Understanding Adam-God

[JLHPROF]

30 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Interesting, do you go to church on Sundays? f you do, do you express your opinion?

Yes I go to Church and no I don't express my beliefs at Church, because that would inappropriate.
There is no requirement that every Church member believe and understand the gospel 100% the same way.
But there is a common sense and courtesy requirement that it would be wrong to violate in spouting off in meetings with beliefs contrary to the orthodox.  If God wants to correct the doctrine of the Church he will have a little word with his leaders, not me.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, co-eternal said:

I have taught only what Joseph and Brigham Have taught. I have provide many many many quotes.

You haven't shown me where Joseph taught it as Brigham taught it.

2 hours ago, co-eternal said:

I have repeatedly said, go and get it from the same place they did.

What source is that I should go to exactly?  Ahman (God), or Sons Ahman (man - Adam).  I certainly don't want to pray to a false idol. 

[pogi]

3 hours ago, co-eternal said:

“I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.” says Joseph Smith (History of the Church, 6:477; from a discourse given by Joseph Smith on June 16, 1844, in Nauvoo, Illinois, Grove East of Temple; reported by Thomas Bullock)

.....(Excerpts from the King Follet Discourse, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pg. 345-348)

I asked for direct source material from Joseph Smith teaching Adam-God as Brigham taught it, and this is what you bring me?  

Why did you waste my time with 10 pages of unrelated quotes.  Many of those quotes were from Prophets and apostles who have condemned the Adam-God doctrine like Packer and Joseph F. Smith, etc.  

It was obviously plagiarized material.  I don't even think you read it all because it had arguments against Adam-God.  For example, I found this part particularly interesting:

Quote

"Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: 'There comes the greatest man who ever lived to teach the identity of God to the world, and he will yet lead this people.'"
- Elder Charles L. Walker, The Diary of Charles L. Walker, Sept. 1832, p. 134

Note: The above quote appears to be a misquote and the original reference has disappeared. This is likely the correct version and doesn't say anything about the nature of God.

Br Levi W Hancock bore his testimony to the living Oracles of God. Said in the early rise of the church he lived two years with the Prophet Joseph, and one day he was chopping a Beech log with Joseph and saw Br Brigham for the first time. Joseph remarked to him before Brigham came within hearing "There is the greatest man that ever lived to teach redem[p]tion to the world and will yet lead this People.
(2 Diary of Charles Lowell Walker 422 (13 May 1876))

Somehow I doubt that you wrote those words in bold.  This is an example of people manipulating and twisting Joseph Smith's words to pretend like he taught the Adam God theory.  He didn't! At least you have failed to supply his words anyway. Once again. 

Edited December 8, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If God wants to correct the doctrine of the Church he will have a little word with his leaders, not me.

He already did   

[co-eternal]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

You haven't shown me where Joseph taught it as Brigham taught it.

What source is that I should go to exactly?  Ahman (God), or Sons Ahman (man - Adam).  I certainly don't want to pray to a false idol. 

Mockery is unbecoming. Still being OFFENSIVE.

On tue 3:05 PM and 3:22 PM I gave many quotes of others telling what Joseph taught.

Edited December 8, 2017 by co-eternal
addition

[co-eternal]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I asked for direct source material from Joseph Smith teaching Adam-God as Brigham taught it, and this is what you bring me?  

Why did you waste my time with 10 pages of unrelated quotes.  Many of those quotes were from Prophets and apostles who have condemned the Adam-God doctrine like Packer and Joseph F. Smith, etc.  

It was obviously plagiarized material.  I don't even think you read it all because it had arguments against Adam-God.  For example, I found this part particularly interesting:

Somehow I doubt that you wrote those words in bold.  This is an example of people manipulating and twisting Joseph Smith's words to pretend like he taught the Adam God theory.  He didn't! At least you have failed to supply his words anyway. Once again. 

And you have failed to be civil once again.

I read every single one of them.

How is it that Attributed quotes are plagiarized.

I've read every single one of them, many many many times. I have gathered multiple copies of many of the quotes and chose out of them for various reasons.

I am not trying to hide anything, including that some quotes may not be valid and labeled as such, and still you complain.

There is not much directly from Joseph but there is some. But there is much where others tell us what he taught. I suppose, to many,  they are liars.

I don't know who did it but that was very inappropriate to attach something directly to my post. The post did not violate the rules as I understand them and I never claimed ownership of the clearly attributed quotes. Yes, They have come from various places on the web, thet did not come from the original source. But they are from many places and they are not whole sale cut and pastes of complete sites or pages. And I never claimed to be the sole source of them or ownership of any kind.

How quickly this became ad hominem.

[Calm]

Co-eternal, are you Scott Woodward?  Part of your quotes includes quotes from his site, including underlining.  The quote pogi mentions above is from the MormonThink site.  Are you the author of that?

I am thinking not, though I like to check because in one case of massive quote dumps, it did turn out to be the site owner who was posting.

If you are not Scott Woodward or the MormonThink guy, by copy/ pasting their work (collection and editing of the quotes), you have (I am assuming unintentionally) committed plagiarism, even if you are not dumping whole pages of their work.  This type of referencing is against board rules.  It is not just original authors you need to reference, but most secondary sources (the rare exception being only one well known quote in its original form with no editing or punctuation changes like italics or capitals, ellipses; if it has been altered at all, it includes the work of the secondary source so that must be cited).  

 You need to give credit to those who have done the work even if they aren't the original source of a quote (if there is only one quote that is well known and commonly quoted, such as the Lorenzo Snow quote you start out with, that is one thing; however, as soon as you go to using quote collections, which is two or more quotes, or not commonly reported quotes, you are borrowing someone's work product without acknowledgement).  Secondary sources are best linked to, but if you were to use standard citation for secondary sources because you're not interested in keeping links, just the quotes, I can't see anyone having a problem with that (see here for the standard:  http://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/referencingplagiarism/secondarysources )  

If you have collected them in the past and don't have the secondary citations now available, best not to use your collection of collections and instead just look for new citations of a few of your favorite quotes and properly cite them,

Many newcomers to the board are not aware of this board rule, it is not a standard on most boards, but requiring references to support claims helps improve the quality of arguments (as in debates) as well as educate those interested so moderators have chosen to require them for claims of fact when asked for and it is only common courtesy to acknowledge people's work.  It can seem like a lot of work, but it really improves the conversation imo.  And for me, it demonstrates that people care about how they teach/share information as well as what they teach and being a good example of courtesy and respect for others is a great way to teach "love thy neighbor" (no citation needed for commonly used short phrases  ).

One can be banned for just copy/ pasting others' materials/work product without attribution, which is why I have taken your time to explain the rule to you.  I would suggest you go back and edit your list to include the sources you got them from so the board moderators know plagiarizing is not your intent.

PS:  mods on occasion will give warnings by adding a comment in red to your post, as they have done in this case.  If that is the attachment you are concerned about, you need to be concerned about it for another reason.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Calm

[pogi]

11 hours ago, co-eternal said:

Mockery is unbecoming. Still being OFFENSIVE.

I am making a point with a little banter.  It is a fair question though if you are suggesting that I should pray.  Who should I pray to?  Ahman (God), or Sons Ahman (man -Adam)?  Also, I am only mirroring what you are dishing out.  You have ridiculed and belittled people on here for "not believing Joseph", but you have failed to supply any quotes from Joseph himself.  You have insulted by calling others "damned presumptuous" because they don't believe that he taught Adam-God.  By so doing, you are unwittingly demeaning modern day prophets and apostles who also deny that Joseph taught it and denounce the doctrine.  There are only 3 prophets who have clearly believed and taught Adam-God doctrine, the rest have denied it. 

 You have even ridiculed and belittled the beliefs of those who supported your argument originally (calling their supporting arguments "philosophical nonsense") and have now turned against you because of your tone and deaf ear to their support.  I am simply pointing this out that you might understand that you are not a victim, you are only getting back what you are dishing out.  You are coming off as super self-righteous and demeaning anyone who disagrees with you. 

11 hours ago, co-eternal said:

On tue 3:05 PM and 3:22 PM I gave many quotes of others telling what Joseph taught.

Nope, you gave 1 quote from B.Y and 1 quote from W.W. at 3:05. PM which claim that what they are teaching came from J.S. but there is no evidence of that other than their word.  We don't know if they misunderstood him or if they are attributing it to J.S. to gain support of their theory.  They are human after all.  The fact is, there is no first hand source showing that J.S. ever taught Adam-God like W.W. and B.Y taught. 

The quote from Heber C. Kimball about Joseph's dream has nothing to do with Adam God theory.  It is about the patriarch of man conducting his descendants to the throne of God to be judged of God.  This is a perfect example of someone misinterpreting and twisting Joseph's words into something they are not, so that they can claim that Joseph taught Adam-God.  

All your quotes at 3:22 have nothing to do with Adam-God, except for a couple at the end which are not attributed to Joseph Smith.  You say that we are "damned presumptuous" but I find it highly presumptuous to assume that Joseph was referring to the Adam-God doctrine when he taught that he had knowledge of truths that would not be acceptable to the saints.  If I had to guess, he was thinking more about polygamy, which he was practicing and hiding from the body of the saints.  That is much more likely, because we knew that he was practicing it, and we know that he was hesitant to reveal it to the saints.   

 

Edited December 8, 2017 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, co-eternal said:

I don't know who did it but that was very inappropriate to attach something directly to my post. The post did not violate the rules as I understand them and I never claimed ownership of the clearly attributed quotes.

That would be the moderators.
And they get to decide what is appropriate on their board.

You and I happen to share some beliefs concerning Adam-God, but you aren't exactly making a persuasive argument here.  And quote flooding doesn't help.
There is no historical evidence Joseph ever taught Adam-God, although there may be evidence he was moving in that direction and that his final teachings were elaborated on by Brigham.
At this point in history I think the best we can hope for concerning Adam-God is to look at EXACTLY what Brigham taught and decide for ourselves.  
Speculation beyond that or attributing doctrines to Joseph that he never taught doesn't help make a case.

[co-eternal]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That would be the moderators.
And they get to decide what is appropriate on their board.

You and I happen to share some beliefs concerning Adam-God, but you aren't exactly making a persuasive argument here.  And quote flooding doesn't help.
There is no historical evidence Joseph ever taught Adam-God, although there may be evidence he was moving in that direction and that his final teachings were elaborated on by Brigham.
At this point in history I think the best we can hope for concerning Adam-God is to look at EXACTLY what Brigham taught and decide for ourselves.  
Speculation beyond that or attributing doctrines to Joseph that he never taught doesn't help make a case.

That is my frustration, I present historical proof that Joseph did teach that Adam is Christs Father and it is still asserted over add over So I present massive proof of it and am "warned" and "criticized" and yet still the assertion that there is no historical proof. Just stunning ...

So Brigham, et al,  was not telling the truth when he said Joseph taught that Adam was the Father of our spirits and the Father of Christ?

I did not come to this forum to debate Adam's Identity but had to contribute 25 postings before I could ask my own questions.

But I have come to the  conclusion that will be fruitless.

I'm having a hard time convincing myself that there is any value here because there is so little value placed on the words of the prophets of the restoration, true messengers from the Father.

[JLHPROF]

14 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

That is my frustration, I present historical proof that Joseph did teach that Adam is Christs Father and it is still asserted over add over So I present massive proof of it and am "warned" and "criticized" and yet still the assertion that there is no historical proof. Just stunning ...

Provide one quote, just one, recorded during Joseph's lifetime that he taught that Adam is Christ's Father?  Under board rules this is a CFR and you must provide it or retract the claim.  Brigham claiming it after the fact is not the same.  (And remember, I agree with you that Adam-God is a true doctrine - but we must be intellectually honest).

Quote

So Brigham, et al,  was not telling the truth when he said Joseph taught that Adam was the Father of our spirits and the Father of Christ?
I did not come to this forum to debate Adam's Identity but had to contribute 25 postings before I could ask my own questions.

Brigham was doing what Brigham did so very well.  Hyperbole.  He was an expert.
I believe he was giving true doctrine when he taught Adam-God.  I believe he elaborated on the idea from Joseph's teachings and Joseph was moving towards that doctrine.
I don't believe I have every seen a single record of actually Joseph teaching it.

Quote

But I have come to the  conclusion that will be fruitless.

I'm having a hard time convincing myself that there is any value here because there is so little value placed on the words of the prophets of the restoration, true messengers from the Father.

Don't pout.  If you came here thinking you wouldn't be strongly challenged to back up any doctrinal statements you were misinformed.  It doesn't matter if you are a member, a critic, an evangelical, a catholic.  All opinions are welcome, but they have to have some real backing.
 

[longview]

On 12/6/2017 at 12:28 PM, longview said:

What you are saying is that Adam and Eve were already Celestial Resurrected Beings who willingly corrupted their bodies in order to birth earthly babies?  Were they Adam Senior and Eve Senior?  They were not subject to death as a result of their transformation?  Their resurrected bodies never to be divided at any point?

 

On 12/6/2017 at 1:40 PM, co-eternal said:

Adam Jr. Eve Jr. are figments of imaginations from the Mind of Eldon Watson with no evidence in either scripture or revelation. 

Yes, Adam and Eve came to this telestial earth with Immortal Celestial bodies of flesh and bone, there bodies being quickened by a finer spirit fluid. As they partook of the fruits of this telestial earth containing the seeds of sin and death, that finer fluid was replaced by blood containing the elements of this telestial earth and the seeds of sin and death. This brought about the fall of the world, the mortality of their children, born onto a telestial earth and into a telestial world.

The offspring of Adam and Eve, begotten of Adam, birthed of Eve are Cain, Able, and many many more., all mortal.

 

On 12/6/2017 at 1:51 PM, JLHPROF said:

Yes.  Exactly.
Just as shown at the end of the endowment when all those of us who are considered to be Adams and Eves leave the Celestial environment with the commission to multiply and replenish the earth, remove our glory (robes) and descend from the Celestial realm back into the lone and dreary world to provide bodies for our posterity.

We are living the pattern right now.

Are both of you (co-eternal and JLHPROF) saying that Adam/Eve did not age and die during their earthly sojourn (900 years)?   This would be an unacceptable twist to the scriptures, not only in Genesis but in ALL the standard works.

Why are you unable to believe in God's power to command the elements?  If Jesus had the ability to simply say words:  "Peace be still" and the raging storm would instantly become serene over the Sea of Galilee (see Mark 4:39).  I consider God to be perfectly capable of speaking the Word and causing the dust to come together to form man.

Jacob 4:9 For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?   (see me signature block below)

Edited December 9, 2017 by longview

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Provide one quote, just one, recorded during Joseph's lifetime that he taught that Adam is Christ's Father?  Under board rules this is a CFR and you must provide it or retract the claim.  Brigham claiming it after the fact is not the same.  (And remember, I agree with you that Adam-God is a true doctrine - but we must be intellectually honest).

Brigham was doing what Brigham did so very well.  Hyperbole.  He was an expert.
I believe he was giving true doctrine when he taught Adam-God.  I believe he elaborated on the idea from Joseph's teachings and Joseph was moving towards that doctrine.
I don't believe I have every seen a single record of actually Joseph teaching it.

Don't pout.  If you came here thinking you wouldn't be strongly challenged to back up any doctrinal statements you were misinformed.  It doesn't matter if you are a member, a critic, an evangelical, a catholic.  All opinions are welcome, but they have to have some real backing.
 

Exactly why I see no value in this forum, Brigham's, and John's, and Wilford's words have no value here.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT JOSEPH TAUGHT THAT ADAM WAS JESUS' FATHER AND THE BOARD CAN NOT FORCE ME TO RETRACT THAT.

AND IF I AM BANNED, THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT ALLOWED HERE.

And you have no proof of any "hyperbole", where is your reference on that?

Edited December 9, 2017 by co-eternal

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Exactly why I see no value in this forum, Brigham's, and John's, and Wilford's words have no value here.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT JOSEPH TAUGHT THAT ADAM WAS JESUS' FATHER AND THE BOARD CAN NOT FORCE ME TO RETRACT THAT.

AND IF I AM BANNED, THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT ALLOWED HERE.

And you have no proof of any "hyperbole", where is your reference on that?

Are you suggesting that every word from every prophet is “truth”?

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that if we don’t accept every word of a prophet that their words “have no value” to us.  I could just as easily accuse you of giving no value to the words of the vast majority of Mormon prophets who clearly and unequivocally denounce the Adam-God theory.  And I don’t need to rely on hearsay to show you their actual teachings either.  Do you see how one-sided and unfair you are being?

Just curious, do you openly teach the Adam-God theory at church?  How long do you think that you could get away with openly teaching and testifying of the Adam-God theory without getting “banned” from doing so?  Would you also then conclude that “the truth is not allowed” in Church because you were banned?

No, it is not obvious that Joseph taught Adam-God.  You have succumbed to hearsay and blindly dismiss scholarship.  If it is so obvious, why don’t scholars and modern prophets believe it?  Are you accusing them of stupidity and blindness in the face of the “obvious”.  It is not even obvious to those who believe in the Adam-God theory as you do.  I guess everyone is intellectually dishonest but you, right?

Edited December 9, 2017 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

53 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Exactly why I see no value in this forum, Brigham's, and John's, and Wilford's words have no value here.

IT IS OBVIOUS THAT JOSEPH TAUGHT THAT ADAM WAS JESUS' FATHER AND THE BOARD CAN NOT FORCE ME TO RETRACT THAT.

AND IF I AM BANNED, THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT ALLOWED HERE.

And you have no proof of any "hyperbole", where is your reference on that?

No. You would be banned  for preaching instead of discussing like so many before you.  Truth is welcome.  Opinion without reference isn't truth.

 Your truth without reference is no better than the regular stream of sagebrush prophets, Church critics, and hellfire evangelicals that stop by from time to time to put everyone in order to their view.

[co-eternal]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you suggesting that every word from every prophet is “truth”?

It is a false dichotomy to suggest that if we don’t accept every word of a prophet that their words “have no value” to us.  I could just as easily accuse you of giving no value to the words of the vast majority of Mormon prophets who clearly and unequivocally denounce the Adam-God theory.  And I don’t need to rely on hearsay to show you their actual teachings either.  Do you see how one-sided and unfair you are being?

Just curious, do you openly teach the Adam-God theory at church?  How long do you think that you could get away with openly teaching and testifying of the Adam-God theory without getting “banned” from doing so?  Would you also then conclude that “the truth is not allowed” in Church because you were banned?

No, it is not obvious that Joseph taught Adam-God.  You have succumbed to hearsay and blindly dismiss scholarship.  If it is so obvious, why don’t modern prophets believe it?  Are you accusing them of stupidity and blindness in the face of the “obvious”.  It is not even obvious to those who believe in the Adam-God theory as you do.  I guess everyone is intellectually dishonest but you, right?

Talk about hyperbole...., your first two paragraphs - hyperbole, dishonest to imply that I said that - dishonest hyperbole.

However, it is recorded in the JoD that Brigham did say something along that line concerning his sermons, but that is not a direct statement from Brigham, it is only Bro. Watt saying that Brigham said that.

The charge was that there is no historical evidence that Joseph taught that Adam is God the Father. So, If there happened to be a quote of Joseph saying that, say one that Bro. Nuttal recorded, then that would be historical proof right?. But it would not be a direct statement from Joseph, it is still Bro. Nuttal telling us what he believes Joseph said. So how is that any different from Brigham telling us what Joseph said, or John, or Wilford? That is "intellectually dishonest" to say that that there is a meaningful difference. For that matter, all the canon  of scripture is complete hearsay and it would then be "intellectually dishonest" to say that there is historical proof that Jesus ever lived.

I will say it again, go and get it from where Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, ... and eventually even Orsen Pratt got it. Everything else is just "intellectual nonsense".

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Talk about hyperbole...., your first two paragraphs - hyperbole, dishonest to imply that I said that - dishonest hyperbole.

However, it is recorded in the JoD that Brigham did say something along that line concerning his sermons, but that is not a direct statement from Brigham, it is only Bro. Watt saying that Brigham said that.

The charge was that there is no historical evidence that Joseph taught that Adam is God the Father. So, If there happened to be a quote of Joseph saying that, say one that Bro. Nuttal recorded, then that would be historical proof right?. But it would not be a direct statement from Joseph, it is still Bro. Nuttal telling us what he believes Joseph said. So how is that any different from Brigham telling us what Joseph said, or John, or Wilford? That is "intellectually dishonest" to say that that there is a meaningful difference. For that matter, all the canon  of scripture is complete hearsay and it would then be "intellectually dishonest" to say that there is historical proof that Jesus ever lived.

I will say it again, go and get it from where Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, ... and eventually even Orsen Pratt got it. Everything else is just "intellectual nonsense".

There is a difference between “proof” and “evidence”.   For example, there is no historical “proof” that Joseph taught Adam-God, but there is evidence.  We then have to evaluate the quality of that evidence.  You seem to understand that second hand sources are not solid evidence of historical events.  You even imply that in your reply when you said “..it is only Bro Watt saying that Brigham said that.”  See, you get it!

It is not solid evidence because we don’t have Joseph’s words to compare against what Brigham taught.  Is it possible that Brigham took some things out of context, or is it possible that their memory of events many years later were fuzzy?  When we want to believe something so bad, our memories can play tricks on us.  Why aren’t there any contemporary journal entries or writings of BY or WW during JS’s life that shows that he taught these things while he was alive?  All teaching, writings, and memories only show up much later after his death.  This is very, very weak evidence.  If they had written these teachings down while JS was still alive, that would be much stronger evidence that JS actually said these things (though it would still be second hand source).  But when they are relying on distant memories and interpretations of those memories, that’s when things get fuzzy and weak.

A simple example: tonight (no joke) my wife told me a story, not realizing that I was the one who told her the story in the first place.  She got several of the details wrong and didn’t even remember who the original source of the story was.  Memories can’t always be trusted.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by pogi

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Talk about hyperbole...., your first two paragraphs - hyperbole, dishonest to imply that I said that - dishonest hyperbole.

Not hyperbole or dishonest.  You. actually claimed that “Brigham’s, and John’s, and Wilford’s words have no value here.”

Wouldnt you think it offensive for me to insist that the words of modern prophets are of no value to you?  

That simply is not true.  They have value, I just don’t accept all of them, just like you don’t accept all of the words of modern prophets.

Why are their words more valuable than those of modern prophets anyway?  

[co-eternal]

45 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not hyperbole or dishonest.  You. actually claimed that “Brigham’s, and John’s, and Wilford’s words have no value here.”

Wouldnt you think it offensive for me to insist that the words of modern prophets are of no value to you?  

That simply is not true.  They have value, I just don’t accept all of them, just like you don’t accept all of the words of modern prophets.

Why are their words more valuable than those of modern prophets anyway?  

Show me where I said I don't accept the words of modern prophets, quote me on that will you. Where is that reference?

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Show me where I said I don't accept the words of modern prophets, quote me on that will you. Where is that reference?

Do you accept the words of modern prophets when they denounce the Adam-God theory?

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 just like you don’t accept all of the words of modern prophets.

Were is the reference. You've  made an accusation, back it up.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Were is the reference. You've  made an accusation, back it up.

Please could you explain what you think of modern prophets who disavow Adam-God beliefs.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Were is the reference. You've  made an accusation, back it up.

Are you serious? This is getting ridiculous!  Your acceptance of Adam-God theory is the reference.

You cannot, with intellectual integrity and honesty, pretend to accept teachings for it and against it.  They are irreconcilable.

Edited December 9, 2017 by pogi

[clarkgoble]

On 12/6/2017 at 1:40 PM, co-eternal said:

Adam Jr. Eve Jr. are figments of imaginations from the Mind of Eldon Watson with no evidence in either scripture or revelation. 

Yes, Adam and Eve came to this telestial earth with Immortal Celestial bodies of flesh and bone, there bodies being quickened by a finer spirit fluid. As they partook of the fruits of this telestial earth containing the seeds of sin and death, that finer fluid was replaced by blood containing the elements of this telestial earth and the seeds of sin and death. This brought about the fall of the world, the mortality of their children, born onto a telestial earth and into a telestial world.

The offspring of Adam and Eve, begotten of Adam, birthed of Eve are Cain, Able, and many many more., all mortal.

I've been staying out of this as there hasn't really been a lot of argument tied to source and grappling with sources that don't fit ones model. When that goes on discussion tends to be pointless. I did keep meaning to address the above though. I've no idea where Elden Watson came up with his ideas, so I'll not address that. However the broader idea of two Adams is fairly natural given the two creation accounts.

You have man created in Genesis 1:27 then you have a creation of man in Genesis 2:7. So that's two Adams and was frequently interpreted as that in antiquity. I'm not saying Brigham didn't have his own view of that. Just that it was hardly the only view. Many have noted that the JST creates a transition between the two creation accounts that parallels Philo with Moses 3:4-5. Philo says that the Adam of Genesis 1 was God's logos and the "eldest born image of God" (De confusion Linguarum 62-63) The parallels to Christ are obvious of course, especially from a Mormon perspective. The Adam of Genesis 1 is the true man (although Philo means this platonically) Philo here has some parallels to the Metatron tradition as well (where Enoch ascends to heaven and becomes the lesser YHWH). 2 Enoch in particular has this as the heavenly Adam who is almost like a platonic demiurge and is above the angels. By the time of Jewish Kabbalism this becomes the heavenly Adam or Adam Kadmon. All the traditions then separate the heavenly adam from the earthly Adam who, unlike the heavenly Adam, was made of dust.

It's worth noting that the Enochian literature and Merkabah/Hekhalot literature is also closest to the Mormon idea of the endowment which is of course rather tied to the whole Adam/God mess to say the least.

So we have prior to Christ a tradition of a first born figure who is the Logos/Demiurge even if primarily seen in Platonic terms. Christ as the second Adam takes up similar imagery and is even called the second Adam in 1 Cor 15:45 and takes up the Logos identification in John. However the point is that there already was the tradition of a second Adam that was then applied to Christ. Outside of Philo (which many don't see as the basis of Paul's second Adam) there's rabbinical tradition of two Adams.

Note that Philo explicitly sees there being two Adams. Quoting from Allegorical Interpretation. 31 both Adams are in the garden at the same time.
 

Quote

 

“And God created man, taking a lump of clay from the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life: and man became a living soul.” The races of men are twofold; for one is the heavenly man, and the other the earthly man. Now the heavenly man, as being born in the image of God, has no participation in any corruptible or earthlike essence. But the earthly man is made of loose material, which he calls a lump of clay. On which account he says, not that the heavenly man was made, but that he was fashioned according to the image of God; but the earthly man he calls a thing made, and not begotten by the maker.

“And the man whom he had formed,” Moses says, “God placed in the Paradise,” for the present only. Who, then, is he in reference to whom he subsequently says that “The Lord God took the man whom he had formed, and placed him in the Paradise to cultivate it and to guard It.” Must not this man who was created according to the image and idea of God have been a different man from the other, so that two men must have been introduced into the Paradise together, the one a factitious man, and the other modeled after the image of God?

Therefore, he calls that man whom he only places in Paradise, factitious; but him whom he appoints to be its cultivator and guardian he calls not factitious, but “the man whom he had made.” And him he takes, but the other he casts out. And him whom he takes he thinks worthy of three things, of which goodness of nature especially consists: namely, expertness, perseverance, and memory. Now, expertness is his position in Paradise; memory is the guarding and preservation of holy opinions; perseverance is the effecting of what is good, the performance of virtuous actions. But the factitious mind neither remembers what is good, nor does it, but is only expert, and nothing more; on which account, after it has been placed in Paradise, in a short time afterwards it runs away, and is cast out.

 

Again the more Enochian and Merkebah texts are pretty explicit too on the two Adams with one who sits on the throne. The Apocalypse of Abraham is rather clear here. "And Abraham asked the chief-captain, My Lord chief-captain, who is this most marvelous man, adorned with such glory, and sometimes he weeps and laments, and sometimes he rejoices and exults? The incorporeal one said: This is the first-created Adam who is in such glory, and he looks upon the world because all are born from him, "

Interesting there are other things of interest in the various speculations about Adam around the time of Christ. The Life of Adam and Eve (1st century AD) has Satan falling because Adam is the image of God and Satan refuses to worship him. While this clearly comes out of the earlier tradition found in 2 Enoch and other texts, it's interesting how widespread this was. Rather than getting into the later Hekhalot or gnostic texts the earlier texts end up being even more interesting. It appears that this worshipping the visible image of God rather than the hidden God was fine by Jewish monotheism and may well have contributed to the ideas about Jesus. Brill has a whole book on this, Angelmorphic Christology: Antecendents and Early Evidence. Like all Brill books it's ridiculously overpriced. But it's worth checking out for anyone curious. 

Going back to the early post-exilic period you have the rise of the Targums (basically Aramaic loose paraphrases of scripture in some ways analogous to the JST) The most interesting of these are those that deal with The Memra or Word of the Lord. Margaret Barker has done a lot with these that's of interest to Mormons. The Targum for Genesis 1:27 changes the verse into "And the Word [Memra] of the Lord created man in His likeness, in the likeness of the Lord, the Lord created, male and female created He them." The Memra is a mediator between the hidden God and creation. Most of Genesis changes God doing things into this Memra or intermediary doing these things. Again this becomes the heavenly Adam. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[co-eternal]

27 minutes ago, pogi said:

Are you serious? This is getting ridiculous!  Your acceptance of Adam-God theory is the reference.

You cannot, with intellectual integrity and honesty, pretend to accept teachings for it and against it.  They are irreconcilable.

I have not said anything against modern prophets. I know what they said and why they said it. I have said that some of what they said has been misunderstood to mean other than what they said.

I presented a logical argument to support what I have said, you just make claims with no arguments.  And here, you just assert more.