Adam-God and Idolatry

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it came as a surprise to Pogi that some of the forum members subscribe to it, which we all saw in recent discussions.

More do keep showing up here, but I know other’s as well.  I sometimes wonder how prevalent the belief is because they are usually closet believers and don’t discuss it at church, for obvious reasons.

[pogi]

4 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I don't know where you're getting this idea.....I never knew this half-baked doctrine existed in my active days (not because of my ignorance). I never witnessed a debate among faithful either...But I'm writing about 1990's.... Now we have internet, it's different. I still wouldn't buy even 10% of membership believing this doctrine.

Ya, I agree, it is probably much less then 10%.  When I said that it is “fairly popular” that may have been misleading.  I suspect that it is probably 1% or less.  To me, that is “fairly popular” given the church’s current stance on it.

You probably never heard about it because most are closet believers, meaning that they don’t talk about it at church. 

I didn’t learn about it until my mission, but since then I have learned of several families who believe, one is an uncle in-law, also family in the ward I grew up in, my wife has two different friends who believe in Adam-God, and since being here online, people keep showing up out of the woodwork.

Edited December 17, 2017 by pogi

[The Nehor]

On 12/15/2017 at 9:35 AM, pogi said:

Identity matters.  Lets see how long your membership lasts if each time you pray in sacrament you pray to Father Adam, Father Baal, Father Molech the God of Abraham (that is just messed up), or to one of your ancestors who you claim to be the Father of our spirits; in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the homeless dude downtown.  Identity matters.

Look at all the genealogy work we do as a church.  We do it because identity and lineage matters.  When doing the work for your ancestors, not any Tom, ****, or Harry will do, no, you need the Tom Doe born in Lancashire on May 7, 1842 to mother Jane Doe, and married to Heather Richards, born 1838.  We do the work because it matters.  Lineage matters.  The identity of our God is a matter of lineage. 

Maury Povich made a living off of "Who's the baby daddy?" episodes, because identity matters.  The issue of Adam-God is basically a matter of "who's the baby daddy?"  It matters.  I can't comprehend why anyone would think that it wouldn't matter.  Why does it matter with our ancestors, but not with our God?

 

 

 

You are trying to use trashy daytime television shows no one should watch as an analogy for knowing God.

Identity does matter. Knowing the character of God is step two in having faith sufficient for salvation. Names do not matter as much. If God were to announce that in his mortality his mortal name was Fronzel Neekburm would that add or subtract anything from our worship of him?

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You are trying to use trashy daytime television shows no one should watch as an analogy for knowing God?

I thought you of all people would appreciate a little humor around here.  “Who’s your baby daddy?” was a joke, but it also serves as a useful analogy.

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Identity does matter. Knowing the character of God is step two in having faith sufficient for salvation. Names do not matter as much. If God were to announce that in his mortality his mortal name was Fronzel Neekburm would that add or subtract anything from our worship of him?

If Fronzel was his mortal name, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.  It is not the name that matters, you are right, it is the person and identity associated with that name. Adam, the first man, is clearly a different person and identity from Fronzel Neekburm, and should not be worshipped.

 

[co-eternal]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

My comment was in response to your CFR.  I don’t want to argue about who said what about Adam-God.  The point is that some in the Church believe that Adam, the first man of this earth, is God the Father.  That belief is what I am referring to as “Adam-God”.  

I agree with your point that we all pray to God the Father.  But my question is this:  Does the identity of that God matter?  Does it matter if the man that you think is your father, really isn’t?  Doesn’t the true identity of your earthly father matter?  Why should it be any different with our Heavenly Father?  See my response above as to why I think identity matters.

I may not know everything you think or believe regarding this so called “doctrine”, but that is besides the point.  This thread is not about that topic.

 

If this thread is not about what I think or believe, then why did you bring it up? You had a point, a reason to bring it up and I doubt it was benevolent.

I think it matters very much who our Father is, which is why I am somewhat puzzled by those who fight against Adam being our progenitor and Father. After all, what Brigham taught was really about the true Nature of God.

One of the doctrines unique to "Mormonism" is that we are literally the Children of God, meaning that we are to grow up to be just as they are, Gods. And we will do what they do. And what is that, they lay down their lives and take it up again to save their Fathers children. And they go to earths and face mortality again in order that their children can have mortal lives such they can learn to be like them. So it is vitally important to know who and what our Father is. That is part of what Joseph Smith restored, and Brigham Young taught us - who and what our Father is, the true nature of God.

I have not deviated from the topic as you have implied, I have stuck quite strictly to the topics you have raised.

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

If this thread is not about what I think or believe, then why did you bring it up? You had a point, a reason to bring it up and I doubt it was benevolent.

I think I made my point and purpose clear.  

11 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I think it matters very much who our Father is... 

We may disagree about who God is, but we at least agree on this.  It actually seems like we should be on the same side in this thread.  I don’t view you as an opponent here, contrary to what you suspect.  If God’s identity is as important as you and I think it is, does it concern you that the majority of the church does not believe that Adam, the first man, is God the Father?

[co-eternal]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think I made my point and purpose clear.  

We may disagree about who God is, but we at least agree on this.  It actually seems like we should be on the same side in this thread.  I don’t view you as an opponent here, contrary to what you suspect.  If God’s identity is as important as you and I think it is, does it concern you that the majority of the church does not believe that Adam, the first man, is God the Father?

Your purpose is not exactly clear to me, if you had something to say why did you not just say it? Trying to imply something nefarious is baring false witness.

It very much concerns me that the majority of the Church prefers, as Brigham says, "Baby stories" over the greater enlightenment Joseph and he provided. And I would not bring the topic up in situations where that is likely the case. But I did not bring the topic up, either in this thread or the other one that got closed.

It is my opinion that your whole reason to start this threat is to bait and condemn those who believe what Joseph restored and Brigham taught. Which is probably why you said we all know what I believe.

It is like most apostates, they can leave the church but they can't leave it alone.

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

If God’s identity is as important as you and I think it is, does it concern you that the majority of the church does not believe that Adam, the first man, is God the Father?

No.  No more than it concerns that there are millions of Trinitarians out there.  People believe different things, both in and out of the Church.

[pogi]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No.  No more than it concerns that there are millions of Trinitarians out there.  People believe different things, both in and out of the Church.

Fair point.  At some level none of us know the true and full identity of the Father, but worship as best we know.  At what point does that become a false God though? That is the question I am struggling to answer. 

But don’t you think that we, as the church of the restored gospel, who's purpose (in part) is to reveal the Father as a distinct and distinguished being from the Son and Holy Ghost, to more fully worship his true identity; if it was so important to make that distinction, shouldn’t it be just as important to make a distinction from any other person who is not God our Father?

[MiserereNobis]

On 12/14/2017 at 10:44 PM, The Nehor said:

Pray to the Father as Christ instructed. Is this supposed to be a hard question?

Yes, I highly recommend saying the Lord's prayer  

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Yes, I highly recommend saying the Lord's prayer  

The pope is supporting a change to it. Do you recommend the classic or revised version? 

I do not have a strong preference as long as I still get my daily bread regularly.  

Edited December 17, 2017 by The Nehor

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The pope is supporting a change to it. Do you recommend the classic or revised version?

I'm rather indifferent, I suppose. The Pope's reasoning beyond a change is correct -- God doesn't lead us into temptation. But I think most people know that and are taught what it actually means during catechism, so I'm not sure if the change is necessary. But whatever -- I like to pray it in Latin so the change wouldn't happen for me  

Also, to clarify, the Pope was speaking about the Italian translation.

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I do not have a strong preference as long as I still get my daily bread regularly.  

Don't forget soup. Man cannot live by bread alone...

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Don't forget soup. Man cannot live by bread alone...

No, but by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mourh of God.  Canonical or not.

[co-eternal]

38 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, but by EVERY word that proceedeth forth from the mourh of God.  Canonical or not.

Including the ones that proceeded forth through the mouths of Joseph and Brigham? 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Including the ones that proceeded forth through the mouths of Joseph and Brigham? 

Yep.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Don't forget soup. Man cannot live by bread alone...

Give us this day our daily pho? Yeah, I could get behind that.

[co-eternal]

17 hours ago, pogi said:

More do keep showing up here, but I know other’s as well.  I sometimes wonder how prevalent the belief is because they are usually closet believers and don’t discuss it at church, for obvious reasons.

I discuss it, as part of a bigger subject, with my High Priest Group Leader, a Bishop of 26 years,  and a few other enlightened Brothers. A sister even asked me a question privately in SS and the spirit said "answer her question directly". And when I did, she replied "then that means ...". Then the spirit said "she has been seeking, tell her". So I did and she replied "I've always thought that that". 

So, you see, there are not many, but there are some that seek greater light and knowledge from true messengers from the Father. But the true Identity of Adam is just such a small, but very key part of what Joseph and Brigham taught.

To say we are closet believers is somewhat insulting. We understand that so many still cling to the "baby stories" and can not see beyond them. But when the topic is raised, like here on this forum, we are willing to answer questions and offer hints because there are so many answers to so many question that get debated and debated and debated. It is quite frustrating to know the answers to so many questions and to also know that those answers will be rejected, and many times in such rebuking and condemning ways even when what we say has been said by a prophet of God.

I have never seen it on a forum, but it would be interesting to see a topic opened with the intent of having a truly honest and open inquiry into the truths taught by those called to restore "plain and simple" lost eternal truths. It would be truly enlightening if it were to happen. But alas, too many prefer "the traditions of their fathers" over reveled eternal truths. And others would rather belittle, rebuke, condemn, ... those who might share these things, not to the harm of those that share but to them selves.

The reasons we don't speak that are so obvious to you are not at all our reasons for not speaking. Our reasons are more similar to why Christ him self was restrained from speaking at times.

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yep.

Give us this day our daily pho? Yeah, I could get behind that.

 What a delight, a big bowl of pho and the words of the prophets!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, co-eternal said:

I discuss it, as part of a bigger subject, with my High Priest Group Leader, a Bishop of 26 years,  and a few other enlightened Brothers. A sister even asked me a question privately in SS and the spirit said "answer her question directly". And when I did, she replied "then that means ...". Then the spirit said "she has been seeking, tell her". So I did and she replied "I've always thought that that". 

So, you see, there are not many, but there are some that seek greater light and knowledge from true messengers from the Father. But the true Identity of Adam is just such a small, but very key part of what Joseph and Brigham taught.

To say we are closet believers is somewhat insulting. We understand that so many still cling to the "baby stories" and can not see beyond them. But when the topic is raised, like here on this forum, we are willing to answer questions and offer hints because there are so many answers to so many question that get debated and debated and debated. It is quite frustrating to know the answers to so many questions and to also know that those answers will be rejected, and many times in such rebuking and condemning ways even when what we say has been said by a prophet of God.

I have never seen it on a forum, but it would be interesting to see a topic opened with the intent of having a truly honest and open inquiry into the truths taught by those called to restore "plain and simple" lost eternal truths. It would be truly enlightening if it were to happen. But alas, too many prefer "the traditions of their fathers" over reveled eternal truths. And others would rather belittle, rebuke, condemn, ... those who might share these things, not to the harm of those that share but to them selves.

The reasons we don't speak that are so obvious to you are not at all our reasons for not speaking. Our reasons are more similar to why Christ him self was restrained from speaking at times.

How pretentiously deep and condescending.

I have to go read my baby stories in the Book of Mormon now. Have a good one.

[co-eternal]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How pretentiously deep and condescending.

I have to go read my baby stories in the Book of Mormon now. Have a good one.

... you want to borrow my blankie, I don't need it any more.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/14/2017 at 3:29 PM, pogi said:

Adam-God still seems to be a fairly popular belief in the church.  My question is this, if Adam-God is false, does praying to and worshiping Adam (a man) constitute idolatry?  Why or why not?  If it is true, then are the rest of us worshiping a false God? 

When the members can't even agree on who their God is, shouldn't the Church make an official statement about Adam-God?  If it is true, I would like to know to worship Adam.  If it is not, I would like to know for assurance that I am not practicing idolatry.  Shouldn't idolatry in the church be a serious enough priority for that?  Or, are we all worshiping the same God and it doesn't really matter how we perceive him or call him?

Secondarily, how important is it to know the name of God?

The Jehovah's Witnesses claim that it is very important, and I tend to agree. 

Does it seem strange that we can't even agree on what the name of God is?  Adam? Jehovah? Elohim? Ahman? All of the above?  If we don't know the name of God, how can we glorify it in our worship?  The phrase "praise thy name" is mentioned 88 times in the scriptures.  So, what is his name? Who is God?  Doesn't it seem like we should all be on the same page with this as a church?  To me it seems like a good reason for an official declaration to put an end to division and contention in the church.  That is as basic as it gets.  We should all be on the same page on this very fundamental level in my opinion.  What do you all think?

I don't want this thread to be another debate about Adam-God.  Please don't argue for or against Adam-God and keep your discussion to the points made above. 

As I have said before I see this as a linguistic confusion.

We do not worship words, we worship the BEING we know in our hearts, no matter what his name is.

I just call him ""Father" because He IS my Father in every way.  I know Him and He knows me.

Honestly I think this name stuff is the philosophies of men.   I worship He Who Is In My Heart as my Father- the Man of Holiness.

And then we have what some call modalism- but again I see as a linguistic confusion of words and nothing more.   We are all to consider ourselves as "Adams" and "Eves" and we are all "saviors on MT. Zion- or can be.

And if you believe in the spirit of the King Follette Discourse, God himself had a father who had a father who had.... etc- "Fathers all the way down"

And as has been amply shown, prophets - humans who speak about their own experiences- have confused these terms and made the whole mess impossible to figure out if one takes literally that they are speaking of separate beings and not the ONE BEING I speak to in my heart.

The term I use is relational, not a name.  I feel I do not need a name because what is important to me is the relationship.

My father's name was "Ed" but if it was Bob or Fred or anyone else- it is the ROLE and who Ed was to me that I honor.

I honor my grandfathers Frank and Mike, but both are my grandfathers and I honor them for the ROLES that both Frank and Mike had in my life AS my "grandfathers"

I am a father and a son and my son is Adam.   God had a son called Adam as well- that does not make ME creator of the universe.  My son could one day become like God but that would not mean that Adam is "God" even if his children worshiped him as "God"

I met Charles Bukowski once and had a conversation with him and he said he was the One Bukowski.  (true story)

I showed him my driver's license and he would not accept it because HE was the "One Bukowski".   Yes he was a jerk but he was making the same mistake we are discussing here.

There are Lords many and gods many but only one we have to deal with

And honestly I don't think if he is Frank or Mike-, as there are Franks many and Mikes many,  He is STILL MY GOD.

And both Frank and Mike and Mark and Adam are both fathers and sons and it is said even Eloheim had a father.

I wouldn't get too worked up about all of this.  

It honestly does not make any difference in my life or to whom I pray.  

 

[mfbukowski]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

How pretentiously deep and condescending.

I have to go read my baby stories in the Book of Mormon now. Have a good one.

Bravissimo! 

Bishops and High Priest group leaders??   Who does he think he is talking to? 

Edited December 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

... you want to borrow my blankie, I don't need it any more.

Linus tried that once. It did not end well. I cannot put you through that.

Edited December 18, 2017 by The Nehor

[co-eternal]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Linus tried that once. It did not end well. I cannot put you through that.

All I can say is that I didn't invent the parable.

Nor did I write the Garden "story".

Edited December 18, 2017 by co-eternal

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

All I can say is that I didn't invent the parable.

Nor did I write the Garden "story".

And I said that I did not start the fire and that it had, in fact, been burning since the worlds been turning.

The jury did not buy it and found me guilty of arson.

Wait, what were we talking about again?

Edited December 18, 2017 by The Nehor

[mfbukowski]

On 12/14/2017 at 4:05 PM, pogi said:

What constitutes "identity"?  Isn't a name central to a person's identity? The scriptures counsel us to "praise his name".  Without the name, aren't you just worshiping God's attributes?  

This is the error that leads to beliefs like transubstantiation.  The "attributes" of bread are that it is made of flour, and other ingredients but that it has a "substance" which is NOT the same as its attributes.

The similar argument here would be that we worship God's "identity" here- his name as his "substance" but not worship his attributes.

In transubstantiation, the "substance" of the bread is miraculously changed from the stuff that is made with flour which has the attributes of bread, into the substance of the Body of Christ. while retaining the attributes of bread.

Therefore one can take the Body, Blood, Soul  and Divinity of Christ into oneself while it retains the attributes of bread, in the Eucharist.

Separating attributes- the appearance of things- from the "identity" of the thing is the classic error that Pragmatists eschew.

Seeing the object as relational- or as its FUNCTION - is the solution.  Bread is bread if it is made of flour, with the other ingredients of bread, and FUNCTIONS as bread.   One can eat it and it provides nourishment regardless of if it is brown or white or named Laura Scudder's or Wonderbread or the Eucharist.  

A screwdriver can be a "hammer" if it is the only thing with which we can hammer in an emergency.   The fact that it is a red or blue screwdriver is irrelevant to it's USE or FUNCTION as a hammer even if it was not designed to be  hammer.   A rock can be a "knife" if it has an edge.   If a piece of flint is used as an arrowhead it does not cease to be a piece of flint - it is both flint AND and arrowhead.

So Mark can be a Father and a son depending on perspective and how he "functions" in a situation.   At a family gathering he can be a father and a son, a husband  and a cook and a gardener at the same time, but all are still Mark.

One cannot differentiate what his "identity" is separate from his function- his identity includes his name as well has his function for those who know him 

His identity INCLUDES all those things, not just his name, not just his role- he becomes a "bundle" of functions as seen by others but inside himself he is still just "ME" serving in all those separate functions

And so that is why I say this is a linguistic confusion. The confusion is that there is "some name out there" independent from  language which corresponds to the reality of what the thing is

And so as usual we get back to the Rorty quote below 

Quote

 

The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5.

 

 

 

To paraphrase to make it relevant here :

"God is out there, but descriptions of God are not. .....  God as he IS - unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot be described"  

So don't worry about it and go with the God you KNOW inside of you- the God who cannot be put into words, and who's name cannot be uttered.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by mfbukowski