Heavenly Mother (from other thread)

[JLHPROF]

Heavenly Mother is being mentioned on a couple of another thread - the Givens thread.
Smac and Jeanne were discussing and this came up:

Quote

I think the principal problems with discussing Heavenly Mother are as follows:

• 1) In the main, we lack sufficient revealed light and knowledge about Her, such that informed, substantive discussion about Her is not possible.

    Latter-day Saints sometimes seem uncomfortable with limiting ourselves as regarding what I think could be called "known unknowns."  For example, I have seen many discussions over the years about how many people will end up as Sons of Perdition, or why God has limited the ordination to the priesthood to men, or who Raphael was during his mortal probation, and so on.  We know about these things, but we don't have answers to them.  They are "known unknowns."

    The existence of Heavenly Mother is, I think, pretty much an established, though still largely inferential, tenet of the LDS Church.  We are therefore left to guess as to the nature, attributes and - perhaps most controversially - the roles She plays in the Plan of Salvation.  Does She have a resurrected, glorified body (or is she the Holy Spirit)?  Does she "co-create" earths with the Father?

And Givens referenced this vision (although she attempts to call it a vision of the Godhead casting the Mother as the HG, and therefore subservient to her son):

• "Once after returning from a mission, he [Zebedee Coltrin] met Brother Joseph in Kirtland, who asked him if he did not wish to go with him to a conference at New Portage. The party consisted of Presidents Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery and myself [Zebedee Coltrin]. Next morning at New Portage, he noticed that Joseph seemed to have a far off look in his eyes, or was looking at a distance and presently he, Joseph, stepped between Brothers Cowdery and Coltrin and taking them by the arm, said, "Let's take a walk." They went to a place where there was some beautiful grass and grapevines and swampbeech interlaced. President Joseph Smith then said, "Let us pray." They all three prayed in turn--Joseph, Oliver, and Zebedee. Brother Joseph then said, "Now brethren, we will see some visions." Joseph lay down on the ground on his back and stretched out his arms and the two brethren lay on them. The heavens gradually opened, and they saw a golden throne, on a circular foundation, something like a light house, and on the throne were two aged personages, having white hair, and clothed in white garments. They were the two most beautiful and perfect specimens of mankind he ever saw. Joseph said, "They are our first parents, Adam and Eve." Adam was a large, broad-shouldered man, and Eve as a woman, was a large in proportion. (Brother Coltrin was born September 7th, 1804, and was baptized into the church on the 9th of January, 1831.) " - Zebedee Coltrin Minutes, Salt Lake City School of the Prophets, October 11, 1883.
• One day the Prophet Joseph Smith asked him (Zebedee Coltrin) and Sidney Rigdon to accompany him into the woods to pray. When they had reached a secluded spot Joseph laid down on his back and stretched out his arms. He told the brethren to lie one on each arm and then shut their eyes. After they had prayed he told them to open their eyes. They did so and they saw a brilliant light surrounding a pedestal which seemed to rest on the ground. They closed their eyes and again prayed. They then saw, on opening them, the Father seated upon a throne; they prayed again and on looking saw the Mother also; after praying and looking the fourth time they saw the Savior added to the group. He had auburn brown, rather long, wavy hair and appeared quite young." Abraham H. Cannon Journal, 25 Aug. 1880, LDS archives

I think these refer to the same vision being recounted and are in keeping with the Adam-God doctrine which was still accepted in the 1880s after Brigham's death.
The two accounts of this Coltrin recollection show just how well accepted Adam as Heavenly Father and Eve as Heavenly Mother was in the Church in the 1880's.  In 1880 the vision was of Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, and in 1883 the same vision described them as Adam and Eve.

But given this vision and the doctrines connected with it can we really say her existence is "largely inferential"?
If Joseph Smith actually saw Heavenly Mother then I would call that as direct in establishing the existence of a Mother as the First Vision is in establishing the existence of a Father and a Son.
And personally I like discussing the unknowns - (see my signature quote).

[VideoGameJunkie]

Jeffrey Holland mentioned a Mother in Heaven in his October 2015 conference talk.

[theplains]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But given this vision and the doctrines connected with it can we really say her existence is "largely inferential"?
If Joseph Smith actually saw Heavenly Mother then I would call that as direct in establishing the existence of a Mother as the First Vision is in establishing the existence of a Father and a Son.

I wonder why this vision, if really true, was not canonized.

Jim

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

I wonder why this vision, if really true, was not canonized.

Jim

There is a HUGE body of Mormonism - revelations, visions, dreams, teachings, etc that were never even considered for canonization that we know of.

That is kind of sad.
At the same time Coltrin was recollecting this 40 years after the fact and was the only source.  Not much to go on for canonization, even by my standards, although I have no reason to doubt his truthfulness.  It's not like he benefited from the story or the story contradicted any teaching of the day.

[Jeanne]

1 minute ago, theplains said:

I wonder why this vision, if really true, was not canonized.

Jim

This is a good question.  Seems like from the very beginning our Heavenly Mother was there..but not.  Why wouldn't she be essential to doctrine that is written?  I would just like to know more and finding out anything about her or her substance/personality and purpose is like pulling teeth.  I was told never to pray to her..but I did.  I had her watch over my own mother and then I talked to both.  Of course..who knows if they hear me..I just know that I didn't feel so all alone.

[Jeanne]

Appreciate this thread JLHPROF!

[theplains]

8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is a good question.  Seems like from the very beginning our Heavenly Mother was there..but not.  Why wouldn't she be essential to doctrine that is written?  I would just like to know more and finding out anything about her or her substance/personality and purpose is like pulling teeth.  I was told never to pray to her..but I did.  I had her watch over my own mother and then I talked to both.  Of course..who knows if they hear me..I just know that I didn't feel so all alone.

Catholics do something similar with Mary or the 'Saints' as mediators or go-betweens.  I know. I used to be one. 

Jim

[JLHPROF]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This is a good question.  Seems like from the very beginning our Heavenly Mother was there..but not.  Why wouldn't she be essential to doctrine that is written?  I would just like to know more and finding out anything about her or her substance/personality and purpose is like pulling teeth.  I was told never to pray to her..but I did.  I had her watch over my own mother and then I talked to both.  Of course..who knows if they hear me..I just know that I didn't feel so all alone.

Virtually nobody on this board will agree with me on this.

But Brigham DID teach an awful lot about Heavenly Mother when he identified her as Eve.
If you accept Eve as Heavenly Mother you understand SO much more about her, her role, her authority, our potential to become like her (consider yourselves as though you are Adams and Eves), and so much more.
Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and their contemporaries all did this and women had a much larger role in the Church under those teachings than the century that followed their removal.

I challenge members just one time, just once, go through an endowment session and view Adam/yourself as Heavenly Father and Eve/yourself as Heavenly Mother and see if the endowment isn't so much deeper than previously realized.

It was the ending of Adam-God that pushed Heavenly Mother back into obscurity.  And I still to this day after all our discussions have no idea why the Church had such a problem with this doctrine.  It was taught for about 50 years and then dropped with no explanation.  It's not like there is anything offensive in the doctrine.

Edited June 22, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Jeanne]

45 minutes ago, theplains said:

Catholics do something similar with Mary or the 'Saints' as mediators or go-betweens.  I know. I used to be one. 

Jim

I have always wondered about the connection made with Mary in the catholic religion. 

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Virtually nobody on this board will agree with me on this.

But Brigham DID teach an awful lot about Heavenly Mother when he identified her as Eve.
If you accept Eve as Heavenly Mother you understand SO much more about her, her role, her authority, our potential to become like her (consider yourselves as though you are Adams and Eves), and so much more.
Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and their contemporaries all did this and women had a much larger role in the Church under those teachings than the century that followed their removal.

I challenge members just one time, just once, go through an endowment session and view Adam/yourself as Heavenly Father and Eve/yourself as Heavenly Mother and see if the endowment isn't so much deeper than previously realized.

It was the ending of Adam-God that pushed Heavenly Mother back into obscurity.  And I still to this day after all our discussions have no idea why the Church had such a problem with this doctrine.  It was taught for about 50 years and then dropped with no explanation.  It's not like there is anything offensive in the doctrine.

This I am open to..but I have not been through the Temple and I am sure my understanding of Adam and Eve would be more limited than others here.  It is interesting that you find a doctrine or thinking from Brigham Young that helps you.  Thanks!

[Eek!]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Virtually nobody on this board will agree with me on this.

But Brigham DID teach an awful lot about Heavenly Mother when he identified her as Eve.
If you accept Eve as Heavenly Mother you understand SO much more about her, her role, her authority, our potential to become like her (consider yourselves as though you are Adams and Eves), and so much more.
Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and their contemporaries all did this and women had a much larger role in the Church under those teachings than the century that followed their removal.

I challenge members just one time, just once, go through an endowment session and view Adam/yourself as Heavenly Father and Eve/yourself as Heavenly Mother and see if the endowment isn't so much deeper than previously realized.

It was the ending of Adam-God that pushed Heavenly Mother back into obscurity.  And I still to this day after all our discussions have no idea why the Church had such a problem with this doctrine.  It was taught for about 50 years and then dropped with no explanation.  It's not like there is anything offensive in the doctrine.

I agree with you on this.  Thanks for having the courage to post it - I would not have.

Imo the word "God" fails to adequately convey the plurality implied by the word "Elohim", which is a plural word in the original Hebrew: "Gods". 

I think there are probably levels of beings "above" Adam and Eve, who could also be referred to as Gods or Elohim. 

I see Jesus as more likely to be "a son of Adam, and Savior of this world" rather than "a son of the Creator of the whole universe, and Savior of the whole universe". 

[rpn]

I do not trust a single thing Zebedee Coltrin is reported as saying.   He personally participated or was there in the ordination of Elijah Abel, a person of color in Nauvoo.   Yet when Joseph F. Smith was assigned to look into priesthood for men of color in the late 1800's, Bro Coltrin said that JS had never given blacks the priesthood.  Despite Coltrin's disavowal, the then prophet determined that Elijah Abel did hold the priesthood (based on written evidence) and sent him on a new mission to OH.

 

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, rpn said:

I do not trust a single thing Zebedee Coltrin is reported as saying.   He personally participated or was there in the ordination of Elijah Abel, a person of color in Nauvoo.   Yet when Joseph F. Smith was assigned to look into priesthood for men of color in the late 1800's, Bro Coltrin said that JS had never given blacks the priesthood.  Despite Coltrin's disavowal, the then prophet determined that Elijah Abel did hold the priesthood (based on written evidence) and sent him on a new mission to OH.

That's a misstatement of fact.

 

[longview]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

But Brigham DID teach an awful lot about Heavenly Mother when he identified her as Eve.

I disagree.  This would have been a major, heavy doctrine.  Although I cannot dispute that some of BY's contemporaries did "agree" with him, the fact that there was NOT unanimity among the First Presidency and the Apostles shows how tenuous the "Adam/God Conjecture" really is.  Some on this board have wondered if BY did not do a "good job" of explaining his thoughts.  Having read the biography of BY in "American Moses" by Leonard J. Arrington, I greatly admire his ruggedness, devotion to the Gospel, hard work, frequent displays of humility and tremendous courage.  But he was FAR from perfect, being afflicted with cultural racism, some inappropriate humor (like his joke about the Holy Ghost impregnating women), etc.  Likewise, I dearly love the Prophet Joseph Smith.  His life was astonishing and very stalwart in obeying God (for the most part) but even he had his imperfections and struggles.

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I challenge members just one time, just once, go through an endowment session and view Adam/yourself as Heavenly Father and Eve/yourself as Heavenly Mother and see if the endowment isn't so much deeper than previously realized.

I work in the Baptistry and attend the sessions and other ordinances frequently.  There is NO question in my mind about the distinction between Elohim, Jehovah and Michael.  Jehovah is the First Born spirit child of Elohim in the pre-existence and was ordained to be the "Lamb of God Slain from before the Foundation of this world."  He did acquire a physical body being born to Mary in the "Meridian of Time" becoming the "Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh" (meaning Elohim is Father of Jesus).  There is NO question that Joseph Smith taught that Michael was next in authority to Jehovah (and that Noah/Gabriel was next in authority to Michael/Adam).  Michael was the mighty archangel that sustained Elohim and Jehovah and fought the perversions of Lucifer and his followers, eventually to expel them from the "First Estate."  The title "archangel" is definitely subordinate to the title of "God."  There is no disputing that Michael was a spirit being LIKE Jehovah in the pre-existence and that Michael did acquire a physical body (Terrestrial) being formed by both Elohim and Jehovah in the Garden of Eden ("We will go down").

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It was taught for about 50 years and then dropped with no explanation.  It's not like there is anything offensive in the doctrine.

It is VERY offensive and a damnable heresy.  I had a home teaching partner back in early 1990's.  He was very deeply interested in obscure histories.  We would talk about various topics of which there were incomplete understandings, such as there being "uncountable" mortal worlds coinciding with this Earth, each requiring "multiple" Falls by their respective Adams/ Eves but only one Savior to atone for this Earth and all other worlds.  One Redemption by One Savior for multiple worlds.  Eventually my wife was invited to a "cottage meeting" that was led by this brother.  We went to a few of the meetings and became more and more bewildered by the group's morbid fascinations with end time tribulations, polygamy, conspiracies, off-beat authors (such as Avraham Gileadi), etc.  I was horrified by their excessive hysteria and spirit of fear.  Three families in the group ended up abandoning society and joining up with Fred Collier's wacko cult experiment somewhere in Southern Utah.

Before leaving, my HT partner gave me a copy of his book:  "Adam God" (self published but very limited printing, 14" long by 8" wide, about one inch thick).  I read through it.  I asked him if he believed that Heavenly Father partook of the forbidden fruit in order to corrupt His body to the Telestial level.  He said yes.  I asked him if he believed that Heavenly Father has done this multiple times for every creative generation.  He said yes.  I strongly disagreed and asked him about scriptures that show only ONE resurrection for each person (never to go no more out).  He could not counter that fact.  Here are the scriptures that disprove the conjecture:

Helaman 3:30 And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out.
3 Nephi 28:40 And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens.
Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.
Alma 34:36 And this I know, because the Lord hath said he dwelleth not in unholy temples, but in the hearts of the righteous doth he dwell; yea, and he has also said that the righteous shall sit down in his kingdom, to go no more out; but their garments should be made white through the blood of the Lamb.
Alma 7:25 And may the Lord bless you, and keep your garments spotless, that ye may at last be brought to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the holy prophets who have been ever since the world began, having your garments spotless even as their garments are spotless, in the kingdom of heaven to go no more out.
Alma 29:17 And now may God grant unto these, my brethren, that they may sit down in the kingdom of God; yea, and also all those who are the fruit of their labors that they may go no more out, but that they may praise him forever. And may God grant that it may be done according to my words, even as I have spoken. Amen.

 

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, longview said:

I disagree.  This would have been a major, heavy doctrine.  Although I cannot dispute that some of BY's contemporaries did "agree" with him, the fact that there was NOT unanimity among the First Presidency and the Apostles shows how tenuous the "Adam/God Conjecture" really is.

The only one of the 15 FP/Apostles on record as expressing disagreement with the doctrine was Orson Pratt.  And oddly enough he was demoted and prevented from leading the Church.  "Conflict in the Quorum" addresses this.
Go figure.
But Brigham's next 4 successors as God's mouthpiece - John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow and Joseph F. Smith all have statements in the historical record supporting the teaching. Can't imagine why.
Some members were even threatened with excommunication for arguing against the doctrine.

Quote

I work in the Baptistry and attend the sessions and other ordinances frequently.  There is NO question in my mind about the distinction between Elohim, Jehovah and Michael.  Jehovah is the First Born spirit child of Elohim in the pre-existence and was ordained to be the "Lamb of God Slain from before the Foundation of this world."  He did acquire a physical body being born to Mary in the "Meridian of Time" becoming the "Only Begotten of the Father in the Flesh" (meaning Elohim is Father of Jesus).  There is NO question that Joseph Smith taught that Michael was next in authority to Jehovah (and that Noah/Gabriel was next in authority to Michael/Adam).  Michael was the mighty archangel that sustained Elohim and Jehovah and fought the perversions of Lucifer and his followers, eventually to expel them from the "First Estate."  The title "archangel" is definitely subordinate to the title of "God."  There is no disputing that Michael was a spirit being LIKE Jehovah in the pre-existence and that Michael did acquire a physical body (Terrestrial) being formed by both Elohim and Jehovah in the Garden of Eden ("We will go down").

There is no question in my mind about the distinction between Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael either.  They represent the Heavenly Godhead.
I do not believe Jehovah was a spirit child or Jesus Christ.  And that wasn't Church doctrine until the 20th century.

Quote

It is VERY offensive and a damnable heresy.

Why?  What about the doctrine is offensive other than your personal experience with someone that accepted it?
Why is believing Adam is our Heavenly Father offensive in any way?

Quote

I asked him if he believed that Heavenly Father partook of the forbidden fruit in order to corrupt His body to the Telestial level.  He said yes.  I asked him if he believed that Heavenly Father has done this multiple times for every creative generation.  He said yes.  I strongly disagreed and asked him about scriptures that show only ONE resurrection for each person (never to go no more out).  He could not counter that fact.  Here are the scriptures that disprove the conjecture:

Nobody said Heavenly Father was resurrected more than once.

• "What did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon;) Jesus said, as the Father hat power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious; in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again.---- If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible."  Joseph Smith

When did the Father lose that power?

[ERayR]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Virtually nobody on this board will agree with me on this.

But Brigham DID teach an awful lot about Heavenly Mother when he identified her as Eve.
If you accept Eve as Heavenly Mother you understand SO much more about her, her role, her authority, our potential to become like her (consider yourselves as though you are Adams and Eves), and so much more.
Brigham Young, Eliza R. Snow, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and their contemporaries all did this and women had a much larger role in the Church under those teachings than the century that followed their removal.

I challenge members just one time, just once, go through an endowment session and view Adam/yourself as Heavenly Father and Eve/yourself as Heavenly Mother and see if the endowment isn't so much deeper than previously realized.

It was the ending of Adam-God that pushed Heavenly Mother back into obscurity.  And I still to this day after all our discussions have no idea why the Church had such a problem with this doctrine.  It was taught for about 50 years and then dropped with no explanation.  It's not like there is anything offensive in the doctrine.

I too wonder why it was dropped.  To me it makes so much more sense.

[longview]

24 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nobody said Heavenly Father was resurrected more than once.

• "What did Jesus say? (mark it elder Rigdon;) Jesus said, as the Father hat power in himself, even so hath the Son power; to do what? Why what the Father did, that answer is obvious; in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus what are you going to do? To lay down my life, as my Father did, and take it up again.---- If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible."  Joseph Smith

When did the Father lose that power?

Never.   You need to answer:  How many times did HF do it?   How many times did Jesus do it?  The answer is they each did it only once.  This insight by JS seems to indicate that HF was also the Savior in the previous creative generation.  Not the same person as our Jesus, of course.

The power to resurrect bodies is a priesthood ordinance exercised multiple times but only ONCE for each person coming forth in the Resurrection.  AND each person is ONLY resurrected ONCE.  There are NOT multiple probations, NO repeating the endless cycle of corruption, probation, resurrection by the same God on Himself.  I call on you to seriously and carefully rethink this.

[longview]

35 minutes ago, ERayR said:

I too wonder why it was dropped.  To me it makes so much more sense.

How do you answer the question I posed to my apostate "partner" concerning the scriptures "to go no more out?"  Do you really think HF would partake of the forbidden fruit to corrupt His body, to become a "new Adam" to go through another round of "mortal probation?"

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, longview said:

Never.   You need to answer:  How many times did HF do it?   How many times did Jesus do it?  The answer is they each did it only once.  This insight by JS seems to indicate that HF was also the Savior in the previous creative generation.  Not the same person as our Jesus, of course.

I have my own thoughts on how this works actually.  But they are far too controversial.
Suffice it to say I believe differently than you on this, and I find my beliefs more in keeping with scripture, the temple, and the teachings of the prophets than what you state here.

Quote

The power to resurrect bodies is a priesthood ordinance exercised multiple times but only ONCE for each person coming forth in the Resurrection.  AND each person is ONLY resurrected ONCE.  There are NOT multiple probations, NO repeating the endless cycle of corruption, probation, resurrection by the same God on Himself.  I call on you to seriously and carefully rethink this.

That's your opinion.  I disagree and have thought about this seriously and studied, prayed, and contemplated this for years.
I will give you credit for recognizing that resurrection is an ordinance.  That's more than many people do.

[ERayR]

4 minutes ago, longview said:

How do you answer the question I posed to my apostate "partner" concerning the scriptures "to go no more out?"  Do you really think HF would partake of the forbidden fruit to corrupt His body, to become a "new Adam" to go through another round of "mortal probation?"

The short answer is yes but to understand why takes a great deal of research and effort.  I am not going to get into another discussion as this has already been discussed extensively.  Go back and read through those discussions and then if you have any questions.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

The short answer is yes but to understand why takes a great deal of research and effort.  I am not going to get into another discussion as this has already been discussed extensively.  Go back and read through those discussions and then if you have any questions.

I've checked the archives, focusing mostly on posts by proponents of the doctrine, and haven't picked up on why they think the Father assumed the person of the paradisaical, mortal, post-mortal (D&C 138) and resurrected (D&C 27:11; 116:1) Adam, only that such is the case and makes sense. Would you please summarize the rationale?

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I have my own thoughts on how this works actually.  But they are far too controversial.

Please share in a "brainstorming" way or for the sake of studying things out, it's your thread and you can stop any controversy if it gets to that.

Edited June 23, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Please share in a "brainstorming" way or for the sake of studying things out, it's your thread and you can stop any controversy if it gets to that.

Well, since you asked so nicely.
I think I'll do it as a chronology - I tried typing it as doctrinal points but it was confusing.
In a brainstorming way - with quotes that could be provided but I don't have time to pull right now so I'll just state either SCRIPT, TEMPLE, or PROPHET as source:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Eloheim (pl) at the council of Gods direct Jehovah and Michael to "go down" to the new creation.  It is those two who create the world, not Eloheim. (temple, prophet, scripture) 
2. All Gods are resurrected beings else they cannot preside over those with bodies - this includes the Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael. (prophet)
3. Jehovah (the Lord) is Michael/Adam's Father and probably his Savior from a previous creation, not Jesus Christ. (prophet)
4. Immortal resurrected Adam & Eve partake of the "fruit" and become mortal allowing physical bodies for spirit children, including the premortal Christ. (prophet, temple)
5. Adam, the Father, has power to take up his immortality after falling again, just as Christ will do, doing nothing he did not see the Father do. (prophet, scripture)
6. Adam (Heavenly Father) is the initial head of the Church of the Firstborn (scripture - Abraham 1:3)
7. Christ comes to earth, atones, dies and is resurrected.  (scripture etc)
8. The resurrected Christ is now called Jehovah and Lord (scripture D&C 110)
9. We come to earth, and as we are told in the temple, are to consider ourselves Adams/Eves.  (temple)
10. The resurrected Christ as Jehovah is to inherit this earth and all of us from the Father as the Church of the Firstborn, prob at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. (scripture, prophet)
11. Christ, now known as Jehovah, by virtue of having us as heirs, becomes our "Father" as described in the Book of Mormon (scripture)
12. Members of this Church of the Firstborn are all Kings and Priests unto God (Christ) and His Father (Adam), making Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords and Christ the new head of the Church of the Firstborn.  (scripture)
Just as Jehovah at the creation had Adam, which is many to create worlds with and as Jehovah (the Lord) said "worlds without number have I created" (scripture)

Move to the next creation

13. Now our Christ who is Jehovah rules and reigns over us as Adams and Eves and the whole process starts again. (prophet)
14. Christ Jehovah likely creates the first world for his posterity, doing as he saw his Heavenly Father Adam do.
15. We then as Adam/Michaels follow our Jehovah (Jesus) and create our own earths and our Jehovah the Lord will also say "worlds without number" has he created through his Adams which are many.  (scripture)
16. And the pattern continues eternally.
 

Do you see where I am going here? Or I am not being very clear.
It is Orson Hyde's drawing of King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  We move as a single group, a family Celestial Kingdom.  This is why those who are in the Terrestrial can never catch up and go where the Celestial are, but their kingdom may yet progress to a Celestial level through ministration of the Celestial.

The Eloheim (council of the Gods) will do just as is shown in the temple - designate Jehovah and Michael to go create worlds.
Christ will be the Jehovah of the next creation.
We will be the Michaels/Adams who go to earth and populate it.  Christ may well get to do this first for his posterity that we may do as he did.
And the cycle continues.

Edited June 23, 2016 by JLHPROF

[theplains]

21 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I have always wondered about the connection made with Mary in the catholic religion. 

While I was a catholic, it was taught to me that I would have a better chance of having my 
prayers answered if she made the petition to Jesus instead of me.

Jim

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, since you asked so nicely.
I think I'll do it as a chronology - I tried typing it as doctrinal points but it was confusing.
In a brainstorming way - with quotes that could be provided but I don't have time to pull right now so I'll just state either SCRIPT, TEMPLE, or PROPHET as source:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The Eloheim (pl) at the council of Gods direct Jehovah and Michael to "go down" to the new creation.  It is those two who create the world, not Eloheim. (temple, prophet, scripture) 
2. All Gods are resurrected beings else they cannot preside over those with bodies - this includes the Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael. (prophet)
3. Jehovah (the Lord) is Michael/Adam's Father and probably his Savior from a previous creation. (prophet)
4. Immortal resurrected Adam & Eve partake of the "fruit" and become mortal allowing physical bodies for spirit children, including the premortal Christ. (prophet, temple)
5. Adam, the Father, has power to take up his immortality after falling again, just as Christ will do, doing nothing he did not see the Father do. (prophet, scripture)
6. Adam (Heavenly Father) is the initial head of the Church of the Firstborn (scripture - Abraham 1:3)
7. Christ comes to earth, atones, dies and is resurrected.  (scripture etc)
8. The resurrected Christ is now called Jehovah and Lord (scripture D&C 110)
9. We come to earth, and as we are told in the temple, are to consider ourselves Adams/Eves.  (temple)
10. The resurrected Christ as Jehovah is to inherit this earth and all of us from the Father as the Church of the Firstborn, prob at Adam-Ondi-Ahman. (scripture, prophet)
11. Christ, now known as Jehovah, by virtue of having us as heirs, becomes our "Father" as described in the Book of Mormon (scripture)
12. Members of this Church of the Firstborn are all Kings and Priests unto God (Christ) and His Father (Adam), making Christ King of Kings and Lord of Lords and Christ the new head of the Church of the Firstborn.  (scripture)
Just as Jehovah at the creation had Adam, which is many to create worlds with and as Jehovah (the Lord) said "worlds without number have I created" (scripture)

Move to the next creation

13. Now our Christ who is Jehovah rules and reigns over us as Adams and Eves and the whole process starts again. (prophet)
14. Christ Jehovah likely creates the first world for his posterity, doing as he saw his Heavenly Father Adam do.
15. We then as Adam/Michaels follow our Jehovah (Jesus) and create our own earths and our Jehovah the Lord will also say "worlds without number" has he created through his Adams which are many.  (scripture)
16. And the pattern continues eternally.
 

Do you see where I am going here? Or I am not being very clear.
It is Orson Hyde's drawing of King of Kings and Lord of Lords.  We move as a single group, a family Celestial Kingdom.  This is why those who are in the Terrestrial can never catch up and go where the Celestial are, but their kingdom may yet progress to a Celestial level through ministration of the Celestial.

The Eloheim (council of the Gods) will do just as is shown in the temple - designate Jehovah and Michael to go create worlds.
Christ will be the Jehovah of the next creation.
We will be the Michaels/Adams who go to earth and populate it.  Christ may well get to do this first for his posterity that we may do as he did.
And the cycle continues.

Yep, pretty basic, and we still teach all of that... except for the parts you got wrong.  Resurrected beings don't, and can't, become mortal. 

One thing I wish we would emphasize more is that we all have more  than one Father in heaven, including many who were born after Adam was born in the garden of Eden as well as the infinite number of parents of Adam.

Edited June 23, 2016 by Ahab

[theplains]

21 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It was the ending of Adam-God that pushed Heavenly Mother back into obscurity.  And I still to this day after all our discussions have no idea why the Church had such a problem with this doctrine.  It was taught for about 50 years and then dropped with no explanation.  It's not like there is anything offensive in the doctrine.

Assuming that Adam-God is a false doctrine, I think its much easier for the living apostles to 
say that the recently deceased LDS President of the church was deceiving people so we had to 
scrap it.  I don't think any Latter-day Saint would dare come out in opposition if the current 
President Monson started teaching the same.

Thanks,
Jim