Did Joseph Smith teach Adam-God?

[mfbukowski]

On 3/8/2023 at 6:52 PM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, perhaps.

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.

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. 

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

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. 

Since Adam is Michael the Archangel who went down with Eloheim to create the earth WITH Eloheim, how could he BE Eloheim?

Adam, the Archangel

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1980/10/adam-the-archangel?lang=eng

Then who is Adam? He is Michael the archangel, appointed by God and Christ to be the mortal progenitor of the race. At this very moment, in the year 1980, he is still in his position as the archangel whose trumpet in the final days will herald the resurrection and who will be the captain of the Lord’s hosts in the final defeat of Lucifer.

He is the “Ancient of Days” spoken of by Daniel the prophet and as such will meet the faithful in that same valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, which is named after him (see Dan. 7:9–22; D&C 116).

At the close of this dispensation he will there deliver up his stewardship to Christ, his Master and his Savior, the Lord Jehovah, who in turn will give his accounting to the Heavenly and Eternal Father of us all (see Teachings, pp. 122, 157, 167–68, 237).

If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.

I bear you my solemn testimony that this—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—is indeed the church and kingdom of God. Jesus is the Christ. Spencer W. Kimball is his prophet. We are the legal and divinely chosen custodians of the restored truth. This I testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Since Adam is Michael the Archangel who went down with Eloheim to create the earth WITH Eloheim, how could he BE Eloheim?

Adam, the Archangel

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1980/10/adam-the-archangel?lang=eng

 

The names Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael are titles. They weren’t exclusively applied to a specific individual God in the early days of the church like they are today. 

Elohim means “gods” in Hebrew and is used generically for false gods, too. 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The names Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael are titles. They weren’t exclusively applied to a specific individual God in the early days of the church like they are today. 

Elohim means “gods” in Hebrew and is used generically for false gods, too. 

Ok good.

Then I believe Jesus is the Father, and there IS no Godhead, just titles. Poof.

The problem is then is that Adam is no more "God" or FATHER than Jesus, he is just an exalted member of the council of Gods, and Brigham was wrong.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok good.

Then I believe Jesus is the Father, and there IS no Godhead, just titles. Poof.

The problem is then is that Adam is no more "God" or FATHER than Jesus, he is just an exalted member of the council of Gods, and Brigham was wrong.

Oh yeah, Adam is on the council of gods, that would make him a god. (Job 15:7-8; Midrash Kee Tov)

Edited March 10, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Then I believe Jesus is the Father, and there IS no Godhead, just titles. Poof.

Yeah, that’s not how that works, but believe whatever you want. 

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Brigham was wrong.

You’re welcome to believe that, but that doesn’t mean your belief is correct.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, that’s not how that works, but believe whatever you want. 

You’re welcome to believe that, but that doesn’t mean your belief is correct.

After reading the below, do you still believe everything BY said?

Brigham Young, 1852 February 5

Description:

Legislative joint session; views on slavery, the curse of Cain, blacks and the priesthood, and blood atonement. Reported by George D. Watt. Romney typescript available.

Containers:

FOLDER 17BOX 1
Original
Typescript:
 

I rise to make a few remarks. The Items before the house I do not understand.

The principle of slavery I understand, at least I have self confidence enough, and confidence enough in God to beleive I do. I beleive still further that a great many others understand it as I do. A great portion of this community have been instructed, and have applied their minds to it, and as far as they have, they agree preciesly in the principles of slavery. My remarks in the first place will be upon the cause of the introduction of slavery. Long ago mama Eve our good old mother Eve pertook of the forbiden fruit and this made a slave of her. Adam hated very much to have her taken out of the garden of Eden, and now our old daddy says I beleive I will eat of the fruit and become a slave too. This was the first introduction of slavery upon this earth; and there has been not a son or daughter of adam from that day to this but what where slaves in the true sense of the word.

That slavery will continue, untill there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, who will not only beleive in but operate, with every power and faculty given to them to help to esstablish the kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth, then will this curse be removed. This was the starting point of slavery. Again after adam, and Eve had pertook of the curse, we find they had two sons Cain and Able, but which was the oldest I cannot positively say; but this I know, Cain was given more to evil practices than Abel, but whether he was the oldest or not matters not to me. Adam was commanded to sacrifise, and offer up his offerings to God, that placed him into the garden of Eden. Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal existance. after the dead was done, the Lord enquired to able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his see, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon the, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.

Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privelege of and more. In the kingdom of God on the earth the Affricans cannot hold one partical of power in Government. The the subjects, the rightfull servants of the resedue of the children of Adam, and the resedue of the children through the benign influence of the Spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lords will they should receive the spirit of God by Baptisam; and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.

You talke of the dark skin, I never saw a white man on earth. I have seen persons whoes hair came pretty nigh being white, but to talk about white skins it is something intirely unknown, though some skins are fairer than others; look at the black eye and the jet black hair, we often see upon men and women who are called white, there is no such things as white folkes. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is enough for us if we are not quite white.

But let me tell you further. Let my see mingle with the seed of Cain, that brings the curse upon me, and upon my generations, - - we will reap the same rewards with Cain.

In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but the entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. Would this be to curse them? no it would be a blessing to them. -it would do them good that they might be saved with their Bren. A man would shuder should they here us take about killing folk, but it is one of the greatest blessings to some to kill them, allthough the true principles of it are not understood.

I will had one thing more. It is not in the power of a man on the face of the earth to take more life than he can give, that is a proper son of Adam. How many times I have heard it said, and how many times has it been reiterated in my ears, and in yours, that to take a life, is to take what you cannot give; This is perfect nonsence; What do I do by taking a mans head off after he is condemned by the Law? I put an end to the existence of the mortal tabernacle; but the life still remains. the body and the spirit is only seperated, this is all that can be done by any mortal man upon the face of the earth. Can I givethat life? I can, I can make as good tabernacles as any other man, if you do not beleive it go and look at my children, therefore that saying is nonsense. We form the tabernacle for the eternal spirit or life that comes from God. We can only put an end to the existence of that tabernacle, and this is the principle of sacrifice.

What was the cause of the antients drawing up hundreds and thousands of Bullocks, and Hefiers, and Lambs, and doves, and almost every other creature arround them, of which they took the best and the fatest, and offered them up as sacrifices unto the Lord. Was it not for the remission of the sins of the people. We read also in the new Testament that a man was sacrifised for the sins of the people. If he had not you and I could have had no remission of sins. It is the greatest blessing that could come to some men to shed their blood on the ground, and let it come up before the Lord as an atonement. You nor I cannot take any more life than we can give.

Again to the subject before us; as to The men bearing rule; not one of the children of old Cain, have one partical of right to bear Rule in Government affairs from there own transgressions, and I cannot help it; and should you or I bear rule we ought to do it with dignity and honour before God.

I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them

We know there is a portion of inhabitants of the earth who dwell in Asia that are negroes, and said to be jews. The blood of Judah has not only mingled almost with all nations, but also with the blood of Cain, and they have mingled there seeds together; These negro Jewes may keep up all the outer ordinenances of the jewish releigeon, they may have there sacrifices, and they may perform all the releigeous seremonies any people on earth could perform, but let me tell you, that the day they consented to mingle their seed with Cannan, the preisthood was taken away from Judah, and that portion of Judahs seed will never get any rule, or blessings of the preisthood until Cain gets it. Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the preisthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction,--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the preisthood untill that curse be removed.

Therefore I will not consent for one moment to have an african dictate me or any Bren. with regard to Church or State Government. I may vary in my veiwes from others, and they may think I am foolish in the things I have spoken, and think that they know more than I do, but I know I know more than they do. If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?

I the Government affairs of States and Territorys and kingdoms by right God should Govern. he should rule over nations, and controle kings. If we suffer the Devil to rule over us we shall not accomplish any good. I want the Lord to rule, and be our Governor and and dictater, and we are the boys to execute, I shall not consent for a moment to give way to a Gentile Spirit of contention, which is the cause of angry--------Difference to the alinations of every Good feeling. It is for you and I to take a course, to bind our feelings together in an everlasting bond of union inasmuch as we love the Lord, which we ought to do more than selves. Consequently I will not consent for a moment to have the Children of Cain rule me nor my Bren. No, it is not right.

But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned buisness what we do or say here. What we do it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right out in the constitution, "that every free white male inhabitant above the age of twenty one years" &c. My mind is the same to day as when we where poreing over that constitution; any light upon the subject is the same, my judgement is the same, only a little more so. Prahapes I have said enough upon this subject. I have given you the true principles and doctrine. No man can vote for me or my Bren. in this Territory who has not the privilege of acting in Church affairs. Every man, and woman, and Child in this Territory are Citizens; to say the contrary is all nonsense to me. The indians are Citizens, the Africans are Citizens, and the jews than come from Asia, that are almost entirely of the blood of Cain, It is our duty to take of them, and administer to them in all the acts of humanity, and kindness, they shall have the right of Citizenship, but shall not have the right to dictate in Church and State matters. The abolishonists of the east, have cirest them them, and their whol argument are callculated to darken Counsel, as it was here yesterday.

As for our bills passing here, we may lay the foundation for what? for men to come here from Africa or else where; by hundreds of thousands. When these men come here from the Islands, are they going to hold offices in Government No. It is for men who understand the knowlege of Government affairs to hold such offices, and on the other make provisions for them to plow, and to reap, and enjoy all that human beings can enjoy, and we protect them in it. Do we know how to amilerate the condition of these people? we do. Supose that five thousands of them come from the pacific Islands, and ten or fifteen thousands from Japan , or from China, not one soul of them would know how to vote for a Government officer, they therefore ought not in the first thing have anything to do in Government afairs.

 

What the Gentiles are doing we are consenting to do. What we are trying to do to day is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privilege. My voice shall be against all the day long. I shall not consent for one Moment I will will call them a counsel. I say I will not consent for one moment for you to lay a plan to bring a curse upon this people. I shall not be while I am here.

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

That slavery will continue, untill there is a people raised up upon the face of the earth who will contend for righteous principles, who will not only beleive in but operate, with every power and faculty given to them to help to esstablish the kingdom of God, to overcome the devil, and drive him from the earth, then will this curse be removed

Sounds like the '60's? 😲

[Grug the Neanderthal]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

After reading the below, do you still believe everything BY said?

1) I never said that I "believe EVERYTHING BY said." I said that I consider him to be an authority on doctrine. 

2) This thread is about Adam-God, not the Curse of Cain. Let’s not derail the thread please.

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1) I never said that I "believe EVERYTHING BY said." I said that I consider him to be an authority on doctrine. 

2) This thread is about Adam-God, not the Curse of Cain. Let’s not derail the thread please.

Really not sure what else there is to discuss.

Brigham taught it, claimed he got it from Joseph probably shortly before the martyrdom.  It was part of the endowment and widely accepted but not by everyone at the time.

It was prohibited from being taught early in the 1900s.  It was declared a heresy in the 60s and 70s.  Hardly any members today have heard of it yet alone studied it.

Brigham was not misquoted or misunderstood.  The historical records provide multiple accounts.

That's really all there is to it.  Believe it or don't.  That's up to the individual.  The Church bans the promotion of the belief.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Really not sure what else there is to discuss.

I agree with most of your summary. Brigham Young was definitely not misquoted or misunderstood. But there are still a couple of things that could be discussed. 

1) Whether or not the evidence shows that Joseph Smith taught or likely taught Adam-God.

2) Whether or not Adam-God is true. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1) I never said that I "believe EVERYTHING BY said." I said that I consider him to be an authority on doctrine. 

2) This thread is about Adam-God, not the Curse of Cain. Let’s not derail the thread please.

Did you not see where it mentions Adam is God? Or am I reading it wrong. I think when I read what he says about the curse of Cain, I know that he is definitely wrong about Adam being God. 

Long ago mama Eve our good old mother Eve pertook of the forbiden fruit and this made a slave of her. Adam hated very much to have her taken out of the garden of Eden, and now our old daddy says I beleive I will eat of the fruit and become a slave too. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Tacenda

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Did you not see where it mentions Adam is God? 

Yeah, I saw where his address mentions Adam-God. 

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

when I read what he says about the curse of Cain, I know that he is definitely wrong about Adam being God. 

Why is that? 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I agree with most of your summary. Brigham Young was definitely not misquoted or misunderstood. But there are still a couple of things that could be discussed. 

1) Whether or not the evidence shows that Joseph Smith taught or likely taught Adam-God.

2) Whether or not Adam-God is true. 

1. The evidence that Joseph taught Adam God is slim, second hand, and in the final two years of his life.  I happen to believe he probably did, but I'm honest enough to admit there's no contemporary record of it.

2. If Brigham Young and Orson Pratt couldn't see eye to eye on it I doubt any Church member would be convinced by any argument offered. I happen to believe it's true to a point but I don't seek to convince others very often.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, I saw where his address mentions Adam-God. 

Why is that? 

Because the curse of Cain, or the mark isn't black people. I thought the church's essays clear that up. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

[Grug the Neanderthal]

46 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm honest enough to admit there's no contemporary record of it.

I don’t think that it’s a matter of honesty or dishonesty. There’s definitely contemporary evidence that Joseph Smith taught things that fit very well with Adam-God. I would even go so far as to say that some of the contemporary statements he made can’t be reasonably explained without Adam being God. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

50 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If Brigham Young and Orson Pratt couldn't see eye to eye on it I doubt any Church member would be convinced by any argument offered. I happen to believe it's true to a point but I don't seek to convince others very often.

I agree that there isn’t going to be a consensus on Adam-God and that it’s unlikely that anyone who rejects Adam-God can be persuaded by anyone here to believe it. That doesn’t mean that there’s no value in discussing the truthfulness of Adam-God and letting people reach their own conclusions. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

27 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Because the curse of Cain, or the mark isn't black people. I thought the church's essays clear that up. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I don’t think that the church’s essay on race and the priesthood cleared much of anything up. Basically the church essay downgraded previous doctrine on the curse of Cain to theories that have been disavowed as official doctrine by the church today.

Whether or not the previous teachings on the Curse of Cain were true or not isn’t cleared up at all. And I think that this was by design. I think the essay was designed to appease members who had serious problems with the past teachings, while leaving room for those who still believed them to do so quietly. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

2. If Brigham Young and Orson Pratt couldn't see eye to eye on it I doubt any Church member would be convinced by any argument offered. I happen to believe it's true to a point but I don't seek to convince others very often.

That's a wise decision.  I have a book that I acquired in 1991, self published in 1991 (Payson, Utah) by Craig L. Tholson, titled ADAM-GOD.   It tries to include all references to the topic and it includes some useful history, and the author is definitely on the side of pushing the doctrine.  But apparently he tried to push it too hard at church too, and he was excommunicated in August 1992. 

I also get a sense at what Brigham Young was trying to say (to a point), but I still don't see it quite the same way some people make it out to be.  It's fine to have opinions on this, but don't try to make it out to be "church doctrine".

[Grug the Neanderthal]

12 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I have a book that I acquired in 1991, self published in 1991 (Payson, Utah) by Craig L. Tholson, titled ADAM-GOD.   It tries to include all references to the topic and it includes some useful history, and the author is definitely on the side of pushing the doctrine.  But apparently he tried to push it too hard at church too, and he was excommunicated in August 1992. 

I looked into this book and the author a couple of years ago. If my memory serves me there is more to the story for why he was exed. I seem to recall that he got involved with some shady splinter groups, one that involved giving one’s wife to the cult leader. I believe that the author ended up in prison at some point, too.  I can’t remember where I read this or all the details, though. 

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I looked into this book and the author a couple of years ago. If my memory serves me there is more to the story for why he was exed. I seem to recall that he got involved with some shady splinter groups, one that involved giving one’s wife to the cult leader. I believe that the author ended up in prison at some point, too.  I can’t remember where I read this or all the details, though. 

Yep, he joined up with the "Church of the First Born" (Fred Collier's group), but he says that was after "the Church had began to persecute and ostracize" him and his wife.  I suspect there's more to that part of it as well.

[Benjamin Seeker]

On the original question:

Brigham claimed multiple times JS taught Adam-God, which is the biggest evidence in favor for that scenario. However, JS consistently taught that Jesus was above Adam in priesthood authority. There’s that quote that Grug has in the OP here that is most clearly interpreted as Adam’s authority coming after or as secondary to Christ’s. Then there is another quote about Adam returning the keys of authority over the universe to Christ before the millennium or something along those lines. Obviously, those quotes that I believe are from the Nauvoo time period, point toward a traditional understanding of Adam as subservient to God the Father and Christ. 

I think it’s most likely that Brigham misinterpreted the endowment. The endowment presents Adam as one of the Gods that created the world, and I think for  some reason, maybe something JS said,  Brigham side stepped the obvious interpretation and thought that Adam was God the Father, Jehovah was his dad, and Elohim his Grandfather.

Until more evidence comes to light, that’s my best guess. 

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

. The endowment presents Adam as one of the Gods that created the world, and I think for  some reason, maybe something JS said,  Brigham side stepped the obvious interpretation and thought that Adam was God the Father, Jehovah was his dad, and Elohim his Grandfather.

That sounds reasonable to me.

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

On the original question:

Brigham claimed multiple times JS taught Adam-God, which is the biggest evidence in favor for that scenario. However, JS consistently taught that Jesus was above Adam in priesthood authority. There’s that quote that Grug has in the OP here that is most clearly interpreted as Adam’s authority coming after or as secondary to Christ’s. Then there is another quote about Adam returning the keys of authority over the universe to Christ before the millennium or something along those lines. Obviously, those quotes that I believe are from the Nauvoo time period, point toward a traditional understanding of Adam as subservient to God the Father and Christ. 

I think it’s most likely that Brigham misinterpreted the endowment. The endowment presents Adam as one of the Gods that created the world, and I think for  some reason, maybe something JS said,  Brigham side stepped the obvious interpretation and thought that Adam was God the Father, Jehovah was his dad, and Elohim his Grandfather.

Until more evidence comes to light, that’s my best guess. 

A judgment will be held, where the righteous who have held keys will make their reports and deliver up their keys and ministry. Adam will sit on a thrown, is the "Ancient of Days" returning priesthood keys to Jesus, (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3:13: D&C 116. The "Ancient of Days" commonly thought to be God.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Dario_M]

13 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yeah, that’s not how that works, but believe whatever you want. 

You’re welcome to believe that, but that doesn’t mean your belief is correct.

Oh my.... your truth is the only truth isn't? You make a topic and ask the Question here or Adam is God but you allready know the answer so well it seems like. Same with that other stuff about Brigham young. 

If you know it all so well why do you ask the question anyway make a topic about it and disscus the matter? You obviously don't wanna consider the fact that maybey some of your ideas about Adam and God (plus other weird ideas from you)...... are simply just a bunch of sonsens.🤷‍♂️

It's pointless in my opinion if you know all the answers so well allready. You just try to convince us that this is the real truth. 

You probably will ignore me like you said to me bevore. But i needed this of my chest anyway. 

🎭

Edited March 11, 2023 by Dario_M

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

JS consistently taught that Jesus was above Adam in priesthood authority.

There are statements by Joseph Smith that appear to have Christ above Adam in authority, but there are also statements by Joseph Smith that appear to have Adam above Christ in authority. 

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There’s that quote that Grug has in the OP here that is most clearly interpreted as Adam’s authority coming after or as secondary to Christ’s.

Joseph’s statement that "Christ is the great high priest, Adam next" is typically interpreted to mean that Christ is higher in authority to Adam, but it can also be understood the other way around. 

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Then there is another quote about Adam returning the keys of authority over the universe to Christ before the millennium or something along those lines.

The quote you are referring to says:

"Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family."

It doesn’t say that Adam returns the keys of the universe to Christ. It says that he delivers these keys up to him. Big difference in my opinion. 

Adam holding the keys of the universe, sounds like Adam is God the Father. This would at least make him a member of the Godhead, right? He can’t be Christ, so if he’s not the Father, then does that make him the Holy Ghost? 

7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think it’s most likely that Brigham misinterpreted the endowment. The endowment presents Adam as one of the Gods that created the world, and I think for  some reason, maybe something JS said,  Brigham side stepped the obvious interpretation and thought that Adam was God the Father, Jehovah was his dad, and Elohim his Grandfather.

If Adam is one of the three Gods who created the world, which God is he? And where does he fit in this statement by Joseph Smith:

"Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator." (TPJS, p. 190)

God the First, the Creator, is Heavenly Father, right?

God the Second, the Redeemer, is Jesus Christ, right?

God the Third, the witness or testator, is the Holy Ghost, right? 

Where is Adam (one of the Gods of creation) in this group?