Adam Next

[Pazooka]

Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next.

Last Adam, the Final Adam, the Ultimate Adam, Second Adam and New Adam have all been used as titles for Jesus. And now we add a unique Mormon title: “Adam next”

Like Margaret Barker says, “ Adam was remembered as the first high priest, and Jesus was described as the new Adam.” ~ Temple Theology, pg 4

Is it true that a female Methodist minister knows more than almost every LDS scholar?

Joseph Smith did not say that Adam was next to Jesus in authority of the priesthood. Heck no. He said Jesus was this “Adam Next.”

[TheDuke]

I am confused about the question. It the statement that next to god (Jesus) Adam is the greatest? If so, it seems I've always been taught that. Seems we've been taught it is Father-Jesus-Adam-arch angels------------------ JS (perhaps as one of the arc angels).

[Pazooka]

I am confused about the question. It the statement that next to god (Jesus) Adam is the greatest? If so, it seems I've always been taught that. Seems we've been taught it is Father-Jesus-Adam-arch angels------------------ JS (perhaps as one of the arc angels).

No, it means that Adam was the first Great High Priest and Jesus was the second. Jesus presents Himself to Adam on the throne and not the other way around. Adam gives what he would have previously held and presents it to Jesus and Adam goes higher - glory upon glory, exaltation upon exaltation.

[Baurak Ale]

I am confused about the question. It the statement that next to god (Jesus) Adam is the greatest? If so, it seems I've always been taught that. Seems we've been taught it is Father-Jesus-Adam-arch angels------------------ JS (perhaps as one of the arc angels).

No, it means that Adam was the first Great High Priest and Jesus was the second. Jesus presents Himself to Adam on the throne and not the other way around. Adam gives what he would have previously held and presents it to Jesus and Adam goes higher - glory upon glory, exaltation upon exaltation.

You are correct.

However, though your observation of Joseph Smith's calling "Adam next" could be correct the way you've stated it, alternatively I could see the "next" meaning that Adam is the next higher high priest.

This mixup actually occurs in the footnotes of the hypocephalus too, footnote 2, where Oliblish is described as being "next to Kolob," which people all interpret to mean "next down" but according to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Oliblish was "next up" (there are three governing ones above Kolob, and Kolob stands at the head of a quorum of 12 stars). According to the Websters 1828 dictionary, "next" could have either meaning and was contextually derived. You can read more about this hypocephalus mixup here: If You Could Hie to Sirius B.

Hence Oliblish stands "next" to Kolob as a greater world, and Adam stands "next" to Christ as a greater great high priest.

[blitzinstripes]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

[Pazooka]

I am confused about the question. It the statement that next to god (Jesus) Adam is the greatest? If so, it seems I've always been taught that. Seems we've been taught it is Father-Jesus-Adam-arch angels------------------ JS (perhaps as one of the arc angels).

No, it means that Adam was the first Great High Priest and Jesus was the second. Jesus presents Himself to Adam on the throne and not the other way around. Adam gives what he would have previously held and presents it to Jesus and Adam goes higher - glory upon glory, exaltation upon exaltation.

You are correct.

However, though your observation of Joseph Smith's calling "Adam next" could be correct the way you've stated it, alternatively I could see the "next" meaning that Adam is the next higher high priest.

This mixup actually occurs in the footnotes of the hypocephalus too, footnote 2, where Oliblish is described as being "next to Kolob," which people all interpret to mean "next down" but according to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Oliblish was "next up" (there are three governing ones above Kolob, and Kolob stands at the head of a quorum of 12 stars). According to the Websters 1828 dictionary, "next" could have either meaning and was contextually derived. You can read more about this hypocephalus mixup here: If You Could Hie to Sirius B.

Hence Oliblish stands "next" to Kolob as a greater world, and Adam stands "next" to Christ as a greater great high priest.

Pardon me if I don’t buy into anything that is currently understood about Kolob or Oliblish. I think we’ll have to be willing to abandon what we currently think we understand about cosmology before that happens.

[Pazooka]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

Congratulations, you are safely in the majority.

[Luke]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

But Daniel 7 clearly says that the Ancient of Days is "the Most High".

Here's a modern translation which makes it pretty clear:

• NLT Daniel 7
  22 until the Ancient One—the Most High—came and judged in favor of his holy people. Then the time arrived for the holy people to take over the kingdom.

[Mamabear]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

Agreed.
I don’t even think Adam is Michael anymore.

[Luke]

I don’t even think Adam is Michael anymore.

Then why did Joseph clearly teach this?

You might be comfortable dismissing Joseph's teachings, but I'm not - particularly in this instance. He actually met Michael.

[blitzinstripes]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

But Daniel 7 clearly says that the Ancient of Days is "the Most High".

Here's a modern translation which makes it pretty clear:

• NLT Daniel 7
  22 until the Ancient One—the Most High—came and judged in favor of his holy people. Then the time arrived for the holy people to take over the kingdom.

As with other titles such as "Elias", titles can often be applied to more than one personage at different times and places. Christ is often referred to as the Father, although that title also refers to HIS Father. At times I believe that Ancient of Days may refer to HF, Christ, and Adam.

[Mamabear]

I don’t even think Adam is Michael anymore.

Then why did Joseph clearly teach this?

You might be comfortable dismissing Joseph's teachings, but I'm not - particularly in this instance. He actually met Michael.

We don’t have proof that he taught it…. Only text that say he did. I believe Michael is Michael and Adam is Adam because of scriptures I’ve read.
I just thought I’d share, you don’t have to jump down my throat. I’m not asking anyone to believe me.

[Luke]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

But Daniel 7 clearly says that the Ancient of Days is "the Most High".

Here's a modern translation which makes it pretty clear:

• NLT Daniel 7
  22 until the Ancient One—the Most High—came and judged in favor of his holy people. Then the time arrived for the holy people to take over the kingdom.

As with other titles such as "Elias", titles can often be applied to more than one personage at different times and places. Christ is often referred to as the Father, although that title also refers to HIS Father. At times I believe that Ancient of Days may refer to HF, Christ, and Adam.

Perhaps so, but Joseph also explicitly said that "the Ancient of Days" as spoken of in Daniel 7 was Adam/Michael.

Therefore...

[Niemand]

The phrase "Second Adam" is used a lot in non-LDS sources. The line of thinking is that Jesus undid what Adam started.

There is a line of symmetry in it. Adam took the fruit from the tree, and Jesus put the fruit back on it.

[Luke]

I don’t even think Adam is Michael anymore.

Then why did Joseph clearly teach this?

You might be comfortable dismissing Joseph's teachings, but I'm not - particularly in this instance. He actually met Michael.

We don’t have proof that he taught it….

Yes... we do...

What on earth are you talking about?

He spoke of it numerous times in his public discourses. The notes taken at the time all agree with each other.

• divers Angels from Michael or Adam, down to the present time

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 2-dc-128/7

This is from a letter from Joseph Smith. The handwriting is that of William Clayton, his scribe, but his signature is on the document.

Furthermore, this letter was printed in the Times and Seasons, in October 1842, and was included in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.

To deny that there's proof that Joseph taught this doctrine is just promoting utter fables.

[Mamabear]

I don’t even think Adam is Michael anymore.

Then why did Joseph clearly teach this?

You might be comfortable dismissing Joseph's teachings, but I'm not - particularly in this instance. He actually met Michael.

We don’t have proof that he taught it….

Yes... we do...

What on earth are you talking about?

He spoke of it numerous times in his public discourses. The notes taken at the time all agree with each other.

• divers Angels from Michael or Adam, down to the present time

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 2-dc-128/7

This is from a letter from Joseph Smith. The handwriting is that of William Clayton, his scribe, but his signature is on the document.

Furthermore, this letter was printed in the Times and Seasons, in October 1842, and was included in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.

To deny that there's proof that Joseph taught this doctrine is just promoting utter fables.

The original d&c 137 states that Joseph saw Adam, Abraham and Michael. Until it was changed. Imagine that.

[Pazooka]

The phrase "Second Adam" is used a lot in non-LDS sources. The line of thinking is that Jesus undid what Adam started.

There is a line of symmetry in it. Adam took the fruit from the tree, and Jesus put the fruit back on it.

Yes, there is symmetry.

Adam was the Great High Priest of creation in the Garden of Eden. He was involved in the *original* everlasting covenant that binds all of creation together.

Jesus is the Second Adam or the *next* Great High Priest - involved in the new and everlasting covenant.

Different trees, from what I understand.

[Luke]

Then why did Joseph clearly teach this?

You might be comfortable dismissing Joseph's teachings, but I'm not - particularly in this instance. He actually met Michael.

We don’t have proof that he taught it….

Yes... we do...

What on earth are you talking about?

He spoke of it numerous times in his public discourses. The notes taken at the time all agree with each other.

• divers Angels from Michael or Adam, down to the present time

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... 2-dc-128/7

This is from a letter from Joseph Smith. The handwriting is that of William Clayton, his scribe, but his signature is on the document.

Furthermore, this letter was printed in the Times and Seasons, in October 1842, and was included in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.

To deny that there's proof that Joseph taught this doctrine is just promoting utter fables.

The original d&c 137 states that Joseph saw Adam, Abraham and Michael. Until it was changed. Imagine that.

He did see both Adam and Michael. He saw Him in different forms. Past, present and future is all before you in visions.

But again, the evidence is solid as a rock that Joseph taught Michael/Adam.

[Baurak Ale]

I don’t even think Adam is Michael anymore.

Then why did Joseph clearly teach this?

You might be comfortable dismissing Joseph's teachings, but I'm not - particularly in this instance. He actually met Michael.

We don’t have proof that he taught it…. Only text that say he did. I believe Michael is Michael and Adam is Adam because of scriptures I’ve read.
I just thought I’d share, you don’t have to jump down my throat. I’m not asking anyone to believe me.

Were the following all absent from the 'scriptures [you've] read'?

D&C 27:11

• "Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days."

D&C 107:54

• "And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel."

D&C 128:21

• "The voice of Gabriel, and of Raphael, and of divers angels, from Michael or Adam down to the present time, all declaring their dispensation, their rights, their keys, their honors, their majesty and glory, and the power of their priesthood."

[Baurak Ale]

I am confused about the question. It the statement that next to god (Jesus) Adam is the greatest? If so, it seems I've always been taught that. Seems we've been taught it is Father-Jesus-Adam-arch angels------------------ JS (perhaps as one of the arc angels).

No, it means that Adam was the first Great High Priest and Jesus was the second. Jesus presents Himself to Adam on the throne and not the other way around. Adam gives what he would have previously held and presents it to Jesus and Adam goes higher - glory upon glory, exaltation upon exaltation.

You are correct.

However, though your observation of Joseph Smith's calling "Adam next" could be correct the way you've stated it, alternatively I could see the "next" meaning that Adam is the next higher high priest.

This mixup actually occurs in the footnotes of the hypocephalus too, footnote 2, where Oliblish is described as being "next to Kolob," which people all interpret to mean "next down" but according to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Oliblish was "next up" (there are three governing ones above Kolob, and Kolob stands at the head of a quorum of 12 stars). According to the Websters 1828 dictionary, "next" could have either meaning and was contextually derived. You can read more about this hypocephalus mixup here: If You Could Hie to Sirius B.

Hence Oliblish stands "next" to Kolob as a greater world, and Adam stands "next" to Christ as a greater great high priest.

Pardon me if I don’t buy into anything that is currently understood about Kolob or Oliblish. I think we’ll have to be willing to abandon what we currently think we understand about cosmology before that happens.

You are pardoned; however, the post I sent you bears little resemblance to anything 'currently understood' regarding Kolob and Oliblish outside the recognition that they are literal worlds.

And you'll also have to excuse me for seeing your response as appearing quite curt and unwelcoming for someone who was trying to provide a supporting perspective on your initial post. You don't have to agree with what Kolob is but you could appreciate the linguistic analysis I provided with supporting evidence. If I've done something to offend you, please DM me and let's work it out.

[Pazooka]

No, it means that Adam was the first Great High Priest and Jesus was the second. Jesus presents Himself to Adam on the throne and not the other way around. Adam gives what he would have previously held and presents it to Jesus and Adam goes higher - glory upon glory, exaltation upon exaltation.

You are correct.

However, though your observation of Joseph Smith's calling "Adam next" could be correct the way you've stated it, alternatively I could see the "next" meaning that Adam is the next higher high priest.

This mixup actually occurs in the footnotes of the hypocephalus too, footnote 2, where Oliblish is described as being "next to Kolob," which people all interpret to mean "next down" but according to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Oliblish was "next up" (there are three governing ones above Kolob, and Kolob stands at the head of a quorum of 12 stars). According to the Websters 1828 dictionary, "next" could have either meaning and was contextually derived. You can read more about this hypocephalus mixup here: If You Could Hie to Sirius B.

Hence Oliblish stands "next" to Kolob as a greater world, and Adam stands "next" to Christ as a greater great high priest.

Pardon me if I don’t buy into anything that is currently understood about Kolob or Oliblish. I think we’ll have to be willing to abandon what we currently think we understand about cosmology before that happens.

You are pardoned; however, the post I sent you bears little resemblance to anything 'currently understood' regarding Kolob and Oliblish outside the recognition that they are literal worlds.

And you'll also have to excuse me for seeing your response as appearing quite curt and unwelcoming for someone who was trying to provide a supporting perspective on your initial post. You don't have to agree with what Kolob is but you could appreciate the linguistic analysis I provided with supporting evidence. If I've done something to offend you, please DM me and let's work it out.

I apologize. I didn’t intend to sound curt - but you’re right, it does.

Here’s the thing, though. We misuse these words all the time. “World” literally means “age of man.” The word used in the facsimile is “creation” which could mean many things. I appreciate your trying to support, and I always appreciate your contributions. I just don’t think it applies here. But I will take another look.

[FrankOne]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

Congratulations, you are safely in the majority.

safe and secure is always best.

*sarc

[Pazooka]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

Congratulations, you are safely in the majority.

safe and secure is always best.

*sarc

And so is being mainstream - - because broad is the way, right?

[FrankOne]

I do not buy the doctrine of Adam being higher than Christ. Adam (Micheal) abides the directions of the Son of God (Christ) and has for all eternity. At AOA Adam will present his keys to Christ. Not vice versa. Brigham Young as usual taught a false doctrine. Christ reigns supreme at the right hand of the father.

Congratulations, you are safely in the majority.

safe and secure is always best.

*sarc

And so is being mainstream - - because broad is the way, right?

broad has become more broad with each day that passes. The narrow path has become as wide as one person can walk.

[Pazooka]

No, it means that Adam was the first Great High Priest and Jesus was the second. Jesus presents Himself to Adam on the throne and not the other way around. Adam gives what he would have previously held and presents it to Jesus and Adam goes higher - glory upon glory, exaltation upon exaltation.

You are correct.

However, though your observation of Joseph Smith's calling "Adam next" could be correct the way you've stated it, alternatively I could see the "next" meaning that Adam is the next higher high priest.

This mixup actually occurs in the footnotes of the hypocephalus too, footnote 2, where Oliblish is described as being "next to Kolob," which people all interpret to mean "next down" but according to the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Oliblish was "next up" (there are three governing ones above Kolob, and Kolob stands at the head of a quorum of 12 stars). According to the Websters 1828 dictionary, "next" could have either meaning and was contextually derived. You can read more about this hypocephalus mixup here: If You Could Hie to Sirius B.

Hence Oliblish stands "next" to Kolob as a greater world, and Adam stands "next" to Christ as a greater great high priest.

Pardon me if I don’t buy into anything that is currently understood about Kolob or Oliblish. I think we’ll have to be willing to abandon what we currently think we understand about cosmology before that happens.

You are pardoned; however, the post I sent you bears little resemblance to anything 'currently understood' regarding Kolob and Oliblish outside the recognition that they are literal worlds.

And you'll also have to excuse me for seeing your response as appearing quite curt and unwelcoming for someone who was trying to provide a supporting perspective on your initial post. You don't have to agree with what Kolob is but you could appreciate the linguistic analysis I provided with supporting evidence. If I've done something to offend you, please DM me and let's work it out.

Ok, I’ve been poking around your blog. (Glad to see Asherah gets mentioned BTW)

What’s this big lumpy thing in the middle of Facsimile 2? Maybe let’s start there, because you’ll start to understand where I’m coming from (a socially awkward but sincere place, I assure you).