Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Understanding Adam-God

boblloyd91

By boblloyd91
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

If I remember correctly, I believe he copied and pasted a lot of Adam-God related quotes earlier in the thread and he may not want to do it over again.

Nor do I want him to.  None of those quotes expounded on the passages in Moses which states that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of Adam’s God.  I don’t want quotes, I want his interpretation of Moses 5, which aligns perfectly with JS’s teachings about Ahman(God), Son Ahman(Jesus Christ), and Sons Ahman(man-Adam).

Edited by pogi
Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Nor do I want him to.  None of those quotes expounded on the passages in Moses which states that Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten Son of Adam’s God.  I don’t want quotes, I want his interpretation of Moses 5, which aligns perfectly with JS’s teachings about Ahman(God), Son Ahman(Jesus Christ), and Sons Ahman(man-Adam).

Actually those verses identify Christ as the only begotten son of the Lord (Yaweh/Jehovah).  Go figure.

Link to comment
co-eternal Collaborator

co-eternal

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I haven’t seen any modern BYU or CES teachings quoted.  The last I heard professor Eugene England was reprimanded for teaching Adam-God on a church owned facility.

BYU Religion 430 431 student manual

Edited by co-eternal
Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I thought that you believe that Jesus is the Only Begotten of Adam?

I do.  Doesn't change that those verses contradict the current orthodox Church teachings too.

Jehovah (the Lord) declares Jesus Christ to be his only begotten, a sentiment echoed by Joseph Smith who at one point refers to our God Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ.

And Brigham refers to Michael Yahovah.  Clearly there is much more to this than the Church Sunday School interpretation.

Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

That is your opinion, Brigham's (quotes(plural) already provided) is that Adam is Christ's father.

I agree, but those verses should be addressed as they match neither the current Church teachings nor a direct Adam God application.  Can't be ignoring scripture.

So what does it mean that Jehovah calls Jesus his only begotten?

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I do.  Doesn't change that those verses contradict the current orthodox Church teachings too.

Jehovah (the Lord) declares Jesus Christ to be his only begotten, a sentiment echoed by Joseph Smith who at one point refers to our God Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ.

And Brigham refers to Michael Yahovah.  Clearly there is much more to this than the Church Sunday School interpretation.

The Lord, as co-eternal pointed out, is a relative term.  

Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

The Lord, as co-eternal pointed out, is a relative term.  

That's a cop out.  The original Hebrew for Lord all through Genesis/Moses is Jehovah. The Church says that Yaweh/Jehovah is the premortal Christ.

And yet still Yaweh calls Christ his only begotten.

But yes, Eloheim, Jehovah, Adam, Lord, Christ, Eve, etc - all offices held by multiple people.  That is the partial explanation for those verses.

Link to comment
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a cop out.  The original Hebrew for Lord all through Genesis/Moses is Jehovah. The Church says that Yaweh/Jehovah is the premortal Christ.

And yet still Yaweh calls Christ his only begotten.

But yes, Eloheim, Jehovah, Adam, Lord, Christ, Eve, etc - all offices held by multiple people.  That is the partial explanation for those verses.

Not a cop-out.  According to the Bible you are right, but Moses is not in the Bible.  The Bible (Genesis) was not written by Adam, or Moses for that matter.  We don’t know if Moses or Adam would have used the term “the Lord” to only refer to Jehovah.  They may have used it for the Father as well, as evidenced by the Book of Moses.  

There are several possible explanations for why the Father is referred to as “the Lord” in Moses. But unless Adam was talking to himself, there is no way around the fact that Jesus is the Only Begotten of Adam’s God.  

Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not a cop-out.  According to the Bible you are right, but Moses is not in the Bible.  The Bible (Genesis) was not written by Adam, or Moses for that matter.  We don’t know if Moses or Adam would have used the term “the Lord” to only refer to Jehovah.  They may have used it for the Father as well, as evidenced by the Book of Moses.  

There are several possible explanations for why the Father is referred to as “the Lord” in Moses. But unless Adam was talking to himself, there is no way around the fact that Jesus is the Only Begotten of Adam’s God.  

Moses is the JST translation of Genesis, not a different book.  If Lord in Genesis means Yaweh it does in Moses too.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment
co-eternal Collaborator

co-eternal

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree, but those verses should be addressed as they match neither the current Church teachings nor a direct Adam God application.  Can't be ignoring scripture.

So what does it mean that Jehovah calls Jesus his only begotten?

If they are wrong, I most certainly will.

But, in my experience, each and ever apparent disharmony that I have found (other that the hollow toadstool stories of the garden) and have researched, I have found that Joseph/Brigham have explained the error in the scriptures or our error in understanding of the scripture.

This also applies to statements other than scripture, like two from Brigham.

There is a principle, I have thought long and hard on how to effectively teach this principle, but frankly, due to the spirit of this forum, I don't care any more.

But I will teach the principle yet once again.

1)Joseph, Brigham, John, Wilford, George, Orson,  Parley, Orson, et al were/are the Lords anointed. There is no significant evidence that they impaired or compromised in any way (mental, spiritual, intellectual) or that they had any intentions or agendas other than serving the Lord and their fellow man.  And they went to their graves with their testimonies intact.

2)These men knew the scriptures better than most, and in some cases, better than all(except Jesus). And their callings was/is to be prophets, seers, and revelators and as such, had the power to authoritatively clarify, expound, expand, replace, ... scripture.

3)It is far more likely than not that if they said something that appeared to conflict with scripture, that is the purpose for their statements - to clarify, expound, expand, replace, ... scripture.

4)Apparent Conflicts are not necessarily mutually exclusive, it is possible, probable, more likely that the conflict only exists due to our ignorance or lack of understanding.

I do not presume to give any of you advice, primarily because you probably won't take it because I gave it. But it is also not my business.

What I do, in the face of apparent conflicts is not to try to decide which to accept or which to reject, but to see, since both are from good sources) how it could be possible that they are BOTH true. And that IS what I have found in the vast majority of the cases. For the others, I'm still looking but in the preponderance of the evidence, they are not significant to me - a few (perceived) bad trees do not spoil my enjoyment of the magnificent beauty of the most Glorious Forest.

There is a magnificent paper written by Cleon Skousen (The Atonement Talk or The Real Atonement) and the story about how he came to understand this doctrine, to me, is as a significant lesson as the talk it's self. Many times the journey is at least as important as the destination, and Cleon's mentor wisely thought not to take the journey away from Cleon but instead to guide him along that journey. And with his paper, you can take the same journey he did. I am grateful for both the journey and the destination. And the continuation of that same journey trough the doctrine of Adams identity and on to an even more complete and glorious understanding of the target of Cleon's talk.

I never rejected this doctrine but I did not accept it either. That is until it was forced upon me in answers my life long doctrinal questions. I could not fully accept the answers I was given with out accepting this as well, it was one of the Lines in Line upon Line, a prerequisite, a part of  other doctrines that so fully answered ALL of my previous questions (now I have some tougher ones). So I've had my wrestle with it and both of us won. So, if your intent is to prove me wrong, that ain't gonna happen, I know it is true and I know God knows I know it to be true.

I care not to resolve your conflicts. But I would help who I perceive to be an honest traveler on a path I've already walked. I thought that is what I was trying to do but it seams as though all I've done is to raise a spirit on contention, for that I am sorry.

Link to comment
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If Lord in Genesis means Yaweh it does in Moses too.

Not true.  The JST clearly shows that “the Lord” in Genesis is not Jesus Christ.  Therefore, Adam did not only use “the Lord” to refer to Jehovah.  That was the much later and corrupt construct of whoever wrote Genesis.

Link to comment
Bobbieaware Grand Master

Bobbieaware

Posted
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

That's a cop out.  The original Hebrew for Lord all through Genesis/Moses is Jehovah. The Church says that Yaweh/Jehovah is the premortal Christ.

And yet still Yaweh calls Christ his only begotten.

But yes, Eloheim, Jehovah, Adam, Lord, Christ, Eve, etc - all offices held by multiple people.  That is the partial explanation for those verses.

I really believe because the Church leaders have disavowed Adam God, at least for the time being, there is no good reason to debate the issue and try to defend it. Why should rank and file members think it’s a good idea to defend and promulgate Adam-God when the current prophets, seers and revelators who stand at the head of the Church are adamantly unwilling to do so?

 One of the reasons why I think it’s wise to leave this subject alone is because the scriptures that touch on the concept are too ambiguous to sustain one side or the argument or the other. But I must also say that after some serious investigation I believe the scriptures are definitely far less supportive of Adam-God than today’s orthodox position on the Godhead. Here’s a verse (3) that demonstrates the ambiguity of which I speak:

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. (D&C 110)

 

Edited by Bobbieaware
Link to comment
co-eternal Collaborator

co-eternal

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, pogi said:

Board rules require more specifics.  You have to show me the quote or provide a link where I can read it. Include chapter and section etc.

Quote

 

“When Adam came into this world, he was not

 

subject to death. He was immortal. He could have
lived forever. Had he remained in the Garden of
Eden and not transgressed the law that had been
given to him, he and Eve would have been there
yet. . . .
“. . . A dam had not passed through a resurrection
when he was in the Garden of Eden, and
having not passed through a resurrection, spirit
and body could be separated by the violation of
the law. And the Lord provided the law so it could
happen, because the mortal estate in which we
find ourselves is absolutely necessary to our exaltation”
(Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:91). -   Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Religion430 and 431 page 21 column 1 paragraph 1-2

True or False: The Fall was brought to pass by sexual sin.

False. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “The transgression of Adam did not involve sex sin as some falsely believe and teach. Adam and Eve were married by the Lord while they were yet immortal beings in the Garden of Eden and before death entered the world.”[5] - https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-5-number-1-2004/teaching-fall-adam-and-eve

I have given more complete quotes on this subject by "modern" prophets.

Now, do I get the references for which I have asked?

 

 

Link to comment
co-eternal Collaborator

co-eternal

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

I really believe because the Church leaders have disavowed Adam God, at least for the time being, tthere is no good reason to debate the issue and try to defend it. Why should rank and file members think it’s a good idea to defend and promulgate Adam-God when the current prophets, seers and revelators who stand at the head of the Church are adamantly unwilling to do so? One of the reasons why I think it’s wise to leave this subject alone is because the scriptures that touch on the concept are too ambiguous to sustain one side or the argument or the other. But I must also say that after some serious investigation I believe the scriptures are definitely far less supportive of Adam-God pthan today’s orthodox position on the Godhead. Here’s a verse that demonstrates the ambiguity of which I spoke:

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father. (D&C 110)

 

Then why participate in this topic? Why not just ignore it?

Link to comment
pogi Grand Master

pogi

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

subject to death. He was immortal. He could have
lived forever. Had he remained in the Garden of
Eden and not transgressed the law that had been
given to him, he and Eve would have been there
yet. . . .
“. . . A dam had not passed through a resurrection
when he was in the Garden of Eden, and
having not passed through a resurrection, spirit
and body could be separated by the violation of
the law. And the Lord provided the law so it could
happen, because the mortal estate in which we
find ourselves is absolutely necessary to our exaltation”
(Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:91). -   Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual Religion430 and 431 page 21 column 1 paragraph 1-2

True or False: The Fall was brought to pass by sexual sin.

False. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, “The transgression of Adam did not involve sex sin as some falsely believe and teach. Adam and Eve were married by the Lord while they were yet immortal beings in the Garden of Eden and before death entered the world.”[5] - https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-5-number-1-2004/teaching-fall-adam-and-eve

I have given more complete quotes on this subject by "modern" prophets.

Now, do I get the references for which I have asked?

 

 

I haven’t received mine yet.  Where does it say Adam is God?

Link to comment
co-eternal Collaborator

co-eternal

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, pogi said:

I haven’t received mine yet.  Where does it say Adam is God?

Go back and read the original post and see what I actually said.

You continue to miss represent what I said. It is very offensive and I expect an apology on this one.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...