Adam God Theory

[Coreyb]

He said it was false doctrine held by fundamentalist apostate polygamous groups.

Sorry, I was not very clear. I know that kimball denounced the doctrine. I am asking if you really believe that anyone who believes Adam God is an apostate?

[Teancum]

Sorry, I was not very clear. I know that kimball denounced the doctrine. I am asking if you really believe that anyone who believes Adam God is an apostate?

I don't care either way. But the LDS Church does, Think about the question about affiliating with groups that pose the church. Where do you think that question originates from?

[JLHPROF]

I don't care either way. But the LDS Church does, Think about the question about affiliating with groups that pose the church. Where do you think that question originates from?

 

Polygamy...something else the first 7 prophets of the Church practiced.

Seriously, considering how many things have changed in our religion since the early days of the Church it's amazing we can claim to be the same religion.

Maybe if the Church had stuck to its guns on doctrine these false fundamentalists wouldn't fool so many people.

[K-2]

"He said it was false doctrine held by fundamentalist apostate polygamous groups."

What he actually meant was that the interpretation placed upon Brigham Young's teachings by apostates and fundamentalists was false. And he was clearly wrong.

[Zakuska]

What ever happend to the Doctrine of Adams first wife Lilith?

[Teancum]

"He said it was false doctrine held by fundamentalist apostate polygamous groups."

What he actually meant was that the interpretation placed upon Brigham Young's teachings by apostates and fundamentalists was false. And he was clearly wrong.

So you accept the Adam God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young?

Edited January 25, 2015 by Teancum

[Avatar4321]

Adam is no God the Father. Adam is the Fathers son. He was born immortal, thus Christ is the first born in mortality.

[ERayR]

Spencer Kimball

 

Spencer who?

[ERayR]

Tell your bishop and SP at yournext TR interview you believe Adam is God and let us know how that goes.

 

Duplicate

Edited January 25, 2015 by ERayR

[ERayR]

Tell your bishop and SP at yournext TR interview you believe Adam is God and let us know how that goes.

 

As of my last temple recommend interview that was not one of the questions.

[JLHPROF]

So you accept the Adam God doctrine as taught by Brigham Young?

 

Yes. 100%. 

[JLHPROF]

Adam is no God the Father. Adam is the Fathers son. He was born immortal, thus Christ is the first born in mortality.

 

That is certainly some people's opinion including some but not all of the prophets.

[Teancum]

Yes. 100%.

Then by modern LDS Standard and Doctrine your view is heretical. When you are asked the first TR question tell your bishop you beleive Adam is God and see if he approves your recomend .

But who knows, last recomend interview i had i said I was not sure God exists but I hoped so and I got a recommend.

[Teancum]

That is certainly some people's opinion including some but not all of the prophets.

It seems to me that a prophet ought to know who God is and something about God's nature and charecter otherwise what good is he?

Joseph smith even said it was the first principle of the gospel:

"it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God....."

KFD

So either Brigham was right and his successors wrong or visa versa. Quite the dilemma .

Edited January 25, 2015 by Teancum

[Brian 2.0]

Then by modern LDS Standard and Doctrine your view is heretical. When you are asked the first TR question tell your bishop you beleive Adam is God and see if he approves your recomend .

Do you feel he would be answering the TR questions honestly if he didn't add that and simply says "yes"?

[JLHPROF]

Then by modern LDS Standard and Doctrine your view is heretical. When you are asked the first TR question tell your bishop you beleive Adam is God and see if he approves your recomend .

But who knows, last recomend interview i had i said I was not sure God exists but I hoped so and I got a recommend.

 

I consider the view that Mormons can be heretics to be heresy.  Just like Joseph did.  Mormonism doesn't have creeds you have to believe to be a member.

Or at least, it shouldn't.

[JLHPROF]

So either Brigham was right and his successors wrong or visa versa. Quite the dilemma .

 

At least you acknowledge that Brigham could have been the one who was right.  That's a step beyond what most sheeple will take the time to consider.

[Brian 2.0]

Or they could both have been wrong. Just adding that option.

[Avatar4321]

Or they are both right

[Teancum]

Do you feel he would be answering the TR questions honestly if he didn't add that and simply says "yes"?

Not really.

[Teancum]

At least you acknowledge that Brigham could have been the one who was right.  That's a step beyond what most sheeple will take the time to consider.

Yes I do. And as is have studied it see how he could have arrived at it given the emphasis on becoming gods, multiple wives that the exalted man would hve spirit children with to people worlds, etc.

There are problems with it like how can Michael/Adam be the father of Jesus. That would make Jesus Adam God's savior after second sinful mortal probation. There are other problems too.

But the church out rightly rejects it today plane and simple. Some Fundamentalist LDS spin offs do accept it.

[Teancum]

Or they are both right

I see how they could both be wrong. Not sure how they could both be right.

[Hillel2]

Part of the Adam-God doctrine is that there was no deceit (as we would term it).  The partaking of the fruit was a transgression of law, but one that was always going to happen.  Without it the entire plan of salvation would have been unnecessary and God's work thwarted.  The veil wasn't drawn across Adam's memory until after the fall, in fact it was a direct result of the fall.  Prior to that Adam walked and talked with his God (Jehovah) face to face.

 

Adam and Eve were always going to partake of the fruit.  They weren't tricked into it.

 

No partaking of the fruit:

1. No children (and so no physical bodies for us)

2. No agency (ability to choose good and evil)

3. No redemption (no need for a Savior)

4. No eternal life (an end to God's work and glory)

 

No, in my opinion Eloheim and Jehovah followed the consequences of Michael/Adam's trasngressing of eternal law by requiring the Saviors redemption to pay the price for the transgression.  SInce we know of the war in heaven and the council wherein Christ was selected, and we know they occurred before the fall, it is simply common sense to realize the fall was the plan.

 

As for the serpent/Lucifer "tricking" Adam and Eve into the fall - I don't believe he deceived them at all (see the temple), but he did need the fall to happen so that our physical flesh could be subject to his temptations.  Without the fall Lucifer's work would also have been thwarted.

 

Such an amazingly beautiful doctrine. And it's all represented perfectly in the temple.

Thank You. Another question if You will. It is clear to me what Adam would have lost had he chosen to remain in the garden. However, what would he have gained? If nothing was to be gained by remaining in the garden and Adam was aware of that, does the choice to eat the forbidden fruit cease to be an act of agency?

[Hillel2]

Also not clear.  Theory one says Jehovah was Michael's Savior, making them Brothers.  Theory two says Michael was the Savior of his world and Jehovah was his Heavenly Father making them Father/Son.  I don't believe either theory has enough revelatory or prophetic backing to draw an absolute conclusion and is part of the speculative side of Adam-God.

 

Adam-God is very clearly taught by Brigham and in the temple.  But there is SO much speculation beyond the basic doctrine that has snuck in it is a challenge to separate the doctrine from the speculation.  They are frequently presented together and in my opinion are one of the primary reasons the prophets decided that Adam-God should no longer be taught - not becuase the revelation was wrong, but because we keep adding to it inappropriately.

Interesting. I have Briney's and a handful of other books on AG. Briney's book of course lists just about every statement that Brigham Young made regarding the idea. I would like very much to understand the concept and how it might harmonize with scripture. Are You aware of any writings or blogs that lay AG out in any systematic fashion? Has anyone sat down and tried to work out various pro-AG models? I know many are adverse to "creating" theology and, as You said, wrong speculation might have led to a quieting down and eventual elimination of AG. However, since i am not LDS it would not be appropriate for me to seek a spiritual confirmation or negation of the idea. I'd love to see any number of possible AG theologies all laid out in systematic fashion, what problems they solve, what questions they raise etc.

[ERayR]

Interesting. I have Briney's and a handful of other books on AG. Briney's book of course lists just about every statement that Brigham Young made regarding the idea. I would like very much to understand the concept and how it might harmonize with scripture. Are You aware of any writings or blogs that lay AG out in any systematic fashion? Has anyone sat down and tried to work out various pro-AG models? I know many are adverse to "creating" theology and, as You said, wrong speculation might have led to a quieting down and eventual elimination of AG. However, since i am not LDS it would not be appropriate for me to seek a spiritual confirmation or negation of the idea. I'd love to see any number of possible AG theologies all laid out in systematic fashion, what problems they solve, what questions they raise etc.

 

How about instead of taking someone elses conclusions you read it, pray about it and use your own personal revelation.