Heavenly Mother (from other thread)

[longview]

8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

. . . THEN being given charge to remove their immortality (robes of glory) and go back into the lone and dreary world and multiply and replenish the earth . . .

This is damnable heresy.  Your juggling of scriptures will NEVER justify or even suggest that God would be permitted by the Eternal Law of Justice to descend back into the Fallen State to wrestle with carnal corruption yet again.  What if this particular Adam gets fed up in a moment of frustration and accidentally kill Eve or one of his children?  That is like messing around with time travel by going back into the past, bumping into something and accidentally changing your future.

Another major reason this cannot be allowed is God cannot abide the least sin to be in His Presence.  So why should He want to descend into the cesspool of mortal earth?  There are plenty of newly Celestialized Beings (newly resurrected for the ONE and ONLY time) who can recruit (invite) intelligences to become spirit children.  From this new "crop" can be chosen the next "Lamb of God", the next Adam/Eve, etc, to put into action the next creation, the next Fall, the next Plan of Redemption and so on for the new creative generation.

The last several Church Presidents have condemned the warped interpretation of A.G. conjecture.  I seriously doubt anyone really understands what BY was going through.  It is BEST to put that on the shelf.  The Gospel taught today is pretty much the same as taught by JS.  It is simple and beautiful.  There are plenty of mysteries.  We do NOT need the false assertion that God has to undergo multiple descents and "requalifyings."

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, longview said:

This is damnable heresy.  Your juggling of scriptures will NEVER justify or even suggest that God would be permitted by the Eternal Law of Justice to descend back into the Fallen State to wrestle with carnal corruption yet again.  What if this particular Adam gets fed up in a moment of frustration and accidentally kill Eve or one of his children?  That is like messing around with time travel by going back into the past, bumping into something and accidentally changing your future.

Another major reason this cannot be allowed is God cannot abide the least sin to be in His Presence.  So why should He want to descend into the cesspool of mortal earth?  There are plenty of newly Celestialized Beings (newly resurrected for the ONE and ONLY time) who can recruit (invite) intelligences to become spirit children.  From this new "crop" can be chosen the next "Lamb of God", the next Adam/Eve, etc, to put into action the next creation, the next Fall, the next Plan of Redemption and so on for the new creative generation.

The last several Church Presidents have condemned the warped interpretation of A.G. conjecture.  I seriously doubt anyone really understands what BY was going through.  It is BEST to put that on the shelf.  The Gospel taught today is pretty much the same as taught by JS.  It is simple and beautiful.  There are plenty of mysteries.  We do NOT need the false assertion that God has to undergo multiple descents and "requalifyings."

Wow you get angry when you don't agree with one of the prophets.

[longview]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Wow you get angry when you don't agree with one of the prophets.

Naw.  I have already stated in an earlier post that I love and admire BY and JS.

What you are doing is standing in the place of the prophet of the Church and overriding their coucsel.

[salgare]

5 hours ago, longview said:

The Gospel taught today is pretty much the same as taught by JS.  It is simple and beautiful.

Apparently you have not checked out the Givens, and what several here hold to

Edited June 25, 2016 by salgare

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, longview said:

The Gospel taught today is pretty much the same as taught by JS.  It is simple and beautiful.

Not even close.

[longview]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

Apparently you have not checked out the Givens, and what several here hold to

He has an extensive body of work.  You need to be more specific.  Please provide chapter and line if you want to prove your points.

[longview]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Not even close.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie-and-the-adam-god-theory-part-1/
As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God. He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has gone on to eternal exaltation.
Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.
Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our Spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the standard works.
Yes, Brigham Young did say some things about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known, that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God has revealed in the Standard Works.

I do not see any merit in any presentation that is based on false premises. It is possible to make a seemingly logical presentation “proving” the Adam God theory or “salvation by grace alone” or almost anything. That is not the real issue. We should spend our time sustaining true principles. A man who knows better is very foolish to present false views.
No matter how logically the cultists make it appear, that Adam is the father of our spirits and the God whom we should worship, nonetheless it is false. No matter how logically a presentation is made that men are saved by grace alone and without works, the doctrine presented is false. No matter how logically you make it appear that Jehovah is the Father, the fact remains it is false.… If you have been to the temple you know perfectly well who Elohim, Jehovah and Michael are. (Bruce R. McConkie Correspondence, 1982.)

Part 2:
Because the basic Adam-God concepts are false, the most that can be said for them is that the Lord permitted them to be preached in order to test his people. As part of working out his own salvation every man must choose between truth and error, accepting the one and rejecting the other. Unless and until he is able to do this he has not grown spiritually to the point of being an heir of salvation. Perhaps this is why Paul said to the Corinthian Saints: “I hear that there be divisions among you,” meaning that they did not all believe the same doctrines and teach the same truths. They should have been perfectly united in all things, but they were not. “For there must be also heresies among you,” Paul continued, “that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” )1 Cor. 11:18-19.) That is, the heresies taught by and among the true saints were the means of testing them. Perhaps, also, the existence of heresies in the true Church is what Nephi had in mind when he said of an apostate Christendom: “Their churches have become corrupted; . . . they have all gone astray save it be a few, who are the humble followers of Christ.” All of those in the churches of modern Christendom have forsaken the truths of salvation except the few who are members of the newly restored Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “Nevertheless, they”—those in the true Church—“are led, that in many instances they do err because they are taught by the precepts of men.” (2 Ne. 28:12-14.)
With reference to the Adam-God heresy, we note such scriptural verities as the following:
There were in preexistence three separate and distinct persons—Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Elohim and Michael were not the same person.
Elohim is God the Eternal Father; as the Supreme Being he is God above all. Michael is, therefore, subject to him.
Jehovah was the Firstborn spirit son of Elohim. He advanced and progressed, became like unto Elohim, and was a member of the Godhead. The Godhead presides over all others. Michael is, therefore, subject to both Elohim and Jehovah.
Elohim is God the First; Jehovah is God the Second; the Holy Ghost is God the Third. These three comprise the Godhead. Michael is not one of them, but is in eternal subjection to them.
Jehovah and Michael are both spirit children of Elohim. They are both, therefore, along with all the spirit hosts of heaven, subject to Him whose offspring they are.
Jehovah became a God in preexistence; he was the Lord Omnipotent while yet a spirit being. Michael became the Archangel who thus had pre-eminence, not over the Gods, but over the angelic hosts. It is one thing to be a God, another to be an Archangel. Gods take precedence over angels of every rank and status.
Elohim is the God of Jehovah and of Michael. They both serve and worship him and are, therefore, subject to him. As Jehovah came to earth to do the will of his Father who sent him, so also was it with Michael during his mortal ministry.
Elohim was a resurrected personage, having a body of flesh and bones; Jehovah and Michael were spirit beings having bodies made of spirit element. Only resurrected beings can beget spirits; one spirit cannot beget another; and, therefore, Michael is not the father of spirits.
The ultimate creative power rested with Elohim. He sent Jehovah and Michael (and the noble and great ones associated with them) to create this earth and its aerial heavens. Michael, therefore, is not the Creator in the sense of having creative powers of his own. Rather, as with Enoch and Abraham and Moses and a host of others, all of whom participated in the creation, Michael acted by delegated authority.
There were in the Garden of Eden three separate and distinct persons—they were Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Elohim had a resurrected body of flesh and bones; he was and is a Man of Holiness, a Holy Man. Jehovah was then a spirit man, his birth into mortality being some four thousand years in the future. Michael had a body of flesh and bones which was not yet subject to death. Elohim and Jehovah gave direction to Michael, even as they had done in preexistence. Michael, therefore, was in no sense supreme, and he did not act independently as a God.
All men in all ages have been commanded to worship Elohim (the Father), in the name of Jehovah (the Son), by the power of the Holy Ghost. Michael is not involved in this system of worship, except that he advocates and teaches it and does himself worship in this way. All men have direct access to the Father; they do not pray to Jesus, to the so-called saints, to Michael, or to any other creatures in heaven or on earth. Elohim is the object and center of all saving worship; he is the only God whom men worship in this sense. Michael, therefore, though he is now exalted to Godhood of his own, is not the only God with whom we have to do.
Both Elohim and Jehovah are known as the God of our Fathers, though generally Jehovah is the one involved. Michael does not fit in as a God in dealing with men; he is, rather, a servant of the Almighty—speaking, doing, and ministering as Deity directs.
Jehovah is the Promised Messiah who came to ransom man from the spiritual and temporal death brought into the world by the fall of Adam (Michael). Michael is not Jehovah and he was not appointed to ransom men from the effects of his own fall. That was not the work of an Archangel but of a God.
Resurrected beings cannot die. Their bodies and spirits are inseparably connected to all eternity. They can never again see corruption. It is spirit, not blood, that flows in their veins. God the Father (falsely assumed by some to be Adam) could not, therefore, come to earth as the first man, bring death into the world, and thus introduce mortality through his fall.
It is almost beyond belief that anyone would think that the Eternal Elohim, under the name Adam, would come to earth, fall from an Edenic state, and then live in sorrow and sin for nine hundred and thirty years. Can a God fall? Can anyone seriously suppose or imagine that the Almighty would forsake his throne to be a mortal again and to work out his salvation anew? Can a saved being become unsaved so as to start out all over again and see if he is really worthy of the salvation he had already gained? These ideas are too absurd to be worthy of serious consideration.
Jehovah was the Only Begotten Son of Elohim, meaning the only one ever born with mortal flesh as the Son of the Eternal Father. He was thus the literal Son of God. That his father was not Michael is shown by two obvious facts: (1) Michael had lived and died and his spirit was then in the world of spirits awaiting the day of his resurrection; and (2) spirits cannot procreate; it is simply not in their power to have offspring.
Jehovah is the Atoning One. His atoning sacrifice brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Now, if Adam is God the Father, can anyone seriously suppose that it would take the atonement of the Son to expiate the sins of the Father? Such a notion is almost too foolish to refute.
Similarly, Jehovah brought to pass the resurrection of all men. If Adam is God the Father, can anyone seriously suppose that Elohim, being Adam and having died (an absurdity in itself), could not be resurrected except by the power of his Son. Again we are refuting a notion that is so foolish it makes one wonder how far astray men can go.
Michael holds the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One who is the Lord Jehovah. He is, therefore, as we have so repetitiously recited, subject to the Holy One of Israel. It is against all reason to suppose that the Father (if he were Adam) would be subject to the Son.
Jehovah will come to Adam at Adam-ondi-Ahman to receive back again those keys by which Adam has been directing Jehovah’s work on earth. Michael will then report his stewardship and give account to his Lord of all his acts and ministry. Having received back the keys the Lord Jesus will be prepared to rule personally on the earth and not through agents and servants. It will be Jehovah, not Michael, who will reign over the earth during the millennium.

Part 3:
Author quotes D&C 138 showing that Adam/Michael was STILL a spirit awaiting the arrival of Jesus from His Crucifixion.  Jesus was to be the "First Fruit of the Resurrection."  Adam was NOT then resurrected.  He and all his children of earth had to wait until the "Meridian of Time" to be resurrected.  AFTER Jesus'.
"Thankfully, the Adam-God theory and other errant doctrines that occasionally percolate up from the past or blow with the latest wind of false doctrine are gradually losing their effectiveness and presence today—they are gradually losing their steam. Whatever the issue raised by the devil, the safe course is to stay in the mainstream of the Church, hold to the iron rod, and follow the living prophets."

[VideoGameJunkie]

I can't wait until im reunited with Heavenly Mother.

[salgare]

9 hours ago, longview said:

He has an extensive body of work.  You need to be more specific.  Please provide chapter and line if you want to prove your points.

Social Humanism, postmodernism, relativism

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

[longview]

11 hours ago, salgare said:

Social Humanism, postmodernism, relativism

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

How does this relate to our ongoing discussion?   Nice to see a picture of Mark Bukowski (the eminent philosopher on this board, if I am not mistaken).

Here are two clips from the article that I have concerns with:

"Mormons are repeatedly admonished that a member may begin on “borrowed light,” but everyone must eventually gain his or her own [Page 68]spiritual witness, or spiritual experience, confirming that the orthopraxis — the lifestyle chosen — is indeed God’s will for the person."   I doubt this.  God's Will is for each of us to continue to gain additional spiritual witnessess and experiment on the word on an ongoing basis in whatever order or interplay between experience and study in order to move to a greater "ONENESS" with God.  Just because a person obtains a spiritual witness does not mean not mean "he has made it".   We must continue the journey, line upon line, precept upon precept.  Which is the purpose of the "Second Estate."

"Before Kant, virtually all philosophers saw truths like those of mathematics as logically necessary eternal truths that could not possibly be dependent on humans for their structure. Kant revolutionized that idea by essentially holding that such truths, instead of existing independently of the human mind, were actually in a sense “created” by the human mind and were the rules by which humans perceive the world."   I believe truths exist independent of the conceptions of the human mind.  But for us to be able to make sense of the world, I agree we would need to work out a personal system for dealing with the environment we live in.

Edited June 26, 2016 by longview

[salgare]

16 hours ago, longview said:

How does this relate to our ongoing discussion?

You stated this:

"The Gospel taught today is pretty much the same as taught by JS.  It is simple and beautiful."

I questioned/suggested this was not the case.

You asked for specifics and I gave you one example which I think is far from what JS taught.

[longview]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

You asked for specifics and I gave you one example which I think is far from what JS taught.

Who do you want to follow?   Kant or Joseph Smith?  I am frequently tired of ramblings of Plato, Nietzsche, Marx, Givens, etc.  BUT I never tire of the amazing insights of JS.  AND who can compare with Jesus Christ?  The GOSPEL is so AWESOME.

Edited June 26, 2016 by longview

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, longview said:

BUT I never tire of the amazing insights of JS.  AND who can compare with Jesus Christ?  The GOSPEL is so AWESOME.

On that, we agree.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

On that, we agree.

I’ve had some time to look at the Adam-God doctrine relationships between the Lord God (Jehovah, the father of Michael), God the father of the Only Begotten (Michael), Adam (the paradisaical and mortal Michael) and Jesus, the Only begotten Son of the Father (Michael) more over the weekend, and have some questions about the following scriptures when I read them according to the doctrine. I’ve also put an asterisk next to concepts that seem contradict the doctrine that you might be able to put into perspective:

Moses 6:50-54: “And he [Jehovah, the father of Michael] called upon our father Adam [Michael] by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh [making us the children of Jehovah, not Michael*]. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me …in the name of mine Only Begotten Son [making Jehovah the father of Jesus, the Only Begotten Son*], who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ… And our father Adam [Michael] spake unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said: Why is it that men [thy children before they were in the flesh*; mine in the flesh] must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Adam [Michael]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God [Jesus, the Son of Jehovah] hath atoned for original guilt…”

Moses 1:32-34: “…worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.” Why or how is Michael referring to Himself as Adam in the third person (as also in Moses 2: 1, 26-27)?

Moses 4: 28, 29: “And I, the Lord God* [Michael], said unto mine Only Begotten [Jesus]: Behold, the man* [Adam] is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, Therefore I [Michael], the Lord God*, will send him* [Adam, or myself] forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken…” How did Michael, the father of the Only Begotten, simultaneously speak and act as Jehovah (the Lord God, who is not the father the Only Begotten) and/or as Michael, and then again in the third person as Adam (the subject spoken about, as also in Moses 3:18)?

I also had another question or two a couple of posts back if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those as well. Thank you!

Edited June 27, 2016 by CV75

[longview]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

. . . Jesus, the Only begotten Son of the Father (Michael) . . .

False doctrine.  Why have you ignored this?   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie-and-the-adam-god-theory-part-1/

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, longview said:

False doctrine.  Why have you ignored this?   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie-and-the-adam-god-theory-part-1/

Because McConkie was wrong, AND not the prophet authorized to receive revelation for the Church.
His teachings were his opinion, scholarly perhaps, but he was not the head of the Church.
His Seven Deadly Heresies were his opinion, not gospel fact.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’ve had some time to look at the Adam-God doctrine relationships between the Lord God (Jehovah, the father of Michael), God the father of the Only Begotten (Michael), Adam (the paradisaical and mortal Michael) and Jesus, the Only begotten Son of the Father (Michael) more over the weekend, and have some questions about the following scriptures when I read them according to the doctrine. I’ve also put an asterisk next to concepts that seem contradict the doctrine that you might be able to put into perspective:

I also had another question or two a couple of posts back if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those as well. Thank you!

I will look at your questions and get back as soon as I have time to pull quotes etc.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, longview said:

False doctrine.  Why have you ignored this?   http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/elder-bruce-r-mcconkie-and-the-adam-god-theory-part-1/

I haven't. I'm trying to understand the Adam-God doctrine in relation to the verses in Moses and have a few questions.

21 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because McConkie was wrong, AND not the prophet authorized to receive revelation for the Church.
His teachings were his opinion, scholarly perhaps, but he was not the head of the Church.
His Seven Deadly Heresies were his opinion, not gospel fact.

I don't think the questions I have much to do with the article. I'm asking how a proponent of the doctrine squares it with the five or so scripture passages I brought up from the Book of Moses.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I will look at your questions and get back as soon as I have time to pull quotes etc.

Great and thank you--I'll look for the notification.

[longview]

On 6/27/2016 at 8:41 AM, JLHPROF said:

Because McConkie was wrong,

Why attack the person?  Show where he was wrong.

On 6/27/2016 at 9:10 AM, CV75 said:

His teachings were his opinion, scholarly perhaps, but he was not the head of the Church.

Do you not believe members of the 12 receive an extra measure of the Spirit to guide the Church?  You do know that several Church presidents have affirmed and sustained his statements/teaching regarding the heresy?

On 6/27/2016 at 9:10 AM, CV75 said:

His Seven Deadly Heresies were his opinion, not gospel fact.

Neither quote was said by CV75

I would like to see you prove it.

Don't you think D&C 138 (see verses 12 - 39) proves that Adam and Eve did NOT have the power to "take it up again?"  They (meaining all those who lived before the Meridian of Time) remained spirits, waiting anxiously for the Savior to become the "Firstfruits of the Resurrection" so that they can escape this condition?

 50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.
 51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life,
 52 And continue thenceforth their labor as had been promised by the Lord, and be partakers of all blessings which were held in reserve for them that love him.

[JLHPROF]

Ok, time to see which I can answer and which I don't think we have the answer for yet.  (Sorry for the delay).

On 6/24/2016 at 10:45 AM, CV75 said:

So far my understanding is tracking along the lines of the Wikipedia article; do you think it is a good representation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

I think it gives a good basic overview.

I can see how the veil could separate Adam from an awareness of his power to return to his exalted state, but what does that say about the reality of his faith, exercising it in Christ’s Redemption, not realizing he didn’t really need it for himself, unwittingly modeling for us a faith in Christ that he personally didn’t need to exercise? (Such inherent, systemic beguilement doesn’t seem consistent with an authentically divine plan). Or that Adam in time pierced the veil and he and his posterity came to know that he was actually Heavenly Father, but this knowledge was lost, with the lost “book of remembrance” and scripture being replaced with non-historical retellings of the temple rite, which is our canon.

Brigham Young - "Did he resurrect himself?" you inquire. I want to throw out a few hints upon the resurrection as it seems to come within the circuit of my ideas whether it ought to come within the circuit of my remarks or not. I believe we have already acknowledged the truth established that no person can officiate in any office he has not been subject to himself and been legally appointed to fill. That no person in this kingdom can officiate in any ordinance he himself has not obeyed; consequently no being who has not been resurrected possesses the keys of the power or resurrection. That you have been told often. Adam therefore was resurrected by someone who had been resurrected. I will to a little further with this lest some of you will be querying, doubting, and philosophizing this away. It is true, Jesus said, "I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." I do not doubt the power of Christ; but did he prove that in his resurrection? No. But it is proved that an angel came and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulcher, and did resurrect the body of the son of God. "What angel was this?" It is not for me to say. I do not know him. If I ever did know him it is so long since I have entirely forgotten who it was. That Jesus had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again I do not dispute. Neither do I dispute, but what an angel came, that was sent by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to roll away the stone from the sepulcher, and resurrect the Son of God. Suffice it to say that he was some character who had himself been resurrected.

What was the active role of the pre-mortal Jesus carried out in the earth from the time of Adam to His advent in the Meridian of Time? Adam learned and knew of Him. From the Book of Mormon we know that He at least spoke with the brother of Jared and Nephi, some 1,000 years apart.

I cannot say.  I think (see below) given that the Genesis account in Moses has Jehovah/Yaweh (the Lord) speaking about Christ as his son that we can conclusively say that Christ is not Jehovah.  So we only have a few records of pre-mortal Christ interacting with mortal men such as the ones you name.  I am not convinced that as a pre-mortal spirit Christ carried out specific roles on the earth as a spirit, but I could be wrong.  I don't think it much matters to the doctrines we are discussing.
But every man of this spiritual generation is reliant on him to gain their resurrection.

 

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’ve had some time to look at the Adam-God doctrine relationships between the Lord God (Jehovah, the father of Michael), God the father of the Only Begotten (Michael), Adam (the paradisaical and mortal Michael) and Jesus, the Only begotten Son of the Father (Michael) more over the weekend, and have some questions about the following scriptures when I read them according to the doctrine. I’ve also put an asterisk next to concepts that seem contradict the doctrine that you might be able to put into perspective:

Moses 6:50-54: “And he [Jehovah, the father of Michael] called upon our father Adam [Michael] by his own voice, saying: I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh [making us the children of Jehovah, not Michael*]. And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me …in the name of mine Only Begotten Son [making Jehovah the father of Jesus, the Only Begotten Son*], who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ… And our father Adam [Michael] spake unto the Lord [Jehovah], and said: Why is it that men [thy children before they were in the flesh*; mine in the flesh] must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Adam [Michael]: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden. Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God [Jesus, the Son of Jehovah] hath atoned for original guilt…”

Moses 1:32-34: “…worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.” Why or how is Michael referring to Himself as Adam in the third person (as also in Moses 2: 1, 26-27)?

I see this as one of two possibilities:
Either this was not Heavenly Father/Adam speaking, but was the Lord (Jehovah), Adam's Father over all the many Adams.
or
Having completed the work of creating bodies as Adam he assumed the role of Jehovah.  Don't forget Christ was rightly called Jehovah after his resurrection and inheritance of all of us who are to consider ourselves Adam and Eves.  And Brigham Young did call him Yahovah Michael.  And Jehovah here is specifying that he has many Adams, one for each world without number.

But I don't claim that we know definitively this one yet.

Moses 4: 28, 29: “And I, the Lord God* [Michael], said unto mine Only Begotten [Jesus]: Behold, the man* [Adam] is become as one of us to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, Therefore I [Michael], the Lord God*, will send him* [Adam, or myself] forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken…” How did Michael, the father of the Only Begotten, simultaneously speak and act as Jehovah (the Lord God, who is not the father the Only Begotten) and/or as Michael, and then again in the third person as Adam (the subject spoken about, as also in Moses 3:18)?

So in a nutshell, the question you have from these verses is "why did the Lord (which is always written Jehovah in the Genesis texts) refer to Christ as his son instead of Adam's son?"
That is a good question.  I'd say Jehovah referring to Christ as his son definitely disproves the current Church teaching that Christ is Jehovah.  But why did Jehovah call Christ HIS son?

And just for fun

1 hour ago, longview said:

Why attack the person?  Show where he was wrong.

In that he taught against a revelation proclaimed by the President of the Church without any other revelation to revoke it.
When Orson Pratt did this he was brought up on disciplinary charges.  If any apostle today publicly denounced a revelation of President Hinckley, perhaps saying that in his experience the smaller temples were a stupid idea, you'd be all over them.

Do you not believe members of the 12 receive an extra measure of the Spirit to guide the Church?  You do know that several Church presidents have affirmed and sustained his statements/teaching regarding the heresy?

President Young claimed Adam-God was taught by Joseph Smith and that he himself received further light by direct revelation.
Presidents Wilford Woodruff warned "Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth, and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness & unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways. For when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel & tries to lead the prophet-- he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling."

President Kimball and Elder McConkie provided no such claim.  Unless you are calling Brigham a liar...

Don't you think D&C 138 (see verses 12 - 39) proves that Adam and Eve did NOT have the power to "take it up again?"  They (meaining all those who lived before the Meridian of Time) remained spirits, waiting anxiously for the Savior to become the "Firstfruits of the Resurrection" so that they can escape this condition?

 50 For the dead had looked upon the long absence of their spirits from their bodies as a bondage.
 51 These the Lord taught, and gave them power to come forth, after his resurrection from the dead, to enter into his Father’s kingdom, there to be crowned with immortality and eternal life,
 52 And continue thenceforth their labor as had been promised by the Lord, and be partakers of all blessings which were held in reserve for them that love him.

No, I don't think this applies to Adam and Eve.  That they were present presiding over the hosts awaiting resurrection I have no doubt.  The conditions of their bodies are not specified in the vision.
Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871. Church Archives "Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam."

In the end, I don't claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim that the Adam-God teachings answer every possible question.
I think I've shown what was taught by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and their contemporaries and was a pretty standard belief of the Church for the latter half of the 19th century.
I recognize there are unanswered questions, and even potential contradictions.  I think I have also shown that there are the same unanswered questions and potential contradictions in the currently accepted Church theology on the Godhead.
In the end it becomes a matter of faith as much as anything else.  And to call one a heresy and the other not is simply not clear cut.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, longview said:

***

Not sure how this happened, but somehow JLHPROF's posts have my name on them! I never said the following:

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

His teachings were his opinion, scholarly perhaps, but he was not the head of the Church.

 

20 hours ago, CV75 said:

His Seven Deadly Heresies were his opinion, not gospel fact.

Is this a quotation mistake or a website problem?

[janderich]

On 6/24/2016 at 7:57 PM, longview said:

This is damnable heresy.  Your juggling of scriptures will NEVER justify or even suggest that God would be permitted by the Eternal Law of Justice to descend back into the Fallen State to wrestle with carnal corruption yet again.  What if this particular Adam gets fed up in a moment of frustration and accidentally kill Eve or one of his children?  That is like messing around with time travel by going back into the past, bumping into something and accidentally changing your future.

Another major reason this cannot be allowed is God cannot abide the least sin to be in His Presence.  So why should He want to descend into the cesspool of mortal earth?  There are plenty of newly Celestialized Beings (newly resurrected for the ONE and ONLY time) who can recruit (invite) intelligences to become spirit children.  From this new "crop" can be chosen the next "Lamb of God", the next Adam/Eve, etc, to put into action the next creation, the next Fall, the next Plan of Redemption and so on for the new creative generation.

The last several Church Presidents have condemned the warped interpretation of A.G. conjecture.  I seriously doubt anyone really understands what BY was going through.  It is BEST to put that on the shelf.  The Gospel taught today is pretty much the same as taught by JS.  It is simple and beautiful.  There are plenty of mysteries.  We do NOT need the false assertion that God has to undergo multiple descents and "requalifyings."

I for one appreciate the JLHPROF has put his thoughts out for us to consider. No person need toke them as doctrine. It is the shutting down of ideas that worries me far more than reasoned thoughts, be they right or wrong. As Joseph said, " When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” (HC 6:477).

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Not sure how this happened, but somehow JLHPROF's posts have my name on them! I never said the following:

 

Is this a quotation mistake or a website problem?

Quotation mistake I'm sure.

[CV75]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham Young - "Did he resurrect himself?" you inquire. I want to throw out a few hints upon the resurrection as it seems to come within the circuit of my ideas whether it ought to come within the circuit of my remarks or not. I believe we have already acknowledged the truth established that no person can officiate in any office he has not been subject to himself and been legally appointed to fill. That no person in this kingdom can officiate in any ordinance he himself has not obeyed; consequently no being who has not been resurrected possesses the keys of the power or resurrection. That you have been told often. Adam therefore was resurrected by someone who had been resurrected. I will to a little further with this lest some of you will be querying, doubting, and philosophizing this away. It is true, Jesus said, "I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." I do not doubt the power of Christ; but did he prove that in his resurrection? No. But it is proved that an angel came and rolled away the stone from the door of the sepulcher, and did resurrect the body of the son of God. "What angel was this?" It is not for me to say. I do not know him. If I ever did know him it is so long since I have entirely forgotten who it was. That Jesus had power to lay down his life, and power to take it up again I do not dispute. Neither do I dispute, but what an angel came, that was sent by the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, to roll away the stone from the sepulcher, and resurrect the Son of God. Suffice it to say that he was some character who had himself been resurrected.

The explanation that Jesus was resurrected through the ordinance administered by another being, and then given the legal appointment to do the same (as he said in his mission, and I guess it could be said now, directly or indirectly, of his father) does not ameliorate the contradiction that the mortal Adam placed a faith in a Redeemer he did not need, having been subject to another officiator for his own prior resurrection from another world, and as Michael, authorizing someone to officiate the resurrection and subsequently legally appoint his only begotten son  to officiate, unless Adam’s own power over life and death and legal appointment had been withdrawn in this new mortality, in which case, from whom did Jesus (and whoever officiated his resurrection him) get them, if not his father Michael (who at the time of Jesus’ conception had already become a resurrected being)?

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I cannot say.  I think (see below) given that the Genesis account in Moses has Jehovah/Yaweh (the Lord) speaking about Christ as his son that we can conclusively say that Christ is not Jehovah.  So we only have a few records of pre-mortal Christ interacting with mortal men such as the ones you name.  I am not convinced that as a pre-mortal spirit Christ carried out specific roles on the earth as a spirit, but I could be wrong.  I don't think it much matters to the doctrines we are discussing. But every man of this spiritual generation is reliant on him to gain their resurrection.

Divine investiture of authority permits Christ to speak as if He were the Father. It is the other relational contradictions, according to the Adam-God doctrine that are problematic (Jehovah, the father of Michael telling Adam that Adam’s posterity is Jehovah’s spirit children; Jehovah referring to himself as the father of Jesus, the Only Begotten Son).

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I see this as one of two possibilities:

Either this was not Heavenly Father/Adam speaking, but was the Lord (Jehovah), Adam's Father over all the many Adams.

or

Having completed the work of creating bodies as Adam he assumed the role of Jehovah.  Don't forget Christ was rightly called Jehovah after his resurrection and inheritance of all of us who are to consider ourselves Adam and Eves.  And Brigham Young did call him Yahovah Michael.  And Jehovah here is specifying that he has many Adams, one for each world without number.

But I don't claim that we know definitively this one yet.

If it was Adam’s father speaking, and he created the worlds without number (with their respective Adams) by the Only Begotten Son (of Michael or Adam), where does that place Michael's role in the process?

If it was Adam (Michael) acting in the role of Jehovah, and Adam was in the garden, then he was in two places and two estates at once.

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

So in a nutshell, the question you have from these verses is "why did the Lord (which is always written Jehovah in the Genesis texts) refer to Christ as his son instead of Adam's son?"

That is a good question.  I'd say Jehovah referring to Christ as his son definitely disproves the current Church teaching that Christ is Jehovah.  But why did Jehovah call Christ HIS son?

To ask it in line with the Adam-God doctrine, the question would be, “Why did Jehovah refer to Jesus as his Only Begotten Son and not Michael’s?” I know in some cultures grandfathers can refer to their grandchildren as “sons,” and the sons their grandfathers as "fathers," but the term “Only Begotten” carries a very specific and literal meaning with it. According to current LDS teaching, Jehovah (Christ) referred to Jesus (His begotten self in mortality) as the Son, by speaking for and as the Father under divine investiture of authority.

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

In the end, I don't claim to have all the answers, nor do I claim that the Adam-God teachings answer every possible question.

I think I've shown what was taught by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, and their contemporaries and was a pretty standard belief of the Church for the latter half of the 19th century.

I recognize there are unanswered questions, and even potential contradictions.  I think I have also shown that there are the same unanswered questions and potential contradictions in the currently accepted Church theology on the Godhead.

In the end it becomes a matter of faith as much as anything else.  And to call one a heresy and the other not is simply not clear cut.

Other than that which is explained by divine investiture of authority, what unanswered questions and potential contradictions remain in the Church’s current teachings on the Godhead?