Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Did Joseph Smith teach Adam-God?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

  Let’s find ways to involve Dario rather than marginalize him. 


IMO neither Grug nor Dario are here to cause problems.  They are genuinely being exactly as they are.  It can be uncomfortable to adjust and make space when groups are comfy as-is but I welcome these two.  I disagree strongly with approaches etc but for me they are welcome here, let it be known. 

Well stated…

Link to comment
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:


 

IMO neither Grug nor Dario are here to cause problems.  They are genuinely being exactly as they are.  It can be uncomfortable to adjust and make space when groups are comfy as-is but I welcome these two.  I disagree strongly with approaches etc but for me they are welcome here, let it be known. 

Yes i really don't wanna cause problems. Absolutely not. 

And i don't dislike Neanderthal in any way. Oh my oh my.

But am i agree with him? No !

Btw....really well said MustardSeed.💗 I'm agree with every letter you have written. 🥰 This is exactly why i love the Mormon church. Because of kind lovely people like you. 😍

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Actually you did.  When you entered the waters of baptism you entered a covenant to follow the plan of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  To keep his commandments and live every law and ordinance as soon as you are ready.

This plan includes marriage for eternity. You cannot follow Jesus Christ into his highest kingdom without marriage.

But if he's in another kingdom, is it true that Jesus will visit? Or is that a tale? 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’m going to go off topic.  
 

When my 90 year old grandfather was baptized, there was no pressure on him to marry.  His dead wife was a staunch Catholic and was no DOUBT (all caps) rolling in her grave nonstop.  She had disowned my mother in 1976 when mom joined the church.  So grandpa decided to leave the sealing to someone else.  
 

Should he not have been baptized?  
There are still plenty of legit reasons IMO to choose membership even if one won’t be married.  Plus here’s Dario saying, “no one told me I had to get married to enjoy the gospel. “. Of course not.  Can you imagine?  “ you can’t get baptized unless you plan to get married!” Nope.  Not in the contract.  I understand the sentiment but come on.  Let’s find ways to involve Dario rather than marginalize him. 
 

IMO neither Grug nor Dario are here to cause problems.  They are genuinely being exactly as they are.  It can be uncomfortable to adjust and make space when groups are comfy as-is but I welcome these two.  I disagree strongly with approaches etc but for me they are welcome here, let it be known. 

I agree 100%.

Just for clarification I in no way meant to insinuate that baptism has any marriage requirements.

Just pointing out that baptism is the gate that puts us on the path from salvation to exaltation in the highest kingdom.  How far we are willing to follow that path is up to us.  But I'm always glad when anyone begins their journey.

Link to comment

Baptism alone is the gate to the Celestial Kingdom, baptism is the first ordinance and the way to "angelhood", marriage is the last and highest tier within the Celestial Kingdom for "godhood", and there is nothing necessarily wrong to not marry and become an angel. Angels are fine people with important jobs. They probably are what makes it even possible for you to have time to even have eternal increase. So be grateful, because they be watching over you while you sleep. Jesus and everyone in higher heavens can supposedly visit the lower ones. It's the pitch of the church to inform everyone about eternal families, but not everyone is going to have one, but they should still join and be baptized.

--------------------

Back to topic, for demonstration purposes, I will attempt to apply my studies of ancient texts to illuminate the subject: (Don't tell the missionaries Dario, they are busy, they don't need to be chasing me down what we call a "rabbit hole", an Alice in Wonderland reference, referring to a subject you can fall into and get hopelessly lost in and find you are forced to engage in the illogical non-sense of those who live in that world)

What if the true origins of Adam-God was the Bible? Adam is created twice between Genesis 1 and 2. Some Jews think there are 2 Adams.

1. Adam the Heavenly Being, not made from clay, but crafted in the image of God, a model for the earthly Adam (Gen 1:27)

2. Adam the earthly being, formed from dust that was brought to life (Gen 2:7).

The two are different beings, one died the other still lives.

Other Jews say they are the same, just counterparts, but others, like Philo, consider the heavenly Adam to be a greater being, he figures is the creation of the Logos, a Christ-like being. (De Confusione Linguarum 62-63)

Kabbalistic Jews version is Adam Kadmon, the most ancient of beings, the primordial man, fills the universe, creations and light proceeded from him. It explains all the anthropomorphic sightings of God as the Adam Kadmon, seen as a sort of Christian Gnostic demiurge. God creates the Adam Kadmon, creation emanates from him, including the 10 Sephirot (archangel-like aspects of God).(Etz Hayim; Hekal Adam Kadmon)

The idea of a Heavenly Man seems to derive from the idea of a Heavenly Eden, whether "Gan Eden [Garden of Eden]" is in heaven, and an Adam was made above and below (as above, so below).

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I don't wanna hurt you.

Your downvotes suggest otherwise. But don’t worry, you haven’t hurt or offended me. I just find some of your behavior to be pretty immature and annoying. 

If you get it together, I’m happy to continue conversing with you, but if not I’ll probably just ignore you moving forward. 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Dario_M said:

That other guy here also does that a lot. I forget his name always. That guy with that bad painting as avatar. 

YEAH, THAT PICASSO GUY JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO DRAW. 

Link to comment
On 3/6/2023 at 1:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

Adam is created twice between Genesis 1 and 2. Some Jews think there are 2 Adams.

1. Adam the Heavenly Being, not made from clay, but crafted in the image of God, a model for the earthly Adam (Gen 1:27)

Does that mean you believe the animals were created and procreating on earth (Genesis 1:21-24) before
Adam and Eve were created in heaven?

Link to comment

Neanderthal seems to not wanna react here on his topic anymore. I guess...that he finaly realise how absurd this idea is. And uhm..i think that's a good thing. Offcourse is Adam not God. I think that that is obviously right. 

Edited by Dario_M
Link to comment
20 hours ago, marineland said:

Does that mean you believe the animals were created and procreating on earth (Genesis 1:21-24) before
Adam and Eve were created in heaven?

Well, these are not necessarily my beliefs, just an Adam-God seems to find precedence in ancient Jewish interpretations of the scriptures. So, assuming I adopted these Jewish beliefs as my own, still LDS, and I assumed it all fits in the Genesis narrative.

  1. First Day One, technically there is God who makes the preincarnate spirit of Adam, not yet called Adam. This is the second or Deutero-Adam made in Genesis 2. But his spirit was created in the premortal existence on Day One, animals are created on day five and six.
  2. Day Six in Genesis 1, a body of Proto-Adam is made in heaven, it's some kind of divine figure, a god, or it is God (once he acquires it as his flesh), is made in Eden, Eden having a heavenly existence, this Adam serves as a heavenly model for Deutero-Adam. It still lives in heaven.
  3. Day Six in Genesis 2 the Deutero-Adam's body Is made afterwards on earth from clay as told in Genesis 2, then is put in the garden, to be the "image (a physical copy) of God". This one ate from the tree of knowledge and dies.

I don't necessarily believe the double creation of Adam in Genesis is a solid prooftext, but it is one of the prooftexts of a Jewish divine "Adam" of what could be others, like whenever God the Father is seen on a throne as the anthropomorphic (human) shape, its deemed impossible or unlawful to see God's true form, so they say what they are really seeing is the body of the Proto-Adam, so when Daniel sees the Christ-like Son of Man stands before the human God-like Ancient of Days on the throne, its supposedly the Proto-Adam.

Though inserted into Genesis, Genesis does have gaps in its information, bits missing found in other Biblical creation accounts, the Jews read between the lines a lot. Like, if Angels are created beings, when during The Creation in Genesis were angels created? They seem to already exist. A war in heaven happened somewhere between the lines too (day one according to Psalms and Job).

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

Brigham Young could have misinterpreted Joseph Smith

Yes, perhaps.

On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

or you could be misinterpreting Brigham Young.

Highly unlikely. There may be more to what he was teaching, but his teaching that Adam is our Heavenly Father, the Father of Jesus Christ, and a previously exalted man with a resurrected immortal body when he entered the Garden of Eden is very well documented.

On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

"I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, p.216, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857)

On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

"We say that Father Adam came here and helped make the earth.  Who is he?  He is Michael a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim,  'Go ye and make an earth.'" (Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

The names Elohim and Jehovah are titles that can apply to different Gods at different times, and this is how they were used in the early days of the restored church.  It wasn't until the early 1900s that Elohim was exclusively used for God the Father and Jehovah for Jesus Christ. 

On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

 "'Who are we?'  But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve.  Some say, 'we are the children of Adam and Eve.'  So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father."  (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.311 - p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870)

Brigham also referred to Adam being acquainted with his Father and his children with their Grandfather (the same individual). 

On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

It's not quite as tidy as you make things out to be.

I've been studying Adam-God for years. Believe me, I get that's it's a little bit messy. 

I believe that it's clear that Adam was an immortal resurrected being before he came into the Garden of Eden and that he was one of the three Gods who created this earth. Whether or not he is God the Father and higher in authority than Jesus Christ is a bit murkier. But Brigham Young definitely explicitly taught that he was God the Father on multiple occasions over a span of 25 years. 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I believe that it's clear that Adam was an immortal resurrected being before he came into the Garden of Eden and that he was one of the three Gods who created this earth. Whether or not he is God the Father and higher in authority than Jesus Christ is a bit murkier. But Brigham Young definitely explicitly taught that he was God the Father on multiple occasions over a span of 25 years

Now we're getting somewhere.  But this is why this comment is more suspect:

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:
On 3/4/2023 at 10:35 PM, InCognitus said:

or you could be misinterpreting Brigham Young.

Highly unlikely.

 

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Now we're getting somewhere.  But this is why this comment is more suspect:

 

Yeah, I don’t think so.

Brigham Young could have been mistaken, but there are dozens of quotes were he clearly taught that Adam is our Heavenly Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. We can go through them one by one if you would like. 

He wasn’t misinterpreted. It was clear what he taught. And it caused considerable controversy during his Presidency. Had he been misinterpreted, he would have surely cleared it up and ended the controversy, but he didn’t. Instead he doubled down on what he taught. But he did eventually begin teaching it less forcefully and less publicly because of the controversy. 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, I don’t think so.

Brigham Young could have been mistaken, but there are dozens of quotes were he clearly taught that Adam is our Heavenly Father and the Father of Jesus Christ. We can go through them one by one if you would like. 

He wasn’t misinterpreted. It was clear what he taught. And it caused considerable controversy during his Presidency. Had he been misinterpreted, he would have surely cleared it up and ended the controversy, but he didn’t. Instead he doubled down on what he taught. But he did eventually begin teaching it less forcefully and less publicly because of the controversy. 

Of course there was controversy, but understanding what Brigham Young actually meant by what he taught is "messy" as you yourself admitted:

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I've been studying Adam-God for years. Believe me, I get that's it's a little bit messy. 

Given that it is messy (and I agree that it is), how can you say for certainty exactly what he meant?

Link to comment
Just now, InCognitus said:

Given that it is messy (and I agree that it is), how can you say for certainty exactly what he meant?

Because he was very clear about what he meant on multiple occasions. If it was just one or two statements, that would be one thing, but that’s not the case.

And again, if he didn’t actually mean that Adam was our Heavenly Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, he would have surely cleared it up when Orson Pratt challenged him on it or when there began to be a stir throughout the church over it, but he didn’t. Instead he doubled down on it. 

Link to comment

Well, there goes the Fundamentalist label!

He's just a plain ordinary heretic after all!

;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
9 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I am always curious why people give Brigham young so much more authority than other prophets.  
 

me personally, if I could go to lunch with anybody past or present, Brigham Young is not on the list. 💀

I think I’d go to lunch with Brigham Young just to see what he was really like. Like, does he sound like he does in my head, or is his personality actually different than I think?

It would be interesting to know. 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I am always curious why people give Brigham young so much more authority than other prophets.  

I’m certainly not giving "Brigham Young so much more authority than other prophets."

But I do consider him to be an authority on the restored gospel. He was personally tutored by Joseph Smith, the dispensational head and modern day Moses, and was chosen by God to carry the mantle following Joseph’s death. He also manifested incredible spiritual gifts, like visions, prophecy, revelation, healing, tongues, etc. He was also not afraid to teach the doctrine with boldness.

I believe that his nickname “Lion of the Lord" is quite fitting. 

Edited by Grug the Neanderthal
Link to comment
6 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think I’d go to lunch with Brigham Young just to see what he was really like. Like, does he sound like he does in my head, or is his personality actually different than I think?

It would be interesting to know. 

Hm perhaps.  I know I’d trust your report. 
 

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...