Adam-God doctrine explained

[CMZ]

A lot of the "meat" of gospel learning comes from further enhancing our knowledge by personal revelation from the Spirit. It helps us coordinate things that are plainly written so that we can have a further understanding.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

Hi Mark,

Here is a significant point: The purpose of the temple ordinances of the endowment and eternal marriage are designed to enable the faithful who faithfully keep their covenants to become gods and goddesses...

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132)

In the temple drama, each man and woman destined to become gods and goddesses at some future time take upon themselves the roles of Adam and Eve. In fact, each male and female initiate is to think of themselves as being either Adam or Eve. When those faithful who are endowed and sealed become Gods and goddesses, this greatest of all blessings (eternal lives) will be given only to those who have taken upon themselves the mystical identities of Adam and Eve. Hence, as Paul taught, there are gods many and Lord's many because those who have taken upon themselves the mystical identities of Adam and Eve are many. The temple ordinances teach us only endowed and exalted Adams and Eves have the right to rule and reign in eternity. Therefore, at least some iteration of an Adam-God doctrine is taught through the ordinances of the temple. And if our God and Father was endowed and sealed as a mortal on his planet, then as one who took upon himself the mystical identity of Adam he rules and reigns in our universe. 

Has there been some changes, because I only remember it being said as "priest and priestesses". Of course my memory is in a sad state of affairs too.

[CMZ]

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng#6

Kings and queens, priests and priestesses. Suggests a spiritual and a political reign.

Edited September 26, 2016 by CMZ

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Has there been some changes, because I only remember it being said as "priest and priestesses". Of course my memory is in a sad state of affairs too.

 

16 minutes ago, CMZ said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng#6

Kings and queens, priests and priestesses. Suggests a spiritual and a political reign.

How else do we expect Christ to become King of Kings?

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Since when did I say I was going to a new church?

And you're right I didn't study well enough all my years as a member. How many study outside of what is given them in the study guides? 

But there again, I didn't do my part, I will admit. I guess I was more in for the social, and took for granted that my parents, grandparents, friends, and neighbors got it right. 

Sorry- you said you were discussing the bible and had gone to their church as I recall,  with an Evangelical I think and since then your questions seem to have gotten more negative and definitely EV influenced- the classical EV criticisms of Mormonism which in my opinion do not stand up to scrutiny

In my opinion, the "meat" is stuff you have to dig out for yourself through study and mostly the spirit.

I think I mentioned that earlier- like for example the symbolism of what the veil stands for.  It is there for all to see scripturally but it is not stated doctrine, and of course we will not discuss that here.  Of course it can mean many things- but there are some established answers that keep popping up in discussions in the temple etc.  This stuff is not published- it is not intended for publication by its very nature- that was JulieM's error.  She wanted published "meat" and then said if it was published it was NOT "meat".  Pure contradiction

To me THAT is the meat.   I do not know how many are happy with milk, there is nothing wrong with that- it's just that some weirdos like me want more more more and we seek it out.

I could spend 24 hours a day figuring this stuff out and sometimes actually do, to my detriment.   It's rather obsessive and unhealthy at that level of weirdness.

Edited September 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, CMZ said:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/rev/1?lang=eng#6

Kings and queens, priests and priestesses. Suggests a spiritual and a political reign.

Not to mention thrones principalities and etc.

I have had that confirmed from excellent sources

Edited September 26, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry- you said you were discussing the bible and had gone to their church as I recall,  with an Evangelical I think and since then your questions seem to have gotten more negative and definitely EV influenced- the classical EV criticisms of Mormonism which in my opinion do not stand up to scrutiny

In my opinion, the "meat" is stuff you have to dig out for yourself through study and mostly the spirit.

I think I mentioned that earlier- like for example the symbolism of what the veil stands for.  It is there for all to see scripturally but it is not stated doctrine, and of course we will not discuss that here.  Of course it can mean many things- but there are some established answers that keep popping up in discussions in the temple etc.  This stuff is not published- it is not intended for publication by its very nature- that was JulieM's error.  She wanted published "meat" and then said if it was published it was NOT "meat".  Pure contradiction

To me THAT is the meat.   I do not know how many are happy with milk, there is nothing wrong with that- it's just that some weirdos like me want more more more and we seek it out.

I could spend 24 hours a day figuring this stuff out and sometimes actually do, to my detriment.   It's rather obssessive and unhealthy at that level of weirdness.

My insurance guy is the one that is trying to get my husband and I to go to a bible church nearby. I got as far as the parking lot and got right back in my car and drove home.

He is former LDS and thinks it's his job to save our souls. Sad thing is, I keep wondering if he's right. He keeps saying the Lord is working on me. 

But I'm sooo LDS in my being, it would be a very difficult thing to do. But what if that's the kind of test God gives people. Having such a wonderful church that is superior to others in it's organization, service opportunities, youth programs, social functions etc. And that it asks for a lot of sacrifice on our part. And provides a beautiful plan of salvation I guess, since it has a kingdom for everyone, and most will never go to hell. Would God be so callous?

And maybe I'm not suppose to think I'll have the chance to become a Goddess. According to most faiths, that is not what God wants. But I know there are places in the bible that say we will be Gods, but that is the lower "g".

Thanks for your time MF! And btw, I'm obsessed also, and very weird. What would I do without this board of wonderful people who give me the time of day! 

 

[Calm]

Tacenda, you do realize, don't you,  there were no capitals or lowercase in the original texts and thus no difference between Gods and gods just as there is no difference in LDS doctrine as we are his, or His if you prefer, children.  The capitals were added quite possibly by some of those who believed there is an eternal, unbridgeable gap between God and the rest of his creation.   It is simply a matter of interpretation to use upper or lowercase just as I could choose either H or h here if I wanted to add a distinction that isn't already present.  If it better expresses in your mind his power and glory, then why not use G for him and g for the rest of us, but don't think the placement of a capital has any eternal significance or means something to God himself about some refusal on his part to remove the distance between us instead of embracing us in his arms.*** 

Personally I believe God both when he/He says all things are possible to him/Him and that he/He desires us to become one with him/Him, inherit all that he/He has, which means not that we take what is his as inheritance works in mortality since God never dies, but rather he reaches out to us, removes our dirty rags and clothes us in his glory because he wants his children to desire to be with him as he desires us to come home...as we would expect any loving father to feel.

****I am not suggesting all who hold the Creator/creature distinction see things this way, but if I understand your interpretation of Evangelical belief that you wonder if it is true, this seems to be your explanation of that position.

Edited September 26, 2016 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Has there been some changes, because I only remember it being said as "priest and priestesses". Of course my memory is in a sad state of affairs too.

You're not remembering.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, CMZ said:

A lot of the "meat" of gospel learning comes from further enhancing our knowledge by personal revelation from the Spirit. It helps us coordinate things that are plainly written so that we can have a further understanding.

The meat could also be considered to be the "fulness."

We are promised that we would get nearer to God by abiding by the precepts of the most correct of any book (the Book of Mormon) than by any other book. This tells me it contains the meat, or the fulness (per D&C 27:5), which takes actual form in our person as we mature in keeping the ordinances that are built upon this keystone. The identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and Their relationship, and Adam's (and our) relationship with Them, is clearly laid out in the book. I think Adam-God as a teaching tool is no more literal than the temple story, but I think the Book of Mormon is more literal than either of those. Both the symbolism of temple and the words of the book are precious, but in different ways for different reasons.

I also consider "meat" being the "flesh" -- the literal resurrection and the expression of an exalted nature in the glory that quickens that flesh (D&C 88:28). And then of course the very literally physical basis of the Lord's work and glory, bringing about the immortality and eternal life of man: "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." All to do with the atonement of our meat (the resurrected body of gods) with our milk (the pre-mortal spirits of gods).

[thesometimesaint]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My insurance guy is the one that is trying to get my husband and I to go to a bible church nearby. I got as far as the parking lot and got right back in my car and drove home.

He is former LDS and thinks it's his job to save our souls. Sad thing is, I keep wondering if he's right. He keeps saying the Lord is working on me. 

But I'm sooo LDS in my being, it would be a very difficult thing to do. But what if that's the kind of test God gives people. Having such a wonderful church that is superior to others in it's organization, service opportunities, youth programs, social functions etc. And that it asks for a lot of sacrifice on our part. And provides a beautiful plan of salvation I guess, since it has a kingdom for everyone, and most will never go to hell. Would God be so callous?

And maybe I'm not suppose to think I'll have the chance to become a Goddess. According to most faiths, that is not what God wants. But I know there are places in the bible that say we will be Gods, but that is the lower "g".

Thanks for your time MF! And btw, I'm obsessed also, and very weird. What would I do without this board of wonderful people who give me the time of day! 

 

SEE John 17

[theplains]

On 25/09/2016 at 4:52 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The opinions and speculations of the Brethren expressed during a general conference are not necessarily the official doctrine of the LDS Church.  They might be if they can be backed up by already extant Scripture.  Otherwise, one must receive a witness of the truth via the Holy Spirit.  That leaves a lot of room for interpretation and suggestion.

It seems they received a witness of the truth when they spoke those words at the conference. Unless what they
said to the audience was a lie.

Jim

[theplains]

On 25/09/2016 at 5:29 PM, Rivers said:

Good question. Hadn't thought through that. 

General Conference gives us the marching orders we need right now.  So I guess the further back you go, General Conference becomes less official.

I think Boyd K Packer summed it up pretty well ... "It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true"
(1977 speech - Follow the Rule).

Thanks,
Jim
 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/25/2016 at 5:25 PM, Flexible said:

Both Adam/God and the reasons for Blacks not receiving the Priesthood were taught as established doctrine over the pulpit in General Conference, in official church publications and in the temple for decades.  Yes Orson Pratt publicly opposed A/G but was silenced and put in his place. I am not aware of any GAs who publicly disagreed with the doctrine on Blacks and the Priesthood. I'm sure there were some. And rank and file members who were brave enough to do so were marginalized in our "Follow the Prophet He Knows the Way" culture for questioning the Lord's anointed. 

Really can you honestly wonder why members feel deceived when they learn the types of historical facts you've mentioned above. Our culture does not teach us to receive the teachings of our prophets and apostles with healthy skepticism. We're taught to receive them as if they come from the Lord. 

But now we're learning that making doctrine is like making sausage-better not to know the details behind it!  This should not be a faith-destroying discovery for anyone.  

But it is because 99% of church members cannot handle the nuances of prophetic fallibility.  A lot of the blame for that falls on the church and the way it teaches the membership from infancy to follow their prophets with reverence and exactness  

I agree with Patrick Mason that the church needs a new theology of prophets--one that brings them down to earth a little and is honest about prophetic fallibility  

The church has created a big problem for itself.  

This is precisely what the Tanners always did, and that you are doing here:  Puff up opinions which are not doctrine, and then try to pass them off as doctrine.  Then, when caught falsifying history, switch to admitting that prophets are not infallible, but falsely stating that 99% of church members don't understand that.  Finally, falsify what Patrick Mason said -- instead of quoting him in context.  Nice job.  It's called the blame game, and is based on a whole sequence of flexible, but false premises.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 9/25/2016 at 5:34 PM, Flexible said:

Here's a verse from Ephesians (4:4) that we like to use in the church to celebrate the clarity and certainty that come from having living prophets:

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;"

The church's hiding of BYs A/G, Blood Atonement, and race teachings don't seem to live by the spirit of this verse. 

Certainly not in the spirit of Jerald & Sandra Tanner, who have always lain in wait to deceive -- as you are doing here.

[Robert F. Smith]

17 minutes ago, theplains said:

It seems they received a witness of the truth when they spoke those words at the conference. Unless what they
said to the audience was a lie.

Jim

In LDS theology, any opinion issued by one of the Brethren is merely an opinion, until verified by the Holy Spirit, or until it becomes a formal part of the scriptural canon.  LDS prophets are never infallible.  Joseph Smith pointed out that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."  Brigham Young went into more detail:

Quote

“…I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not…”  Young in Journal of Discourses, IX:150.

Young regularly made such statements, as you no doubt already know -- which makes me wonder why you would make the above false statement, Jim.

[theplains]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In LDS theology, any opinion issued by one of the Brethren is merely an opinion, until verified by the Holy Spirit, or until it becomes a formal part of the scriptural canon.  LDS prophets are never infallible.  Joseph Smith pointed out that "a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."  Brigham Young went into more detail:

Young regularly made such statements, as you no doubt already know -- which makes me wonder why you would make the above false statement, Jim.

It seems like LDS use the same line of reasoning as Jehovah's Witnesses to deflect some present or past
teachings of their elders/apostles.

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, theplains said:

It seems like LDS use the same line of reasoning as Jehovah's Witnesses to deflect some present or past
teachings of their elders/apostles.

Jim

Could you give me an example of that, please, Jim.

[Flexible]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is precisely what the Tanners always did, and that you are doing here:  Puff up opinions which are not doctrine, and then try to pass them off as doctrine.  Then, when caught falsifying history, switch to admitting that prophets are not infallible, but falsely stating that 99% of church members don't understand that.  Finally, falsify what Patrick Mason said -- instead of quoting him in context.  Nice job.  It's called the blame game, and is based on a whole sequence of flexible, but false premises.

Are you really saying that BY did not consider A/G as doctrine?  Would BY agree with you on that?  I don't think so. Do you believe that he had A/G include included in the lecture at the veil knowing it was just his opinion?  That certainly makes him look la bit tyrannical doesn't it?  Again, 99% of church members would be shocked at what you're saying. By the way, I base the 99% figure on Elder Snow's comment that 99% of church members won't ever read the Essays because they don't care about these things. 

And if it was just BY's opinion, why has the church gone to such lengths to hide it?  You should listen to the Bill Reel podcast that documents so well the subterfuge the church has engaged in to hide it. And why would Pres  Kimball and Elder McConkie publicly denounce it as heresy if it's just his opinion?  

And if you listen to Bill Reel's interview of Patrick Mason on his website you will see I did not misrepresent him regarding his belief that a new theology of prophets is needed  

Please listen to both of these excellent podcasts on Bill's website  

 

 

[Darren10]

On September 24, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Tacenda said:

Yes, and I had no idea as an 8 year old or a nearly 48 year old the extent of our doctrine.

So this isn't what the LDS church leaders believe? Or we don't even have a clear idea from these leaders?

We don't have an edge over other churches out there, since we have living prophets and apostles? 

Calm, am I to understand that the temple ordinances are not Adam-God driven?

Boy, I'm confused. 

I could care less what the Church leaders believe. I care about what they teach from the pulpit. I care that they guide me to Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ to exaltation. I care that they lead me to do good, become better, and serve my Savior and serve others. Whatever LDS leaders oersonally thought about Adam-God theory have no bearing whatsoever on any of these things. 

[JulieM]

5 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I could care less what the Church leaders believe. I care about what they teach from the pulpit.  

Say what?

Don't you want them to honestly teach what they believe?  

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

It seems they received a witness of the truth when they spoke those words at the conference. Unless what they
said to the audience was a lie.

Jim

What is important is YOUR personal revelation not theirs.

I don't care if they are lying or not, I have my own personal testimony 

[Robert F. Smith]

38 minutes ago, Flexible said:

Are you really saying that BY did not consider A/G as doctrine?  Would BY agree with you on that?  I don't think so. Do you believe that he had A/G include included in the lecture at the veil knowing it was just his opinion?  That certainly makes him look la bit tyrannical doesn't it?  Again, 99% of church members would be shocked at what you're saying. By the way, I base the 99% figure on Elder Snow's comment that 99% of church members won't ever read the Essays because they don't care about these things. 

Trying to back up your false claim that 99% of LDS Church members don't understand that prophets are fallible, you are indeed desperate -- claiming an offhand remark proves your point (by someone on the likelihood that the essays on Gospel topics don't matter to them).  Where is the scientific poll showing that a random sampling of LDS members in fact have that opinion?  Your flexible, by-gosh-and-by-golly approach is the sort of nonsense purveyed by 99% of anti-Mormons.  

38 minutes ago, Flexible said:

And if it was just BY's opinion, why has the church gone to such lengths to hide it?  You should listen to the Bill Reel podcast that documents so well the subterfuge the church has engaged in to hide it. And why would Pres  Kimball and Elder McConkie publicly denounce it as heresy if it's just his opinion?

Interesting to hear that Kimball and McConkie agree with Orson Pratt and consider it heresy, but it has never been hidden.  The Journal of Discourses has long been in print and these issues readily available.

38 minutes ago, Flexible said:

And if you listen to Bill Reel's interview of Patrick Mason on his website you will see I did not misrepresent him regarding his belief that a new theology of prophets is needed  

Please listen to both of these excellent podcasts on Bill's website  

I have heard Mason speak at the FairMormon conference, and have read his opinions.  We have even discussed them on this board.  However, as I already emphasized for you:  You need to actually quote him rather than foisting your own false opinions upon us in the guise of his views.  I know that you like to be flexible, but that is just another anti-Mormon ploy which you ought to stay away from.  Again, quote Mason in full and in context.  I already agree with Mason's actual views, not with your inaccurate version.

[Darren10]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Say what?

Don't you want them to honestly teach what they believe?  

What was so dishonest in the Adam-God theory?

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, Flexible said:

Are you really saying that BY did not consider A/G as doctrine?...Again, 99% of church members would be shocked at what you're saying....

If I may interject, perhaps the only thing that some might find slightly odd about all this is the assertion that any member should/would get shocked *either* about a relationship between Adam (made in the image of God) and God, *or* over what some outside the LDS faith choose to make of such things.

1. Several times in LDS scripture, it is clearly stated that Adam is Michael. (A=B)
2. Most scriptural commentaries (both Jewish and Christian) readily provides the next key elements, clarifying what the name/term/title Michael means/signifies. (B=C)
3. (I'll let those familiar with the transitive property arrive at the final step at their own pace.)

Basically, there is extensive consistency within the LDS canon (OT, NT, Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price) for the main kernel of thought in question, a reiteration of the same principle, again and again, from various vantage points. For LDS, there is also brief temple instruction that could/should be helpful.

Edited September 27, 2016 by notHagoth7