Adam-God Makes Sense To Occultists

[Ahab]

So when Brigham purportedly said he took Eve, on of his wives, into the garden and then labeled that Adam God and the only God with which we have to do. He was being careless with is language, so much so he conflated the wrong Adam?

I seem to recall 1 Cor 15:45 being included in this exaplanation, suggesting the first man Adam was Adam of Adam and Eve fame, and the second Adam was Christ, or something. in this it was explained the "Adam" was a title used. Is 1 Cor 15 a result of some carry over from what you are describing?

Rather than expect a definitive answer to your questions on this issue from Nofear or anyone else on this board it's enough that you simply consider the possibility that Nofear and Tsuzuki may be right in what they are considering.

Even if they gave you a definitive answer to your question and they were right you wouldn't necessarily know they are right, just as you still may not necessarily know if brother and President Brigham was right.

[stemelbow]

Rather than expect a definitive answer to your questions on this issue from Nofear or anyone else on this board it's enough that you simply consider the possibility that Nofear and Tsuzuki may be right in what they are considering.

Even if they gave you a definitive answer to your question and they were right you wouldn't necessarily know they are right, just as you still may not necessarily know if brother and President Brigham was right.

Sure. I'm not sure anyone's correct about anything around here.

[thesometimesaint]

Neither.

 

The current "LDS concept" wasn't even established until after Brigham died.  Christ as OT Jehovah wasn't even official Church doctrine until after 1900.  Prior to that, and all through Brigham's presidency, they were two separate beings.  Talmage changed that when he published "Jesus The Christ" and it was accepted by most.

 

Personally, I think Brigham understood perfectly.  It is wrong to say that Brigham's doctrines go against scripture.  And it is also wrong to claim that our concept today has always been the LDS concept.

 

That is not what I was in reference to. The Godhead is not just a BY understanding. It is fundamental to all of Christianity. God the Father, God Jesus the Christ, and God the Holy Ghost. Whether they form a Trinity of essence, or are separate distinct individuals they are still the only Gods we have anything to do with. Adam is nowhere in that Godhead/Trinity. We don't worship him, pray to him, or recognize his mortal existence as more than the first of our kind.

[Nofear]

So when Brigham purportedly said he took Eve, on of his wives, into the garden and then labeled that Adam God and the only God with which we have to do. He was being careless with is language, so much so he conflated the wrong Adam?

 

If an Adam Kadmon then an Eve Kadmon. If an Adam Ha-Rishon than an Eve Ha-Rishon.

 

Also, blaming Brigham's scribes for not recording his statements accurately is a ridiculous claim too, IMO.  

 

Brigham's discourses may be and probably are recorded pretty much accurately. But if the subsequent comments in reaction to Tsuzuki's and my comments are any indication at all, the scribes and others not correctly understanding what is being expressed is very much validated.

 

 

But, the Adam Kadmon thing is a hypothesis. One that preserves the idea of Brigham Young correctly understanding the Gospel but simply has him expressing it in language we didn't understand. Might be wrong. Though, ironically, the various comments in reaction to the hypothesis are actually very much affirming to it.

[JLHPROF]

That is not what I was in reference to. The Godhead is not just a BY understanding. It is fundamental to all of Christianity. God the Father, God Jesus the Christ, and God the Holy Ghost. Whether they form a Trinity of essence, or are separate distinct individuals they are still the only Gods we have anything to do with. Adam is nowhere in that Godhead/Trinity. We don't worship him, pray to him, or recognize his mortal existence as more than the first of our kind.

 

Again, not correct.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64808-adam-god-theory/page-4#entry1209457306

 

This is what Brigham taught.  And it fits in scripture and Christianity just fine.

[thesometimesaint]

Again, not correct.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/64808-adam-god-theory/page-4#entry1209457306

 

This is what Brigham taught.  And it fits in scripture and Christianity just fine.

 

No it does not. That silly diagram doesn't represent LDS Christianity let alone Christianity in general.  What the Kabbalahistic Jews believe(d) is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

As I already said BY said some self contradictory things concerning Adam God. But to posit that Adam is part of our Godhead is utter nonsense that has been declaimed for many years now. I have no problem with Adam entering his exaltation, even potentially being a god now. The Mount of Transfiguration could be a representation of that.

 

Further I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing it. I  do have a BIG problem with those that claim it is Church doctrine.

[ALarson]

As I already said BY said some self contradictory things concerning Adam God. 

You've stated this before.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but can you post some examples?

[ALarson]

Further I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing it. I  do have a BIG problem with those that claim it is Church doctrine.

You're right that it is not current church doctrine.  But I think it's quite clear the Brigham Young considered it to be doctrine and referred to it as such.

[Ahab]

No it does not. That silly diagram doesn't represent LDS Christianity let alone Christianity in general. What the Kabbalahistic Jews believe(d) is irrelevant to this discussion.

As I already said BY said some self contradictory things concerning Adam God. But to posit that Adam is part of our Godhead is utter nonsense that has been declaimed for many years now. I have no problem with Adam entering his exaltation, even potentially being a god now. The Mount of Transfiguration could be a representation of that.

Further I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing it. I do have a BIG problem with those that claim it is Church doctrine.

Please avoid using the "it" word when referring to doctrine involving Adam and God, And please also avoid using the term "Adam/God doctrine"... as if everybody is on the same page as to what the Adam/God doctrine really is!

And it might also help if you distinguish very clearly which Adam you are talking about while realizing the fact that he does have a lot in common with his father regardless of which Adam he is.

[mfbukowski]

That doesn't even make sense in LDS Theology. Adam holds the key to his dispensation on earth. Which is all of us. At Adam-ondi-Ahman he will turn over his keys to Christ. It is Christ alone who holds the keys to Everlasting Life and Salvation .

 

For it to be doctrine in the Church it must be accepted by the unanimous agreement of the Church. The Adam God theory never met that test. Everything done in the Endowment is at least alluded to in our Scriptures especially the promises we make. I see nothing in it that even alludes to Adam is our God.

Arguably he symbolically receives theosis in the Endowment, along with the keys from Eloheim through the body of Christ and the atonement along with the keys to resurrection.

 

In turn we all receive them after he does

 

But I suppose we cannot discuss that here.   But think about the very end.  The very end.

Edited October 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Tsuzuki]

What the Kabbalahistic Jews believe(d) is irrelevant to this discussion.

Actually, that's what this whole discussion is all about. Kabbalah and Freemasonry are what tie together all of Joseph Smith's Nauvoo period ideas.

[JLHPROF]

Arguably he symbolically receives theosis in the Endowment, along with the keys from Eloheim through the body of Christ and the atonement along with the keys to resurrection.

 

In turn we all receive them after he does

 

But I suppose we cannot discuss that here.   But think about the very end.  The very end.

 

Ah, but there is no end to the endowment 

No closing prayer, no final amen to the whole thing as there is to other ordinances, even within the temple itself.

 

Except that we who consider ourselves as Adam and Eve then do exactly what Brigham said Adam and Eve did in the Adam-God doctrine.

We remove our glory and authority (certain clothing), descend from the Celestial environment, take with us a veil (again clothing), and head on out into the lone and dreary world where (if married) we are under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

 

A neverending pattern, man progressing to become Gods like their father and then heading back to mortality to create new eternal immortal families who in turn will progress to the same station.

 

The endowment is the pattern of eternal lives.

Pretty amazing when you think about it.

[mfbukowski]

Ah, but there is no end to the endowment 

No closing prayer, no final amen to the whole thing as there is to other ordinances, even within the temple itself.

 

Except that we who consider ourselves as Adam and Eve then do exactly what Brigham said Adam and Eve did in the Adam-God doctrine.

We remove our glory and authority (certain clothing), descend from the Celestial environment, take with us a veil (again clothing), and head on out into the lone and dreary world where (if married) we are under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

 

A neverending pattern, man progressing to become Gods like their father and then heading back to mortality to create new eternal immortal families who in turn will progress to the same station.

 

The endowment is the pattern of eternal lives.

Pretty amazing when you think about it.

Great stuff.

 

I work in the LA temple and I have heard many a temple president speak about leaving the temple and going down off the hill to Santa Monica Blvd. which is clearly pretty much literally the road to Sodom and Gomorrah,  toward the city of West Hollywood, just probably 2 or 3 miles down the road.

 

West Hollywood calls it self "WeHo".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Hollywood,_California

[Tsuzuki]

Ah, but there is no end to the endowment 

No closing prayer, no final amen to the whole thing as there is to other ordinances, even within the temple itself.

 

Except that we who consider ourselves as Adam and Eve then do exactly what Brigham said Adam and Eve did in the Adam-God doctrine.

We remove our glory and authority (certain clothing), descend from the Celestial environment, take with us a veil (again clothing), and head on out into the lone and dreary world where (if married) we are under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

 

A neverending pattern, man progressing to become Gods like their father and then heading back to mortality to create new eternal immortal families who in turn will progress to the same station.

 

The endowment is the pattern of eternal lives.

Pretty amazing when you think about it.

This is the same basic pattern in many occult traditions. If I told you where I encountered it last, I would have to kill you.

[mfbukowski]

Ah, but there is no end to the endowment 

No closing prayer, no final amen to the whole thing as there is to other ordinances, even within the temple itself.

 

Except that we who consider ourselves as Adam and Eve then do exactly what Brigham said Adam and Eve did in the Adam-God doctrine.

We remove our glory and authority (certain clothing), descend from the Celestial environment, take with us a veil (again clothing), and head on out into the lone and dreary world where (if married) we are under commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

 

A neverending pattern, man progressing to become Gods like their father and then heading back to mortality to create new eternal immortal families who in turn will progress to the same station.

 

The endowment is the pattern of eternal lives.

Pretty amazing when you think about it.

You posted on the other thread about essentially, if I understand you, Adam and Eve being identified with Father and Mother.

 

There were some interesting comments at the recent Fair Conference by at least 2 speakers as I recall, implying that Mary the Mother of Jesus was in fact Heavenly Mother.

 

Since I see all this as both literal and allegorical since no one knows for sure how it all works, except by personal revelation, I have no problem with any of these notions and find them comforting in that this view resolves a lot of questions I think we have, Catholics have, questions we have about Catholics etc etc.

 

As I see it we have a Divine Pair, and others, a Son, probably his Wife and perhaps even a whole council of Gods in stages of development leading us in this enterprise, of which we may become a part.

 

The names become almost irrelevant- what we worship is essentially the Family and their unity as one, and try to become like them, male and female, fathers, mothers and children working together as found in an ideal earthly family.

 

I can't imagine a better image of God and man to worship.  It's human perfection itself, taught as simply as can be imagined.  A babe in arms could understand it!   And yet its implications stretch to fill the human imagination.

 

What a wonderful notion this is!!  How Godly is it!!??!

 

Yeah, I guess I will stay a member for a while.....   

[Ahab]

...

As I see it we have a Divine Pair, and others, a Son, probably his Wife and perhaps even a whole council of Gods in stages of development leading us in this enterprise, of which we may become a part.

The names become almost irrelevant- what we worship is essentially the Family and their unity as one, and try to become like them, male and female, fathers, mothers and children working together as found in an ideal earthly family.

I can't imagine a better image of God and man to worship. It's human perfection itself, taught as simply as can be imagined. A babe in arms could understand it! And yet its implications stretch to fill the human imagination.

What a wonderful notion this is!! How Godly is it!!??!

Yeah, I guess I will stay a member for a while.....

Yeah, yeah, yeah. One big happy family.

Just don't forget about the bad apples among us, including Satan for now, and the challenges they add to our program of progression.

Never forget about them.

[Alan]

No it does not. That silly diagram doesn't represent LDS Christianity let alone Christianity in general.  What the Kabbalahistic Jews believe(d) is irrelevant to this discussion.

 

As I already said BY said some self contradictory things concerning Adam God. But to posit that Adam is part of our Godhead is utter nonsense that has been declaimed for many years now. I have no problem with Adam entering his exaltation, even potentially being a god now. The Mount of Transfiguration could be a representation of that.

 

Further I have no problem with you, or anyone else, believing it. I  do have a BIG problem with those that claim it is Church doctrine.

We can't get away from the teaching that Adam was heavily involved in the creation. This is taught in the temple and elsewhere. Creation is a godly activity and I would therefore suggest that Adam's pre-earth status was something akin to being employed in the family business as a manager, or even as a director (as opposed to being a shareholder). Nevertheless, involved in the family business (which is identified as "bring(ing) to pass the immortality and eternal life of man") he was.

Whether that constitutes being part of the Godhead I can't say. But it was certainly a much higher status than us.

[Tsuzuki]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. One big happy family.

Just don't forget about the bad apples among us, including Satan for now, and the challenges they add to our program of progression.

Never forget about them.

From what I hear, we are essential to it. (See 2 Nephi Chapter 2)

 

Maybe Outer Darkness is just the other side of the Celestial Kingdom.

[Ahab]

We can't get away from the teaching that Adam was heavily involved in the creation. This is taught in the temple and elsewhere. Creation is a godly activity and I would therefore suggest that Adam's pre-earth status was something akin to being employed in the family business as a manager, or even as a director (as opposed to being a shareholder). Nevertheless, involved in the family business (which is identified as "bring(ing) to pass the immortality and eternal life of man") he was.

Whether that constitutes being part of the Godhead I can't say. But it was certainly a much higher status than us.

Status? Blech!

What's important is the kind of person we are. How intelligent, and how much we love, and how well we do what we do.

The idea that our "job" gives us a high or low status is repulsive to me, especially when we're talking about serving other members of our family.

But then again, yeah, parents should be considered a step up above their children. Right?

[ERayR]

Yeah well, I'm curious to hear more of No Fear's explanation. It doesn't seem to fit well with what Brigham said. But if so is it reasonable to just say Brigham just wasn't being accurate with his language?

 

Or is it reasonable to say the problem is in interpreting Brigham through current understanding and trying to reconcile it.

[stemelbow]

Or is it reasonable to say the problem is in interpreting Brigham through current understanding and trying to reconcile it.

Beats me, but some people don't like that idea at all, it appears.

[ERayR]

So either BY didn't understand the Biblical and LDS concept of the Godhead, or he was lying. Take your pick.

 

False dichotomy.

[ERayR]

Beats me, but some people don't like that idea at all, it appears.

 

2 Timothy 4:3

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching earsFor the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

[JLHPROF]

Or is it reasonable to say the problem is in interpreting Brigham through current understanding and trying to reconcile it.

 

Beats me, but some people don't like that idea at all, it appears.

 

Don't see that much interpretation is needed.  Brigham said what he said.  Read it as it is.  Agree or disagree with him.

The problems come in too much "interpretation".  Very much like "wresting the scriptures".

[ERayR]

The problems come in too much "interpretation".  Very much like "wresting the scriptures".

 

That's what I was trying to say.