Understanding Adam-God

[Bobbieaware]

25 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

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

In case you haven’t noticed, I am not participating in either defending or condemning the concept. That’s what I’m talking about. Because I respect President Young I’m taking a wait and see attitude. In the meantime, while ignoring the warnings of the present-day prophets, seers and revelators you’ve made up your mind anyway and gone off to battle. At any rate, I believe I’ve said all I want or need to say on this subject so I’ll leave you to your own devices. Have fun...

Edited December 11, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

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.

An apology?  Your kidding, right? Here is what you said:

“The majority of the "Adam is God" doctrine is actually still official doctrine and is taught by CES and BYU.”

What you have as a reference is standard (non-Adam-God) teachings in the modern church.  Mckonkie would have no problems with any of that being taught at BYU, yet he had a serious problem with Adam-God being taught.

I am looking for a CFR that shows that the “majority of Adam is God theory” is “official doctrine” and that it is taught at BYU.

P.S. BYU manuals are not “official doctrine”. 

Answer the CFR or retract the statement.

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by pogi

[JLHPROF]

51 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

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)

 

We've already been over this.  Jehovah is an office, like Adam, Eloheim.

The fact that the resurrected Christ is called Jehovah doesn't make that an exclusive title.

[JLHPROF]

Dupl

Edited December 11, 2017 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

Dupl

Edited December 11, 2017 by JLHPROF

[co-eternal]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

An apology?  Your kidding, right? Here is what you said:

“The majority of the "Adam is God" doctrine is actually still official doctrine and is taught by CES and BYU.”

What you have as a reference is standard (non-Adam-God) teachings in the modern church.  Mckonkie would have no problems with any of that being taught at BYU, yet he had a serious problem with Adam-God being taught.

I am looking for a CFR that shows that the “majority of Adam is God theory” is “official doctrine” and that it is taught at BYU.

P.S. BYU manuals are not “official doctrine”. 

Answer the CFR or retract the statement.

 

I did,  in the forms of quotes from First Presidency Messages and from The Doctrine of Salvation - printed by the Church.

I did not say that the BYU manual was official church doctrine(but it does contain a quote from an official publication on doctrine), only to show that BYU taught the doctrine.

Before you make any more false accusations, you might want to review I said about what part of the doctrine was excluded from the official doctrine.

I have answered the CFR, you have not and continue to refuse to answer mine.

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Before you make any more false accusations, you might want to review I said about what part of the doctrine was excluded from the official doctrine.

Let me guess...the part that says “Adam is God”...and “Jesus is the Only Begotten of Adam”

10 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I have answered the CFR, you have not and continue to refuse to answer mine.

Until you can tell me how the words of McKonkie, Kimbal, and Penrose are reconcilable with “Adam is God”, consider it answered.

[co-eternal]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let me guess...the part that says “Adam is God”...and “Jesus is the Only Begotten of Adam”

Until you can tell me how the words of McKonkie, Kimbal, and Penrose are reconcilable with “Adam is God”, consider it answered.

You have repeatedly claimed I said things and I have asked you for the reference to where I said that.

I have answered your CFR, and the last time I checked the guidelines, you do not set the conditions of wether CFRs  need to be answered.

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by co-eternal

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

You have repeatedly claimed I said things and I have asked you for the reference to where I said that.

I have answered your CFR, and the last time I checked the guidelines, you do not set the conditions of wether CFRs  need to be answered.

Your claim that “Adam is God” is the reference you seek.  McKonkie, Penrose, and Kimbal say that is false doctrine, therefore you cannot agree with them...for the third or fourth time.  If you can show me how their words are reconcilable, I will happily retract my statement.  You can’t simply claim that they are reconcileable, you have to at least attempt to show me how.

[co-eternal]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your claim that “Adam is God” is the reference you seek.  McKonkie, Penrose, and Kimbal say that is false doctrine, therefore you cannot agree with them...for the third or fourth time.  If you can show me how their words are reconcilable, I will happily retract my statement.  You can’t simply claim that they are reconcileable, you have to at least attempt to show me how.

Again a miss representation. That is not the reference I've asked for.

I have asked for nothing concerning McKonkie, Penrose, and Kimbal.

You have maid claims I said things. I want you to show me where I said those things.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, co-eternal said:

Again a miss representation. That is not the reference I've asked for.

I have asked for nothing concerning McKonkie, Penrose, and Kimbal.

You have maid claims I said things. I want you to show me where I said those things.

You claimed that you accept “all” the words of modern prophets.  My claim is that you don’t, and can”t, because they they teach that Adam-God is false doctrine, and even heresy. I will not retract that unless and until you can show me how you can accept “all” their words and Brigham’s words too.

[mfbukowski]

fergitaboutit

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by mfbukowski