teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Wait a minute..... I thought the savior was the only begotten in the flesh. This seeming doctrinal difficulty has been handled by Church leaders. The expression means only begotten into the world of fallen flesh.
cinepro Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) This seeming doctrinal difficulty has been handled by Church leaders. The expression means only begotten into the world of fallen flesh. Where did Church leaders "handle" that? And why didn't Elder Mark E. Petersen know in his general conference address refuting the Adam/God doctrine? Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God, the first born to our Heavenly Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten in the flesh.Jesus is the Holy One of Israel, not Adam, not anyone else. Although we are all spirit children of the Father, Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father, in mortality, even from the beginning, not Adam, not anyone else (see Moses 5:9). This the Lord himself says.In the day that the gospel was given to Adam, the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and the divine voice of Jesus Christ—the Jehovah of that time—said to him by the power of the Holy Ghost: “I am the Only Begotten of the Father from the Beginning” (Moses 5:9). Then, can anyone claim that distinction for Adam, or for anyone else? Of course not! Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father, even from the very beginning.-------------------------------------------------------The Apostle Paul has an interesting passage in his epistle to the Hebrews. He spoke of the Savior and declared him to be in the express image of his Father’s person. Then he asked this question: “Unto which of the angels said he [God] at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” (Heb. 1:5; emphasis added). And of course the answer is immediate and obvious—none of them—none of the angels, not even Adam, or Michael, the chief of the angels.--------------------------------------------------------Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.The Almighty himself repeatedly called Jesus both his firstborn and his Only Begotten. Adam, the ArchangelMARK E. PETERSEN --------------------------------------------- Edited January 16, 2014 by cinepro
Freedom Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 This seeming doctrinal difficulty has been handled by Church leaders. The expression means only begotten into the world of fallen flesh.You may want it to mean this, but it does not. Jesus is the one begotten of the father.
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 You may want it to mean this, but it does not. Jesus is the one begotten of the father. It's not I that said this, it's some leaders of the Church. When I have time I'll post the quotes. Even so, the scriptures do say Adam is "the son of God" as to his genealogy in the flesh.
Nofear Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 The idea that Adam's body was a result of generations of evolutionary steps from lower orders does seem a bit at odds with what has been taught... Agreed. Evolution alone isn't particularly consistent with the doctrine of plurality of worlds and the countless number of Adams that do and have existed in the cosmos. Evolution cannot be the full story. That's not to say it doesn't play a role in our earth though (see my post early in this thread).
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Where did Church leaders "handle" that? And why didn't Elder Mark E. Petersen know in his general conference address refuting the Adam/God doctrine? --------------------------------------------- It's right in your own quote. The only begotten of the Father "in mortality."
cinepro Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 (edited) It's not I that said this, it's some leaders of the Church. When I have time I'll post the quotes. Even so, the scriptures do say Adam is "the son of God" as to his genealogy in the flesh. I think I've found a page that has all the quotes and arguments you're thinking of: http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/11-adams-father-who-was-the-father-of-adam-do-we-have-a-royal-heritage/ It appears that site is ultra-conservative from both doctrinal and political standpoints, but they do have lots of quotes! I especially like their article on Noah's Flood. Edited January 16, 2014 by cinepro
teddyaware Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 I think I've found a page that has all the quotes and arguments you're thinking of: http://www.josephsmithforum.org/research/faqs/11-adams-father-who-was-the-father-of-adam-do-we-have-a-royal-heritage/ It appears that site is ultra-conservative from both doctrinal and political standpoints, but they do have lots of quotes! I especially like their article on Noah's Flood. I know nothing of that sight -- first time I've ever seen it. Thanks for finding it, though. It looks interesting.
Freedom Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 It's not I that said this, it's some leaders of the Church. When I have time I'll post the quotes. Even so, the scriptures do say Adam is "the son of God" as to his genealogy in the flesh.Find a scripture or an official proclamation. Statements by church leaders do not constitute doctrine. We are all sons and daughters of God, you do realize this don't you?
Senator Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 Wait a minute..... I thought the savior was the only begotten in the flesh. From cinepro's compendium: (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, SLC: Bookcraft, 1990 pg. 188-189, 193-194.) I believe that Adam's physical body was the offspring of God, literally (Moses 6:22); that he was begotten as a baby with a physical body not subject to death, in a world without sin or blood; and that he grew to manhood in that condition and then became mortal through his own actions. I believe that Adam's physical body was begotten by our immortal celestial Father and an immortal celestial Mother, and thus not into a condition of mortality, a condition which would have precluded Jesus from being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (D&C 93:11)–flesh meaning mortality. Jesus’ physical body was also begotten of the same celestial Father but through a mortal woman and hence into mortality. ...so the theory goes.
Stone holm Posted January 16, 2014 Posted January 16, 2014 It's right in your own quote. The only begotten of the Father "in mortality." Oh no, Hades just froze over again...have to agree with teddyaware on this one.
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 Find a scripture or an official proclamation. Statements by church leaders do not constitute doctrine. We are all sons and daughters of God, you do realize this don't you? 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38) 22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed. (Moses 6:22) Pretty clear that the geneolgy of the human race is traced back to God himself
Freedom Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:38)22 And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed. (Moses 6:22)Pretty clear that the geneolgy of the human race is traced back to God himself uh huh. I am a son of God as well. Find me one what says God was his physical father.
Helen47 Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html It seems creationism is creeping into the education system of schools in one of your langest states.
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 uh huh. I am a son of God as well. Find me one what says God was his physical father. I don't know how more specific those two verse could be- it speaks of their direct lineal geneology of which it states that the father of Adam was God. If you cant get that from those two verses then there is no hope.
Stone holm Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html It seems creationism is creeping into the education system of schools in one of your langest states.Oh yes, Creationism is creeping into the public schools and the poor privates schools of the former Confederacy, but not to worry it isn't in the private schools the upper middle class and the wealthy attend, it's just for the peasant class to consume.
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html It seems creationism is creeping into the education system of schools in one of your langest states.I believe that evolution needs to be taught in its proper light and not with the lies and censorship it promotes.
Freedom Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 I don't know how more specific those two verse could be- it speaks of their direct lineal geneology of which it states that the father of Adam was God. If you cant get that from those two verses then there is no hope.The definition of 'son of god' is not anywhere determined to mean physical offspring. Jesus is the only son begotten in the flesh. Whether Adam was begotten into a mortal or immortal body, he would still have to had been begotten in the flesh. The bible also says he was created from the dirt - if he was conceived in the womb, why would he be made from dirt. You are imposing your interpretation on the scriptures while ignoring the greater contexts. The lineage of modern man, or sons of God, begins with Adam, this is why Adam in this context does not have a mortal father. His father was not a son of God.
thesometimesaint Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/creationism_in_texas_public_schools_undermining_the_charter_movement.html It seems creationism is creeping into the education system of schools in one of your langest states. And they call California the land of the fruits and nuts.
Helen47 Posted January 17, 2014 Author Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) http://abcnews.go.com/US/bill-nye-science-guy-debate-evolution-kentuckys-creation/story?id=21409963 Should be interesting and http://thegreatstory.org/MD-writings.html Edited January 17, 2014 by Helen47
Rob Osborn Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 The definition of 'son of god' is not anywhere determined to mean physical offspring. Jesus is the only son begotten in the flesh. Whether Adam was begotten into a mortal or immortal body, he would still have to had been begotten in the flesh. The bible also says he was created from the dirt - if he was conceived in the womb, why would he be made from dirt. You are imposing your interpretation on the scriptures while ignoring the greater contexts. The lineage of modern man, or sons of God, begins with Adam, this is why Adam in this context does not have a mortal father. His father was not a son of God. You can twist it around all you like, the evidence remains though that the lineage of Man is traced back to God, not some apelike creature. We are all made from the dust of the earth and yet we are all conceived in the womb.
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 This seeming doctrinal difficulty has been handled by Church leaders. The expression means only begotten into the world of fallen flesh.Not possible. Didn't Adam fall? He was therefore, according to you, "begotten" of the Father AND of "fallen flesh".
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 It's right in your own quote. The only begotten of the Father "in mortality."I don't understand what that means. Adam was "begotten" in mortality, is what I think you are saying. Yet so was Jesus. I don't see how this resolves the conflict at all. It just doesn't add up. Instead of cryptic one-liners it would be better to use full sentences.
teddyaware Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) I don't understand what that means. Adam was "begotten" in mortality, is what I think you are saying. Yet so was Jesus. I don't see how this resolves the conflict at all. It just doesn't add up. Instead of cryptic one-liners it would be better to use full sentences.In the quoted portion of Mark E Peterson's book that you posted, it says Jesus is "the only begotten of the Father in mortality," meaning Christ's body of flesh and blood was born into this fallen, mortal world. Adam is not a second son of God born in mortality (Christ is the only one), reason being that when Adam was created (born) he was born in paradise as an immortal being of flesh and spirit (not flesh and blood). Adam fell into the world of mortality, he wasn't born into it. So Christ is the only son of God who was born into this fallen world where everything and everyone eventually dies. Edited January 17, 2014 by teddyaware
mfbukowski Posted January 17, 2014 Posted January 17, 2014 From cinepro's compendium: (Robert J. Matthews, A Bible! A Bible!, SLC: Bookcraft, 1990 pg. 188-189, 193-194.) I believe that Adam's physical body was the offspring of God, literally (Moses 6:22); that he was begotten as a baby with a physical body not subject to death, in a world without sin or blood; and that he grew to manhood in that condition and then became mortal through his own actions. I believe that Adam's physical body was begotten by our immortal celestial Father and an immortal celestial Mother, and thus not into a condition of mortality, a condition which would have precluded Jesus from being the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh (D&C 93:11)–flesh meaning mortality. Jesus’ physical body was also begotten of the same celestial Father but through a mortal woman and hence into mortality. ...so the theory goes.And an Immortal Father. Hard to see how that makes a difference, but I see the distinction- thanks for that. What I don't see is what difference the distinction makes, especially since Adam became mortal, according to the story.
Recommended Posts