Understanding Adam-God

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

It may be true, but it goes beyond the doctrine taught. 

 

Not really, it is what he taught.

Quote

 How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through. That course has been from all eternity, and it is and will be to all eternity. You cannot comprehend this; but when you can, it will be to you a matter of great consolation. (Brigham Youngg [JD 7:334]

"You cannot comprehend this", this is the only thing I ever disagreed with Brigham on, It is easy to comprehend. It is the alternative to this, that there was a first generation,  that is impossible to comprehend.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't disagree with that. I think quail limits us though. That's not all there is.

Sure there is, as my siggy says. Causes which are not mental states!  But nothing to say about them without changing them. Heisenberg uncertainty. Particle or wave? It depends!

Edited December 1, 2017 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

9 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

My sense is that those who believe it don't care that Joseph taught something completely different as do the scriptures. Nor are they interesting in seeing ways to reconcile it. It's Brigham (and to a certain degree even more Heber Kimball) alone.

Yes, I think these are two good questions to ask proponents of the teaching. @JLHPROFand @co-eternal, for the sake of discussion, how do you think Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball would answer?

1. According to Moses 5:52, 59 and 62, who is identifying as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ?

2. According to Moses 5:68, are we too previously resurrected gods that are now reborn into a mortal estate, and can we expect to take on the Adam-God role in some additional, future iteration?

Edited December 1, 2017 by CV75

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours ago, co-eternal said:

Not really, it is what he taught.

"You cannot comprehend this", this is the only thing I ever disagreed with Brigham on, It is easy to comprehend. It is the alternative to this, that there was a first generation,  that is impossible to comprehend.

I believe what President Young is saying we cannot now comprehend is both that the process of eternal progression has been going on forever and that it had no beginning.

[co-eternal]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I think these are two good questions to ask proponents of the teaching. @JLHPROFand @co-eternal, for the sake of discussion, how do you think Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball would answer?

1. According to Moses 5:52, 59 and 62, who is identifying as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ?

2. According to Moses 5:68, are we too previously resurrected gods that are now reborn into a mortal estate, and can we expect to take on the Adam-God role in some additional, future iteration?

I just wondering, how much of Brigham's sermons you have read, Because if yow really had read and understood them and understood the scriptures wou would not think that the scriptures and Brigham's teachings are out of harmony. Because revelation clarifies, corrects, expounds, expands scripture. If none of that were necessary we would not need regulators and revelations.  SO, have you read for yourselves, have you gone to the same source as Joseph and Brigham? 

[co-eternal]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I believe what President Young is saying we cannot now comprehend is both that the process of eternal progression has been going on forever and that it had no beginning.

Does God just make everything you believe truth?

What he is saying is that there was no first generation of time and there will be no last generation of time.

There was never a time when there was not an earth like this with a godhead that consisted of a Father, Son, and HG. Generation after generation after generation after ...

What he is saying is that There has never been a Father that was not First a Son.

If you don't believe it, read the sermons yourself and then got to the same source that Joseph and Brigham did.

God is as man may become, Man is as God once was.

There was never a Father that was not first a Son.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

I just wondering, how much of Brigham's sermons you have read, Because if yow really had read and understood them and understood the scriptures wou would not think that the scriptures and Brigham's teachings are out of harmony. Because revelation clarifies, corrects, expounds, expands scripture. If none of that were necessary we would not need regulators and revelations.  SO, have you read for yourselves, have you gone to the same source as Joseph and Brigham? 

If there is no contradiction could you explain what appears like contradictions to the rest of us?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

I just wondering, how much of Brigham's sermons you have read, Because if yow really had read and understood them and understood the scriptures wou would not think that the scriptures and Brigham's teachings are out of harmony. Because revelation clarifies, corrects, expounds, expands scripture. If none of that were necessary we would not need regulators and revelations.  SO, have you read for yourselves, have you gone to the same source as Joseph and Brigham? 

You needn't wonder; if you read and understood the questions, you would see that they have nothing to do with suggesting that anything is out of harmony. They are simple, direct questions. How do you think Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball would answer them?

1. According to Moses 5:52, 59 and 62, who is identifying as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ?

2. According to Moses 5:68, are we too previously resurrected gods that are now reborn into a mortal estate, and can we expect to take on the Adam-God role in some additional, future iteration?

[JLHPROF]

49 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You needn't wonder; if you read and understood the questions, you would see that they have nothing to do with suggesting that anything is out of harmony. They are simple, direct questions. How do you think Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball would answer them?

1. According to Moses 5:52, 59 and 62, who is identifying as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ?

2. According to Moses 5:68, are we too previously resurrected gods that are now reborn into a mortal estate, and can we expect to take on the Adam-God role in some additional, future iteration?

Assuming you mean Moses 6, not 5.

1. In accordance with the usage of the word LORD, as all through Genesis/Moses it must have been Jehovah/Yahweh.
Apparently Jesus likes to talk about himself in the third person according to Church teachings.

2. Not sure what you are asking here.  Adam is identified as the son of Yaweh/Jehovah after his baptisms, and we are promised that we can all have that same blessing.
And while this scripture has little to do with it, yes, we are to expect to take on the role of Adam in a future iteration.  What is the first command we are given in the temple - to consider ourselves as Adams and Eves.

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Assuming you mean Moses 6, not 5.

1. In accordance with the usage of the word LORD, as all through Genesis/Moses it must have been Jehovah/Yahweh.
Apparently Jesus likes to talk about himself in the third person according to Church teachings.

2. Not sure what you are asking here.  Adam is identified as the son of Yaweh/Jehovah after his baptisms, and we are promised that we can all have that same blessing.
And while this scripture has little to do with it, yes, we are to expect to take on the role of Adam in a future iteration.  What is the first command we are given in the temple - to consider ourselves as Adams and Eves.

Yes, Chapter 6 – thank you. For #1, Are you saying that Brigham Young would explain that those verses show that Jesus is speaking as if he were Adam-God to the mortal Adam? (Note: He is speaking in the first person, not the third: mine Only Begotten Son).

For #2, I am asking that, would Brigham Young explain verse 68 to say that since Adam was a resurrected, exalted being that came down to paradise with his wife and fell, that we are also exalted beings that have assumed mortality—except instead of becoming mortal through the same steps that Adam took, we assumed mortality by our fallen parentage? Are you saying that Brigham Young would say that we (assuming we become exalted after mortality as was Adam before he and Eve were placed in Eden and fell) too will someday leave our post-resurrection abode, return to a paradisiacal earth, fall and become mortal, and generate mortal souls as Adam and Eve did (if not verse 68, what scripture does that tie to)?

Edited December 1, 2017 by CV75

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

If there is no contradiction could you explain what appears like contradictions to the rest of us?

There are many reasons for apparent contradictions. Some are errors in the scriptures. Some are not understanding what the scriptures really say. Some are because the truths are purposely remove/hidden, replace with "hollow toadstool stories" to satisfy without condemning unbelief. Some are a matter of understanding  the target audience or the target scope". But Joseph was sent to restore lost truths. Lost because they are not in the scriptures, lost because the meaning of the scriptures has been lost, lost due to errors, lost being hidden from view. Lost due to being taken away due to unbelief or sin. 

But Joseph came to restore them. Joseph knows the scriptures better than anyone who has or will life in this dispensation. And Brigham, John, Wilford were his best students. So they were very away of what the scriptures say whenever they said anything. So if what they said could be perceived to contradict the scriptures don't you think they were aware of that. Joseph was, he pretty much said that in the King Follet Discourse. Yet they still said what they said.

I here over and over "what they said contradicts the canon of scripture so it can't be true" what a complete fallacy of logic. What you should say is "how can it be true" and then actually seek to know how it can be true. And if there actually is a contradiction, you will come to know which is true. But more that likely, you will find that it is the 'interpretation" of one or the other that contradicts but the true statements do not.

Now, having said all that, the garden story is a special case. The truth of the garden story is not in the canon of scripture. What is there is what Brigham has called "babie stories" or "hollow toadstool stories". We would call them "stork stories". something meant to satisfy those not mature enough in truth to handle the truth. I find it interesting that there is actually official church doctrine on the garden story. It is not a complete story but it is official. Yet no one knows it and we suffer through all the mote discussions of the garden story that are so off base when official doctrine is available.

I feel to also address misunderstandings of order. things like "stand before" is taken to represent a certain hierarchical order when none was given or the order was given but miss understood. There are so many quote that are believed to say that  Adam is subordinate to Christ. Not only is that not true, the quote didn't even say that. And while that comes up, there are many scriptures that are used to make a claim but the scripture says nothing of the case. An example. There is a scripture in the BoM, (wish I could remember it now) that is used to say that Adam caused the fall of the earth. It says nothing of the kind. Adam is said to have caused the earth to fall by eating of the fruits of the earth that contain the seeds of sin and death. Look at that with logic, what was first? Adam eating the fruits or the fruits containing the seeds of sin and death. Adam may or may not have caused the earth to fall, but not by eating the fruits.

I testify to you, if Joseph or Brigham said ANYTHING that actually did contradict what is written in the canon of scripture then that is their calling, to provide that correction. They are the prohets of the RESTORATION, the true messengers from the Father.

I will say, I hope you do not just believe what I say because I said it, take the advice given to Orsen Pratt, get it from the same place that Joseph and Brigham got it.

And I will also say do not dismiss what I have said because I said it , take the advice given to Orsen Pratt, get it from the same place that Joseph and Brigham got it.

[JLHPROF]

41 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, Chapter 6 – thank you. For #1, Are you saying that Brigham Young would explain that those verses show that Jesus is speaking as if he were Adam-God to the mortal Adam? (Note: He is speaking in the first person, not the third: mine Only Begotten Son).

I have no idea what Brigham would do.  Probably box your ears and warn of excommunication and damnation for doubting him.

But anyway, in Moses 6 the Lord (Jehovah) is speaking of his only begotten son.
If Christ is the OT Jehovah as the Church currently teaches then he was speaking about himself.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no idea what Brigham would do.  Probably box your ears and warn of excommunication and damnation for doubting him.

But anyway, in Moses 6 the Lord (Jehovah) is speaking of his only begotten son.
If Christ is the OT Jehovah as the Church currently teaches then he was speaking about himself.

I think it is helpful to think how Brigham Young would reconcile the scripture verses with his teaching if he was asked about them in his day. Let's assume I boxed his ears first and thus ensured his good-faith cooperation.

So he would say that the Lord (Jehovah) is speaking of His Only Begotten Son. To be consistent with the Adam-God teaching, this makes the Lord (Jehovah) either the same person as Adam-God, or Adam-God's exalted father speaking as if he were Adam-God, or since the object is that they all are effectively "one," it doesn't matter. If that is correct, which is He?

As far as the other questions, are you suggesting he wouldn't have an answer?

Edited December 1, 2017 by CV75

[co-eternal]

47 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no idea what Brigham would do.  Probably box your ears and warn of excommunication and damnation for doubting him.

But anyway, in Moses 6 the Lord (Jehovah) is speaking of his only begotten son.
If Christ is the OT Jehovah as the Church currently teaches then he was speaking about himself.

There is another explaination, Divine Investiture of Authority

Where Christs speaks with the authority of and as God the Father

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As far as the other questions, are you suggesting he wouldn't have an answer?

I think Brigham would just avoid the issue. That's largely what he did in response to Pratt.

Which isn't to deny that often he had the better of Pratt. (Such on the problem of worshipping the attributes of God rather than God)

Edited December 1, 2017 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think Brigham would just avoid the issue. That's largely what he did in response to Pratt.

Which isn't to deny that often he had the better of Pratt. (Such on the problem of worshipping the attributes of God rather than God)

Evidently!

[CV75]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

There is another explaination, Divine Investiture of Authority

Where Christs speaks with the authority of and as God the Father

But in Moses 6:52. 59, 62 and 68, which of the Adam-God characters would Brigham Young say is doing the speaking?

For example, applying divine investiture of authority: the pre-mortal Jesus is telling the mortal Adam, by divine investiture of authority, that Adam has to (paraphrasing verse 52) turn unto Himself (the exalted Adam-God), hearken unto His own voice, believe in His own sayings, repent, and be baptized in the name of his Son Jesus?

Edited December 1, 2017 by CV75

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, co-eternal said:

Does God just make everything you believe truth?

What he is saying is that there was no first generation of time and there will be no last generation of time.

There was never a time when there was not an earth like this with a godhead that consisted of a Father, Son, and HG. Generation after generation after generation after ...

What he is saying is that There has never been a Father that was not First a Son.

If you don't believe it, read the sermons yourself and then got to the same source that Joseph and Brigham did.

God is as man may become, Man is as God once was.

There was never a Father that was not first a Son.

What in the world is there in what I wrote that would give you the idea I didn’t believe these things? Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

[co-eternal]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

What in the world is there in what I wrote that would give you the idea I didn’t believe these things? Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?

Could have been something you said. But I am mistaken, I apologize.

[co-eternal]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

But in Moses 6:52. 59, 62 and 68, which of the Adam-God characters would Brigham Young say is doing the speaking?

For example, applying divine investiture of authority: the pre-mortal Jesus is telling the mortal Adam, by divine investiture of authority, that Adam has to (paraphrasing verse 52) turn unto Himself (the exalted Adam-God), hearken unto His own voice, believe in His own sayings, repent, and be baptized in the name of his Son Jesus?

But you have to remember that the "Hollow toadstool stories" permeate the scriptures. Joseph's calling is to RESTORE truths, and after he died he did that trough Brigham. And John. And Wilford. ...

I am a whole to part person, after I have an understanding of the nature of the forest, a tree here or a tree there out of place have little affect on the nature of the forest.

[CV75]

12 hours ago, co-eternal said:

But you have to remember that the "Hollow toadstool stories" permeate the scriptures. Joseph's calling is to RESTORE truths, and after he died he did that trough Brigham. And John. And Wilford. ...

I am a whole to part person, after I have an understanding of the nature of the forest, a tree here or a tree there out of place have little affect on the nature of the forest.

Now that sounds like a cop-out. Do you really have no answer to the questions from the Adam-God teachings other than something is out of place, either in the teaching or in the scriptures, and there is no way of telling which?

Edit: checking in next day: @co-eternaland @JLHPROF

Something else I've had a question about: Adam was 622 years old when Enoch was born, 647 when he ordained Enoch (at age 25), and 687 when he blessed Enoch (at age 65; D&C 107:48); Adam lived another 243 years, and with Enoch walking with God for 365 years until he was taken up at 430 years old (D&C 107:49; year 1052 from the Fall), Enoch had to have had his vision before Adam died / was taken up at age 930.

So, Adam was yet mortal when Enoch received his revelation in Moses 6 (D&C 107:48-49). How could he, as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, have been speaking to Enoch as Adam-God, and relating the history of what he told mortal Adam, while yet mortal?

Edited December 2, 2017 by CV75

[Glenn101]

On 11/29/2017 at 8:26 PM, Bob Crockett said:

I find this particular argument absurd and frivolous as a means to discredit the Adam God statements -- for which I have very little admiration and have no interest in supporting.  But I abhor boneheaded apologetic argument which will just call out laughter amongst critics.  I mean, who would take seriously an effort to impeach or criticize Chernow's recent book on U.S. Grant by exposing errors and statements made in a first draft?

Bob, you would not take such a document into court to try to prove a point once you knew that it was hopelessly compromised. You would be laughed out of court.

Watt not only added words, four hundred in one case, he also deleted words some one thousand in another case. I would not use the JOD to try to make or break any point of doctrine.

[co-eternal]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

Now that sounds like a cop-out. Do you really have no answer to the questions from the Adam-God teachings other than something is out of place, either in the teaching or in the scriptures, and there is no way of telling which?

Edit: checking in next day: @co-eternaland @JLHPROF

Something else I've had a question about: Adam was 622 years old when Enoch was born, 647 when he ordained Enoch (at age 25), and 687 when he blessed Enoch (at age 65; D&C 107:48); Adam lived another 243 years, and with Enoch walking with God for 365 years until he was taken up at 430 years old (D&C 107:49; year 1052 from the Fall), Enoch had to have had his vision before Adam died / was taken up at age 930.

So, Adam was yet mortal when Enoch received his revelation in Moses 6 (D&C 107:48-49). How could he, as the Father of the Only Begotten Son, have been speaking to Enoch as Adam-God, and relating the history of what he told mortal Adam, while yet mortal?

That sounds more like vinegar than honey. No one is obligated to comply with you request, desires or wishes.

It is interesting to me that converts join the Church without having jot and tiddle in place and every issue resolved. But when it concerns the teachings of the true Nature of God, people stumble over every pebble and twig.

All I'm saying is that I don't care to "bible bash" over any particular issue. Rather I chose to read and study as much as I can and look at the preponderance of the evidence and give the spirit enough in me to work with, to develop enough of a vocabulary of the topic to promote communications. The difference that makes in me is my response to things I read in the JoD and the like is that I don't say "that contradicts, it can't be true".  But to instead say "How is it possible that they are both true". And if that is a cop-out to you then just ignore my post, but use vinegar sparingly.

[co-eternal]

33 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Bob, you would not take such a document into court to try to prove a point once you knew that it was hopelessly compromised. You would be laughed out of court.

Watt not only added words, four hundred in one case, he also deleted words some one thousand in another case. I would not use the JOD to try to make or break any point of doctrine.

I would like to know your references on this. Who said it, what words were removed, what words added.

There are other Journals, Diaries, Compilations, Deseret News Pubs with which to compare. and I've not seen anything untoward, but I'm not an expert.

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

That sounds more like vinegar than honey. No one is obligated to comply with you request, desires or wishes.

It is interesting to me that converts join the Church without having jot and tiddle in place and every issue resolved. But when it concerns the teachings of the true Nature of God, people stumble over every pebble and twig.

All I'm saying is that I don't care to "bible bash" over any particular issue. Rather I chose to read and study as much as I can and look at the preponderance of the evidence and give the spirit enough in me to work with, to develop enough of a vocabulary of the topic to promote communications. The difference that makes in me is my response to things I read in the JoD and the like is that I don't say "that contradicts, it can't be true".  But to instead say "How is it possible that they are both true". And if that is a cop-out to you then just ignore my post, but use vinegar sparingly.

I'm not seeing this as a Bible-bash. These are good questions and this is a good place to explore and challenge the answers. I'm not asking how both can be true, i am asking how these facts and scriptures play out (or work) in the Adam-God paradigm. So far, I'm hearing "it doesn't matter" and that's OK I guess.