Great Adam-God Discussion

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I can't think of anything more horrifying after going through a mortal life and being exalted than having to become mortal again without knowledge and deal with mortal pains for 930 years. That's hell to me not exaltation and peace and rest. 

 

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I am with you on this VGJ.  I sure don't want a do over.

Most people aren't going to get this anyway.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Most people aren't going to get this anyway.

That's okay...put me in the bottom tier and leave me there...I wouldn't let my spirit children go anywhere anyway..I am just not cut out for that.  Always in my celestial dreams I pictured spirit children..that got to stay with Mom..who made spirit cookies and no school.

[VideoGameJunkie]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Most people aren't going to get this anyway.

Do we as exalted have to go through mortality again just once or do we have to do it forever to receive and create and populate worlds without end? Are we forever reincarnating and going through mortality and challenges and mortal pains?

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Do we as exalted have to go through mortality again just once or do we have to do it forever to receive and create and populate worlds without end? Are we forever reincarnating and going through mortality and challenges and mortal pains?

For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

[VideoGameJunkie]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

For this is my work and my glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

I personally believe we only get 1 mortality and then spawn planets and billions of spirit children in heaven, not on earth. My belief brings me more comfort than endless reincarnation and mortality. I hate the pains of mortality.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Brigham taught no such thing.  This theory (underlined) ignores all the other quotes on the subject by a bit of prooftexting of two single quotes.

• When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.  Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 1:50-51
• Hosea Stout Journal, vol. 2, p. 436, 9 April 1852 - President Brigham Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body and etc. more hereafter.
•  Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial body when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eve was also a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ, was our elder brother." 4/16/1852, Journal of Samuel Holister Rogers 1:179
• How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. Journal of Discourses, volume 6, p. 275
• When this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael, who is Adam our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assited him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve — this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses’ dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life.
• When he (Adam) planted the garden, he planted it with seeds he brought with him; and he also brought the animals from the earth he lived upon, where his Father dwelt. Heber C. Kimball Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, pp. 243-24

You seem to have ignored the information I provided about the editing, insertions, and deletions that George Watt made with the sermons that were published in the Journal of Discourses. You are quoting them as if they are gospel canon. Your very first quote from the JOD is one where such an editing seemingly took place. Elden Watson (now deceased) made a comparison between the notes that Willford Woodruff and the sermon produced in the JOD. There are some significant differences.

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

Brigham Young believed that each earth had its own Adam and Eve.

"Every world has had an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world that has been created has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one: it is one eternal round." "For This Is Life Eternal," Brigham Young Addresses (1982), 2:230, Eldon Watson, editor.

And how do you account for this statement?

 August 31, 1873: At Paris, Idaho: President B. Young spoke one hour and
18 minutes. In his remarks he said that a man who did not have but one wife in
the resurrection, that woman will not be his, but taken from him and given to
another. But he may be saved in the Kingdom of God, but be single to all
eternity. Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam. Willford Woodruff Journals 7:152, Aug 31, 1873

The sermons of Brigham Young as they appear in the Journal of Discourses are confusing and contradictory. There is contradiction in the ones that you quoted concerning Michael. Do you actually believe that Brigham Young believed that Adam was God the Father, the Father of Jesus? Do you actually believe that he believed that Adam of the Forbidden fruit fame had already attained his exaltation once on another planet, then laid it all aside to begin again as the progenitor of the human on this planet?

That is the part I do not believe about Brigham Young.

But thanks for chiming in.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do you actually believe that Brigham Young believed that Adam was God the Father, the Father of Jesus? Do you actually believe that he believed that Adam of the Forbidden fruit fame had already attained his exaltation once on another planet, then laid it all aside to begin again as the progenitor of the human on this planet?

Yes, I believe both of these.

[Glenn101]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Do you actually believe that Brigham Young believed that Adam was God the Father, the Father of Jesus? Do you actually believe that he believed that Adam of the Forbidden fruit fame had already attained his exaltation once on another planet, then laid it all aside to begin again as the progenitor of the human on this planet?

 

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes, I believe both of these.

Can you square that with the quote from Wilford Woodruff's journal that "Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam"?

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Can you square that with the quote from Wilford Woodruff's journal that "Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam"?

Not having ANY context behind the WW quote I don't see how anybody can explain it to mean anything.
The Virgin Mary was the daughter of Heavenly Father right?  Which made Christ her son and brother?
Who knows what relationship Adam and Eve had before they came to earth, but Brigham was pretty clear they were both resurrected beings who had previously lived on another earth when they came to the garden.

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[Glenn101]

52 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Not having ANY context behind the WW quote I don't see how anybody can explain it to mean anything.
The Virgin Mary was the daughter of Heavenly Father right?  Which made Christ her son and brother?
Who knows what relationship Adam and Eve had before they came to earth, but Brigham was pretty clear they were both resurrected beings who had previously lived on another earth when they came to the garden.

The scriptures make it plain that all of us who have peopled this earth and who will people this earth are spirit children of the same Father in Heaven, including Jesus the Christ, making us all brothers and sisters in the spirit. That would have included Michael and the spirit woman who was to become his wife in the Garden of Eden. So, yes, we do know what their relationship was.  The fact that Michael was among those spirits, and not the Father in Heaven, the Father of all of our spirits, presents a contradiction to any belief that Michael was the Father in Heaven. Michael was there and was subservient to God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Brigham Young himself acknowledged that in a talk in 1864. He quotes Doctrine and Covenants Section 107:53-55.

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and
Methuselah, who were all High Priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of
Adam−ondi−ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and
they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Arch−angel. And the Lord
administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him; I have set thee to be at the head − a multitude of nations
shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever." So, in like manner, every faithful son of God,
becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from his loins, when they are embraced in the covenants
and blessings of the Holy Priesthood; and in the lapse of eternity, and in the progress of eternal lives, every
true son of God becomes a king of kings, and a lord of lords, and it may also be said of him, as it was written
of Jesus Christ, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end."
JD 10:355, Brigham Young, November 6, 1864

There, fourteen years and some few months after he supposedly declared that Michael was the Father in Heaven, here he is quoting verses from a canonized volume of scripture about the Lord appearing to a subservient Adam/Michael.

Edited to add: Now, if one considers the possibility that there was an Adam who became our Father in Heaven who, in some manner, maybe with one of His wives, produced Mother Eve and placed her in the Garden to be a "helpmeet" to Adam, then the statement by Wilford does have some context.

Glenn

Edited October 1, 2016 by Glenn101

[rockpond]

14 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

The scriptures make it plain that all of us who have peopled this earth and who will people this earth are spirit children of the same Father in Heaven, including Jesus the Christ, making us all brothers and sisters in the spirit. That would have included Michael and the spirit woman who was to become his wife in the Garden of Eden. So, yes, we do know what their relationship was.  The fact that Michael was among those spirits, and not the Father in Heaven, the Father of all of our spirits, presents a contradiction to any belief that Michael was the Father in Heaven. Michael was there and was subservient to God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Brigham Young himself acknowledged that in a talk in 1864. He quotes Doctrine and Covenants Section 107:53-55.

"Three years previous to the death of Adam, he called Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, and
Methuselah, who were all High Priests, with the residue of his posterity who were righteous, into the valley of
Adam−ondi−ahman, and there bestowed upon them his last blessing. And the Lord appeared unto them, and
they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the Prince, the Arch−angel. And the Lord
administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him; I have set thee to be at the head − a multitude of nations
shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever." So, in like manner, every faithful son of God,
becomes, as it were, Adam to the race that springs from his loins, when they are embraced in the covenants
and blessings of the Holy Priesthood; and in the lapse of eternity, and in the progress of eternal lives, every
true son of God becomes a king of kings, and a lord of lords, and it may also be said of him, as it was written
of Jesus Christ, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end."
JD 10:355, Brigham Young, November 6, 1864

There, fourteen years and some few months after he supposedly declared that Michael was the Father in Heaven, here he is quoting verses from a canonized volume of scripture about the Lord appearing to a subservient Adam/Michael.

Edited to add: Now, if one considers the possibility that there was an Adam who became our Father in Heaven who, in some manner, maybe with one of His wives, produced Mother Eve and placed her in the Garden to be a "helpmeet" to Adam, then the statement by Wilford does have some context.

Glenn

In BY's theology isn't there Elohim, his son and our God: Adam, and Adam's son Jesus Christ?  Which one of them do you think BY interpreted as "Lord" in that passage?

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I believe you can have those children without having to become mortal again and forgetting everything again. What kind of reward is that?

I don't subscribe to BY's theology but I also don't think this life has been that bad.  I'd love to do it again. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

In BY's theology isn't there Elohim, his son and our God: Adam, and Adam's son Jesus Christ?  Which one of them do you think BY interpreted as "Lord" in that passage?

As well as I can determine, Brigham Young's theology is confusing. There are times when he appears to use Eloheim as the Father in Heaven and others times as a plurality of Gods. In the 1852 April talk, he uses Eloheim as the Father in Heaven, Jehovah as Jesus, and Michael. I think that Brigham Young's theology was orthodox as to the relationships between Eloheim/Adam, Jehovah/Jesus the Christ, and Michael/Adam. I am assuming that Brigham Young believed that the Lord spoken of in that passage was Jehovah/Jesus the Christ.

The uncertainty springing from the knowledge that George Watt made so many changes to the sermons that he published in the Journal of Discourses precludes me from making any assertion with any degree of confidence.

His theology was confusing to many of his day, as noted in some of the journal entries that have been published. I don't think Brigham was all that consistent in how he distinguished between the Adams and Eves in his talks. It should be noted that his talks were mainly unscripted, extemporaneous in nature.

At this point, I am not going to try to persuade anyone on this subject. I have posted my opinions and the reasons why I hold them, but acknowledge that there is enough fodder in the Journal of Discourses sermons to start several new religions.

Glenn

Edited October 1, 2016 by Glenn101

[Calm]

Glenn, it is not "helpmeet" (which people mistakening think means "helpmate"), but "a help meet" which would be clearer if they had commas back then.... "a help, meet for...".

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

The first word "help" in the original Hebrew was often used in the Bible to refer to God, btw.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Glenn, it is not "helpmeet" (which people mistakening think means "helpmate"), but "a help meet" which would be clearer if they had commas back then.... "a help, meet for...".

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

The first word "help" in the original Hebrew was often used in the Bible to refer to God, btw.

Wow...I speak original Hebrew...I hope am not swearing because my middle name is....HELP!!

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

As well as I can determine, Brigham Young's theology is confusing. There are times when he appears to use Eloheim as the Father in Heaven and others times as a plurality of Gods. In the 1852 April talk, he uses Eloheim as the Father in Heaven, Jehovah as Jesus, and Michael. I think that Brigham Young's theology was orthodox as to the relationships between Eloheim/Adam, Jehovah/Jesus the Christ, and Michael/Adam. I am assuming that Brigham Young believed that the Lord spoken of in that passage was Jehovah/Jesus the Christ.

The uncertainty springing from the knowledge that George Watt made so many changes to the sermons that he published in the Journal of Discourses precludes me from making any assertion with any degree of confidence.

His theology was confusing to many of his day, as noted in some of the journal entries that have been published. I don't think Brigham was all that consistent in how he distinguished between the Adams and Eves in his talks. It should be noted that his talks were mainly unscripted, extemporaneous in nature.

At this point, I am not going to try to persuade anyone on this subject. I have posted my opinions and the reasons why I hold them, but acknowledge that there is enough fodder in the Journal of Discourses sermons to start several new religions.

Glenn

What do you make of BY's lecture at the veil that also taught Adam-God?  Incorrect transcription?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Wow...I speak original Hebrew...I hope am not swearing because my middle name is....HELP!!

I don't mean it was a title of God, just that it was said of God he was a "help" (but the Hebrew word 'ezer' iirc).

Edited October 1, 2016 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

Today's talk by Quentin L Cook warned about fanaticism and this topic is looking beyond the mark.

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

What do you make of BY's lecture at the veil that also taught Adam-God?  Incorrect transcription?

I don't know. We only have a summary of it. We do not have the actual written lecture.

Glenn

[CMZ]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:52 PM, JLHPROF said:

Joseph F. Smith, but sure. 

No, not really.  But after Joseph F. Smith died was when everything really started to change.  It's still God's Church and always will be.
But there are some things that Joseph restored that we will have to put back before the Millennium.  (And no, polygamy doesn't even crack the top 5).

Visions still occur but they may just not get as publicly reported now.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

Visions still occur but they may just not get as publicly reported now.

(Thought this thread was done with..but Ok.)

You base this claim on what?

CFR any vision of a revelatory nature to any GA in the past 30 years.
(And I don't mean some story about a dream that might have meant something in a random Conference Address).

I will settle for any described revelatory vision in the past 30 years.  Any statement of a visitation, appearance, or heavenly messenger to an authorized leader.  Show me where any claim of revelation included an actual description of the veil parting since OD-2.

 

ETA - now you've got me soundling like a sign-seeker. 

Just kidding.  It's not proof I'm looking for.  I believe in the Church just fine without it.  Just interested in the correct order of things.

Edited October 11, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CMZ]

On 10/11/2016 at 11:36 AM, JLHPROF said:

(Thought this thread was done with..but Ok.)

You base this claim on what?

CFR any vision of a revelatory nature to any GA in the past 30 years.
(And I don't mean some story about a dream that might have meant something in a random Conference Address).

I will settle for any described revelatory vision in the past 30 years.  Any statement of a visitation, appearance, or heavenly messenger to an authorized leader.  Show me where any claim of revelation included an actual description of the veil parting since OD-2.

 

ETA - now you've got me soundling like a sign-seeker. 

Just kidding.  It's not proof I'm looking for.  I believe in the Church just fine without it.  Just interested in the correct order of things.

I don't check the board every day so sorry for the late response. Revelation is indeed part of the restored gospel and kingdom but there is no rule I know of that a vision must be related in conference at least every 30 years and it may be a tenuous position to adopt to perceive that such a rule exists. There are a couple fairly big revelatory things I'm thinking of mentioned in conference in the last 30 years, and things I've heard in other meetings such as stake conferences, but agreed that we don't want to make this about seeking signs.

Edited October 16, 2016 by CMZ

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CMZ said:

I don't check the board every day so sorry for the late response. Revelation is indeed part of the restored gospel and kingdom but there is no rule I know of that a vision must be related in conference at least every 30 years and it may be a tenuous position to adopt to perceive that such a rule exists. There are a couple fairly big revelatory things I'm thinking of mentioned in conference in the last 30 years, and things I've heard in other meetings such as stake conferences, but agreed that we don't want to make this about seeking signs.

I was not suggesting that there needs to be a vision every 30 years.  That would be a weird standard to have.  Nor do I require a sign to believe.
I am simply requesting that those who like to  claim as you did that "Visions still occur but they may just not get as publicly reported now" provide ANY evidence to that claim.
I find that claim from many members to be without substance, even if it turned out to be true.

I have heard nothing since OD-2 of any identifiable parting of the veil for our leaders.
It may be happening, but we have no evidence of this.  Even President Nelson's recent claim of revelation has no description of any event attached.

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

I was not suggesting that there needs to be a vision every 30 years.  That would be a weird standard to have.  Nor do I require a sign to believe.
I am simply requesting that those who like to  claim as you did that "Visions still occur but they may just not get as publicly reported now" provide ANY evidence to that claim.
I find that claim from many members to be without substance, even if it turned out to be true.

I have heard nothing since OD-2 of any identifiable parting of the veil for our leaders.
It may be happening, but we have no evidence of this.  Even President Nelson's recent claim of revelation has no description of any event attached.

I am aware of visions and visitations of individuals I find credible, but I'm not personally aware of any from Church leadership. As you're saying, our current leadership climate isn't such that any would be communicated to the Church, even if/when they do happen. 

[CV75]

How does 3 Nephi 15:5 fit if according to the Adam-God hierarchy, the resurrected Jesus Christ is neither Jehovah nor Elohim nor God the Father (Michael/Adam)?