the nations [are] idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

Psa 135:15 The idols of the heathen [are] silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

But anyway if you believe these idols are actually gods, well thats your choice, but the Bible corrects that over and over again.

Take care

Mark

[WalkerW]

Who were these idols? What god did the represent, if your claim is that they are real who are they?

Psa 96:5 For all the gods of the nations [are] idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

Psa 135:15 The idols of the heathen [are] silver and gold, the work of men's hands.

But anyway if you believe these idols are actually gods, well thats your choice, but the Bible corrects that over and over again.

Take care

Mark

This also assumes that if it means one thing in one context, it has to mean the same thing in the other.

[Markk]

Technically, no he didn't, but whatever.

HuH?

David wrote:

..."the Bible describes the first man as a deified member of the divine council..."

When your ready to discuss this in context that Gen says Adam was "formed", and David said the above, that Adam was divine, then I'll be here?

How?

Well, becaus eDavid said he was a deified member of a divine council, and the Bible says that God created him.

Anyway when your ready to see this let me know?

Mark

[Markk]

This also assumes that if it means one thing in one context, it has to mean the same thing in the other.

Yes, that the gods of the nations are nothing more than man made idols and that they can't create, they are not like the one true god,..etc.

Do you believe these idols actually represented a real god? Who, we know what many of these idols represented, do you believe they are real?

Lev 19:4 Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I [am] the LORD your God.

The gods of the nations are nothing more than hand made idols, I hope you believe that?

Mark

[WalkerW]

Do you believe these idols actually represented a real god?

No, Markk. You misunderstand once more.

Just because in one verse it declares the gods of other nations as idols does not mean Israelite theology did not consist of other divine beings.

[WalkerW]

David wrote:

..."the Bible describes the first man as a deified member of the divine council..."

Which doesn't say anything about his pre-existent state.

When your ready to discuss this in context that Gen says Adam was "formed", and David said the above, that Adam was divine, then I'll be here?

I've asked you several times to explain yourself. Quit being repetitious.

Well, becaus eDavid said he was a deified member of a divine council, and the Bible says that God created him

It says he was fashioned from the ground. How does this take away from him being raised up as a member of the divine council?

Remember this one? "R. Simai used to say, 'Both the soul and body of creatures created from heaven are from heaven. Both the soul and body of creatures created from earth are from earth, except for man, whose soul is from heaven and body is from earth. Therefore if a man fulfills Torah and the desire of his Father in heaven he is like the heavenly creatures as it says, 'I said 'You are gods and sons of the most high all of you' (Ps. 82:6)." - Sifre Devarim 306 (emphasis mine) Notice that this states man's body is from earth and his soul is from heaven. This fits the context of Genesis quite well.

[Zakuska]

HuH?

David wrote:

..."the Bible describes the first man as a deified member of the divine council..."

When your ready to discuss this in context that Gen says Adam was "formed", and David said the above, that Adam was divine, then I'll be here?

Well, becaus eDavid said he was a deified member of a divine council, and the Bible says that God created him.

Anyway when your ready to see this let me know?

Mark

Was not Wisdom (aka Jesus CHrist) "formed" by God before the earth was Created?

[Calm]

Well, becaus eDavid said he was a deified member of a divine council, and the Bible says that God created him.

Did David say he was a deified member of a divine council before he was "formed"?

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

Thanks for asking questions. I believe I can clear up the confusion.

How did you get "raised" out of the text vs. "formed"?

It

[David Bokovoy]

We good?

[Markk]

Hey David,

Why wouldn't you give a literal translation of the text? Context is clearly "creation", and given you added to the context, illogically, that Adam was pre-existing deity I believe your twisting the text. From my meager reading formed in this context really has no other option other that creation, fashioned ( as a potter creates a pot), or make.

The point of the matter is that this imagery in Genesis connects Adam with statements concerning monarchs moving from