Adam God Theory

[Hillel2]

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

Hello ERayR. Thank You for Your suggestion. However AG (and for that matter Christianity) is not part of my tradition and is not a "spiritual" question for me. If You were to ask me about the Sephirotic tree i would provide a reading list which presented different models, questions raised and solutions. Afterwards, i might recommend meditating on its truth value. As an outsider to LDS, that's what i'm interested in. Then i can compare AG theories  with my own tradition (and i believe there are some correlations). I very much would like to know other people's conclusions and what problems they see as being resolved... if they're out there to be known.

[ERayR]

Hello ERayR. Thank You for Your suggestion. However AG (and for that matter Christianity) is not part of my tradition and is not a "spiritual" question for me. If You were to ask me about the Sephirotic tree i would provide a reading list which presented different models, questions raised and solutions. Afterwards, i might recommend meditating on its truth value. As an outsider to LDS, that's what i'm interested in. Then i can compare AG theories  with my own tradition (and i believe there are some correlations). I very much would like to know other people's conclusions and what problems they see as being resolved... if they're out there to be known.

 

Understood but personally I like don't like to clutter things with others conclusions too much.  I much prefer the meditation and communion through the spirit.

[Alan]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It appears to me there are a series of contradictions whichever view one takes. Joseph said this, Brigham said that, McConkie weighed in with this... etc.

At times like this I find it is best to retreat to the scriptures.

When I do this I cannot escape the conclusion that Jehovah is the eternal father. The Book of Mormon is very clear that Jesus is the eternal father. Therefore Jesus and Jehovah are two names for the same character. That character is the Father to whom we pray.

Eloheim is a plural and is best equated, in my view, with the council of the gods mentioned in the Book of Abraham.

Thus we have the Eloheim (father figure), Jehovah/Jesus (Father), Michael (son - lower case "s", not God the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

 

Jehovah therefore is the Father and the Son (Jesus). So Joseph Smith was right when he said the Father has a body a flesh and bone as tangible as man's, the Son also. It's the same body!

[teddyaware]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It appears to me there are a series of contradictions whichever view one takes. Joseph said this, Brigham said that, McConkie weighed in with this... etc.

At times like this I find it is best to retreat to the scriptures.

When I do this I cannot escape the conclusion that Jehovah is the eternal father. The Book of Mormon is very clear that Jesus is the eternal father. Therefore Jesus and Jehovah are two names for the same character. That character is the Father to whom we pray.

Eloheim is a plural and is best equated, in my view, with the council of the gods mentioned in the Book of Abraham.

Thus we have the Eloheim (father figure), Jehovah/Jesus (Father), Michael (son - lower case "s", not God the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

 

Jehovah therefore is the Father and the Son (Jesus). So Joseph Smith was right when he said the Father has a body a flesh and bone as tangible as man's, the Son also. It's the same body!

 

According to the above, your understanding of the Godhead appears to approach that of Modalism -- one person in the Godhead in more than one manifestation. Do you believe the personage called Jehovah (the Book of Mormon's Father and the Son) has a Father who has a glorified body of flesh and bone?

Edited January 29, 2015 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

Oddly enough when I read the scriptures I come to the clear conclusion that Christ didn't become Jehovah till after his resurrection (D&C 110) and is not the "Lord" or "Jehovah" of the OT.

[Alan]

teddyaware,

I'm at work right now and for some reason can't quote your question in my response. Some computer glitch I suppose.

 

To answer your question I would have to say that the scriptures appear to be silent on the subject so I have no idea.

All I know is that the scriptures are consistent in their claim that Jehovah is the eternal God, is all-powerful, all-knowing, and is the self existent One.

That's good enough for me and probably should be for everyone else to be honest.

 

If the primitive Christian church members had the same variety of beliefs about deity as the members of this forum, and indeed the LDS population in general, I can quite understand why they called a church council or two in order to sort it out.

[Hillel2]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It appears to me there are a series of contradictions whichever view one takes. Joseph said this, Brigham said that, McConkie weighed in with this... etc.

At times like this I find it is best to retreat to the scriptures.

When I do this I cannot escape the conclusion that Jehovah is the eternal father. The Book of Mormon is very clear that Jesus is the eternal father. Therefore Jesus and Jehovah are two names for the same character. That character is the Father to whom we pray.

Eloheim is a plural and is best equated, in my view, with the council of the gods mentioned in the Book of Abraham.

Thus we have the Eloheim (father figure), Jehovah/Jesus (Father), Michael (son - lower case "s", not God the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

 

Jehovah therefore is the Father and the Son (Jesus). So Joseph Smith was right when he said the Father has a body a flesh and bone as tangible as man's, the Son also. It's the same body!

Hello:

 

In the interview with Paul Toscano on Mormon stories he states something similar to this idea. I.E. the son Michael becomes Father Adam and the Father Jehovah becomes the Son (Jesus). Both he and Margaret Toscano proposed a series of cosmic transpositions and pairings: The Son (Adam) and Heavenly Mother (Eve) come to Earth. Later The Father (Jehovah) comes to Earth as Jesus and a "daughter figure" comes to earth as Mary...if i remember correctly.

[JLHPROF]

Hello:

 

In the interview with Paul Toscano on Mormon stories he states something similar to this idea. I.E. the son Michael becomes Father Adam and the Father Jehovah becomes the Son (Jesus). Both he and Margaret Toscano proposed a series of cosmic transpositions and pairings: The Son (Adam) and Heavenly Mother (Eve) come to Earth. Later The Father (Jehovah) comes to Earth as Jesus and a "daughter figure" comes to earth as Mary...if i remember correctly.

 

I love the Adam-God doctrine (obviously) but considering all the weird and wild speculation out there beyond the teachings contained in the theory, there are days I don't blame the leaders for choosing a simpler (if less correct) version of the Godhead.  Keeps the speculation and contention on doctrine down, well, except on this board.

Edited January 29, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Hillel2]

I love the Adam-God doctrine (obviously) but considering all the weird and wild speculation out there beyond the teachings contained in the theory, there are days I don't blame the leaders for choosing a simpler (if less correct) version of the Godhead.  Keeps the speculation and contention on doctrine down, well, except on this board.

I like it too and i'm not LDS. It seems to spin so many questions and numerous possibilities. That's why i'd like to see all the models gathered together in one place. I think it would make it easier to see which models are probably NOT viable and which are.

 

I can certainly understand also why it would be downplayed within the faith. There will always be folks who twist things up. OTOH, that's true with all religious notions, don't You think?  

 

I think if people are grounded within their respective faiths, it shouldn't cause them consternation or crises to examine new ideas. I love all the questions and ideas folks raise on this site and i have not, to date, had a falling out or crises with my beliefs. :-)

[Brian 2.0]

If I were God and dealing with everything that comes with that... I think I would jump at the chance every once in a while to go down to some planet, away from it all, forget everything, and live in a calm garden for a while.    

[Ahab]

If I were God and dealing with everything that comes with that... I think I would jump at the chance every once in a while to go down to some planet, away from it all, forget everything, and live in a calm garden for a while.

Sure, also bringing my wife, eventually having a child and calling him Adam... well, you know how the rest of the story goes on from there, I think.

[teddyaware]

teddyaware,

I'm at work right now and for some reason can't quote your question in my response. Some computer glitch I suppose.

 

To answer your question I would have to say that the scriptures appear to be silent on the subject so I have no idea.

All I know is that the scriptures are consistent in their claim that Jehovah is the eternal God, is all-powerful, all-knowing, and is the self existent One.

That's good enough for me and probably should be for everyone else to be honest.

 

If the primitive Christian church members had the same variety of beliefs about deity as the members of this forum, and indeed the LDS population in general, I can quite understand why they called a church council or two in order to sort it out.

 

Do you believe the standard LDS doctrine that God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, are two separate personages, meaning two separate and distinct people? 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I come to the conclusion when I read the scriptures that I don't know jack donkey because the scriptures are too hard to understand completely and written in bad English. Also, I have difficulty reading so I hate that reading the scriptures is a commandment to enter the celestial kingdom.

[mnn727]

Since this doctrine is not taught by the LDS Church today and was not taught by Joseph Smith, how should we interpret the apparent calling of church presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff?

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

From: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Edited January 29, 2015 by mnn727

[mnn727]

I come to the conclusion when I read the scriptures that I don't know jack donkey because the scriptures are too hard to understand completely and written in bad English. Also, I have difficulty reading so I hate that reading the scriptures is a commandment to enter the celestial kingdom.

There are modern English versions of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon

[ERayR]

I come to the conclusion when I read the scriptures that I don't know jack donkey because the scriptures are too hard to understand completely and written in bad English. Also, I have difficulty reading so I hate that reading the scriptures is a commandment to enter the celestial kingdom.

 

They are recorded and you can listen or read here:

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/3?lang=eng

[Coreyb]

I have been following this thread with interest.

It appears to me there are a series of contradictions whichever view one takes. Joseph said this, Brigham said that, McConkie weighed in with this... etc.

At times like this I find it is best to retreat to the scriptures.

When I do this I cannot escape the conclusion that Jehovah is the eternal father. The Book of Mormon is very clear that Jesus is the eternal father. Therefore Jesus and Jehovah are two names for the same character. That character is the Father to whom we pray.

Eloheim is a plural and is best equated, in my view, with the council of the gods mentioned in the Book of Abraham.

Thus we have the Eloheim (father figure), Jehovah/Jesus (Father), Michael (son - lower case "s", not God the Son), and the Holy Ghost.

 

Jehovah therefore is the Father and the Son (Jesus). So Joseph Smith was right when he said the Father has a body a flesh and bone as tangible as man's, the Son also. It's the same body!

This would be a good topic for another thread, as this is a different heretical theology which you espouse

[JLHPROF]

For anyone interested, I just posted a slightly long response on the Ordain Women/Temple thread that discusses both Adam-God and Women and the Priesthood and how the two teachings intertwine.  Or at least, my opinion on the subject.  If anyone's interested.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Thanks for the link ERay! I can have an easier time listening to the scriptures!

[Alan]

teddyaware,

In answer to your question I will say that I have come to believe that the Book of Mormon is correct when it states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God, and that the Father came to earth as the Son in order to rescue and redeem us; this is what is meant by the condescension of God.

 

Do I believe that there is a Father? Yes. Do I believe there is a son? Yes (the two are connected of course; you can't have one without the other). And do I believe there is a Holy Ghost? Yes I do. Do I believe they are separate and distinct? Yes I do. As for who the son is (note lower case "s"), perhaps it is Michael/Adam, but I'm not sure on this point.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Alan

[Jim Stiles]

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (theHoly Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

From: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

In other words, there is no objective theological standard. The evangelical concept of sola scriptura is an objective theological standard.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

In other words, there is no objective theological standard. The evangelical concept of sola scriptura is an objective theological standard.

Is it now? So tell me where in the bible is one substance found?

[ERayR]

teddyaware,

In answer to your question I will say that I have come to believe that the Book of Mormon is correct when it states that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one Eternal God, and that the Father came to earth as the Son in order to rescue and redeem us; this is what is meant by the condescension of God.

 

Do I believe that there is a Father? Yes. Do I believe there is a son? Yes (the two are connected of course; you can't have one without the other). And do I believe there is a Holy Ghost? Yes I do. Do I believe they are separate and distinct? Yes I do. As for who the son is (note lower case "s"), perhaps it is Michael/Adam, but I'm not sure on this point.

 

Now define what one Eternal God is.  I ask this because this seems to be the point where we have all the trouble. 

[Jim Stiles]

Is it now? So tell me where in the bible is one substance found?

Any biblical statement of monotheism.

[JLHPROF]

Any biblical statement of monotheism.

 

...refers to God the Father.

 

There is no Biblical statement of monotheism that refers to all three members of the Godhead (except of course I John 5 which is interpreted poorly).