Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Arm Chair Quarterback
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1528

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Arm Chair Quarterback »

RosyPosy wrote: June 15th, 2024, 5:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: June 9th, 2024, 4:18 pm Consider together everything BY taught and did over his lifetime. Yes, he did do one good thing, he led the saints west, but even that may have been self-serving.

1. He taught Adam was the Father of Jesus. Almost all reject this.
2. He implemented racism and the priesthood ban. We are to surmise JS got it wrong.
3. He taught that Christ's blood was not sufficient for serious offenses and blood atonement was necessary.
4. He taught and canonized polygamy and himself had 5 wives between the ages of 15-17.
5. He was pleased with the outcome of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and was convinced that the saints administered justice.
6. He turned nearly all the Deacons, Teachers, and Priests into Seventies and thus stripped the Nauvoo Stake High Council of priesthood. Then in Utah with nearly all the priesthood being seventies, he had no one left for Aaronic Priesthood positions, so he decides to give priesthood to boys, despite the revelations indicating that those are positions for grown men.
7. He somehow became the richest man west of the Mississippi, despite several years of a government salary as Governor. He essentially got rich off of tithing money. He was the only one allowed to sell alcohol and tobacco in Utah. He used tithing money to start all sorts of businesses, repaying most, not all, of the tithing money back to the church as he kept the profits from the businesses. This man was no saint.

The entirety of this man's works was not of God. Why would Adam/God be any different.
I have to agree with this. I never had a good feeling about BY from my childhood.

Another one to add to your list. BY was a high-ranking freemason and has some responsibilities for freemasonry being part of temple ceremonies. BTW JS is a post-mortem freemason.
What do you mean by post Morten free mason?

User avatar
RosyPosy
captain of 100
Posts: 562
Location: hiding from the ATF

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by RosyPosy »

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: June 15th, 2024, 5:43 pm
RosyPosy wrote: June 15th, 2024, 5:31 pm
Shawn Henry wrote: June 9th, 2024, 4:18 pm Consider together everything BY taught and did over his lifetime. Yes, he did do one good thing, he led the saints west, but even that may have been self-serving.

1. He taught Adam was the Father of Jesus. Almost all reject this.
2. He implemented racism and the priesthood ban. We are to surmise JS got it wrong.
3. He taught that Christ's blood was not sufficient for serious offenses and blood atonement was necessary.
4. He taught and canonized polygamy and himself had 5 wives between the ages of 15-17.
5. He was pleased with the outcome of the Mountain Meadows Massacre and was convinced that the saints administered justice.
6. He turned nearly all the Deacons, Teachers, and Priests into Seventies and thus stripped the Nauvoo Stake High Council of priesthood. Then in Utah with nearly all the priesthood being seventies, he had no one left for Aaronic Priesthood positions, so he decides to give priesthood to boys, despite the revelations indicating that those are positions for grown men.
7. He somehow became the richest man west of the Mississippi, despite several years of a government salary as Governor. He essentially got rich off of tithing money. He was the only one allowed to sell alcohol and tobacco in Utah. He used tithing money to start all sorts of businesses, repaying most, not all, of the tithing money back to the church as he kept the profits from the businesses. This man was no saint.

The entirety of this man's works was not of God. Why would Adam/God be any different.
I have to agree with this. I never had a good feeling about BY from my childhood.

Another one to add to your list. BY was a high-ranking freemason and has some responsibilities for freemasonry being part of temple ceremonies. BTW JS is a post-mortem freemason.
What do you mean by post Morten free mason?
"Post-mortem" as in occurred after death. I know I read it somewhere and if I find it again I'll post it. But it's possible JS's name was put in low rank free masons after his martyrdom.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6562
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by TheDuke »

Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: June 15th, 2024, 12:58 pm LIke a good friend of mine always says.....hard to believe that the gospel would be so complex, hidden behind Hebrew lexicon, twisted, lost down deep rabbit holes-. If that's how it is and we excuse all of that by saying that Satan is responsible for twisting all of that---but if gospel doctrine is that convoluted and hard to wrap the brain around, reserved for only those who claim to be deep thinkers and above the masses---if that's the way it is, then its fair to say that this is not from Jesus.

Brigham Young was messed up. Joseph Smith may have been too, but he was a little better at covering the rabbit holes where he stored his more heretical Christianity.
what does it mean to say the gospel is complex? I guess I'm asking what is the gospel in this context?

Lets say it another way. What is complex? Understanding this world? Understanding what god wants of us or would like us to want of him? Eternity? Eternal progression? How to play nice with you neighbors? How to learn what he is like? Are all these things together what you would call "a gospel"?

It seems complex because it is very many things. You have to sort out each one at a time, else the concepts and rules and terminology gets too fuzzy. The key thing to realize is spiritual progression is eternal. It began billions of years ago for all of us. It puts us all in different places, not necessarily levels but places. It is very, very broad. there is much to learn to become like god, to have any or all of his powers. So it is HUGE.

IT IS NOT COMPLEX, but very very broad and deep. When it finally hits you, that is the basic premise of eternal progression, then all truth fits together or (may be circumscribed into one great whole!). Then bam you can see right through it to the core. No longer complex, but simple and the stories make sense but they are parables at best, all have a purpose but none as the seemed before.

Take the topic of this thread. Is Adam our Father? Not is Adam a god. I mean he is a god, either way. but understanding who Adam is and who the Father is and who Jesus is, IS understanding god, which is eternal life. But without understanding eternal progression, making them and us static in one point in time, either now, or in the millennium or after the millennium or during the creation or the premortal council, will NEVER get you the understanding as we've all progressed in some way. Including the Father and his son.

Look at Jesus --- was the First born in premortality and was "one like unto the son" but it doesn't say the son yet. Became the only begotten in the flesh some 2000 years ago, i.e. the "son". After the atonement and his sacrifice and learning he became "the father", not our father, i.e. the father of the human race or father of all this creation (earth), but "the Father" a title. He becomes the father (figuratively) of those that follow him and accept him as their Christ. Then they are born again in the spirit, then born again in the flesh and literal offspring of god............................ progression............................. READ KFD and if the spirit speaks you'll see a simple plan, but one much, much broader than LDS plan of salvation, and even greater than that of Christianity with no-premortality and only heaven or hell. And much greater than the limited scope of BoM or OT where even resurrection isn't directly called out and it is about this life only and Adam is the father because he was the first man! And Abraham was the father because Israel and the Jews descended from him................ progession and progressive truths.............SIMPLE

User avatar
Michael Sherwin
The Wickerman
Posts: 2129

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Michael Sherwin »

TheDuke wrote: June 15th, 2024, 7:10 pm
Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: June 15th, 2024, 12:58 pm LIke a good friend of mine always says.....hard to believe that the gospel would be so complex, hidden behind Hebrew lexicon, twisted, lost down deep rabbit holes-. If that's how it is and we excuse all of that by saying that Satan is responsible for twisting all of that---but if gospel doctrine is that convoluted and hard to wrap the brain around, reserved for only those who claim to be deep thinkers and above the masses---if that's the way it is, then its fair to say that this is not from Jesus.

Brigham Young was messed up. Joseph Smith may have been too, but he was a little better at covering the rabbit holes where he stored his more heretical Christianity.
what does it mean to say the gospel is complex? I guess I'm asking what is the gospel in this context?

Lets say it another way. What is complex? Understanding this world? Understanding what god wants of us or would like us to want of him? Eternity? Eternal progression? How to play nice with you neighbors? How to learn what he is like? Are all these things together what you would call "a gospel"?

It seems complex because it is very many things. You have to sort out each one at a time, else the concepts and rules and terminology gets too fuzzy. The key thing to realize is spiritual progression is eternal. It began billions of years ago for all of us. It puts us all in different places, not necessarily levels but places. It is very, very broad. there is much to learn to become like god, to have any or all of his powers. So it is HUGE.

IT IS NOT COMPLEX, but very very broad and deep. When it finally hits you, that is the basic premise of eternal progression, then all truth fits together or (may be circumscribed into one great whole!). Then bam you can see right through it to the core. No longer complex, but simple and the stories make sense but they are parables at best, all have a purpose but none as the seemed before.

Take the topic of this thread. Is Adam our Father? Not is Adam a god. I mean he is a god, either way. but understanding who Adam is and who the Father is and who Jesus is, IS understanding god, which is eternal life. But without understanding eternal progression, making them and us static in one point in time, either now, or in the millennium or after the millennium or during the creation or the premortal council, will NEVER get you the understanding as we've all progressed in some way. Including the Father and his son.

Look at Jesus --- was the First born in premortality and was "one like unto the son" but it doesn't say the son yet. Became the only begotten in the flesh some 2000 years ago, i.e. the "son". After the atonement and his sacrifice and learning he became "the father", not our father, i.e. the father of the human race or father of all this creation (earth), but "the Father" a title. He becomes the father (figuratively) of those that follow him and accept him as their Christ. Then they are born again in the spirit, then born again in the flesh and literal offspring of god............................ progression............................. READ KFD and if the spirit speaks you'll see a simple plan, but one much, much broader than LDS plan of salvation, and even greater than that of Christianity with no-premortality and only heaven or hell. And much greater than the limited scope of BoM or OT where even resurrection isn't directly called out and it is about this life only and Adam is the father because he was the first man! And Abraham was the father because Israel and the Jews descended from him................ progession and progressive truths.............SIMPLE
Not so simple. There are the outer teachings of the gospel of Christ. And there are the hidden or deeper teachings of the gospel of Christ.

13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


This is a real thing! I'm not just making this up. But in these days I have made plain the parables that, Jesus/The Indwelling Father has spoken, right here on LDSFF. I did it at the prodding of the Spirit. But few have heard the words of the Spirit that teaches me.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6562
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by TheDuke »

Michael Sherwin wrote: June 15th, 2024, 8:03 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 15th, 2024, 7:10 pm
Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: June 15th, 2024, 12:58 pm LIke a good friend of mine always says.....hard to believe that the gospel would be so complex, hidden behind Hebrew lexicon, twisted, lost down deep rabbit holes-. If that's how it is and we excuse all of that by saying that Satan is responsible for twisting all of that---but if gospel doctrine is that convoluted and hard to wrap the brain around, reserved for only those who claim to be deep thinkers and above the masses---if that's the way it is, then its fair to say that this is not from Jesus.

Brigham Young was messed up. Joseph Smith may have been too, but he was a little better at covering the rabbit holes where he stored his more heretical Christianity.
what does it mean to say the gospel is complex? I guess I'm asking what is the gospel in this context?

Lets say it another way. What is complex? Understanding this world? Understanding what god wants of us or would like us to want of him? Eternity? Eternal progression? How to play nice with you neighbors? How to learn what he is like? Are all these things together what you would call "a gospel"?

It seems complex because it is very many things. You have to sort out each one at a time, else the concepts and rules and terminology gets too fuzzy. The key thing to realize is spiritual progression is eternal. It began billions of years ago for all of us. It puts us all in different places, not necessarily levels but places. It is very, very broad. there is much to learn to become like god, to have any or all of his powers. So it is HUGE.

IT IS NOT COMPLEX, but very very broad and deep. When it finally hits you, that is the basic premise of eternal progression, then all truth fits together or (may be circumscribed into one great whole!). Then bam you can see right through it to the core. No longer complex, but simple and the stories make sense but they are parables at best, all have a purpose but none as the seemed before.

Take the topic of this thread. Is Adam our Father? Not is Adam a god. I mean he is a god, either way. but understanding who Adam is and who the Father is and who Jesus is, IS understanding god, which is eternal life. But without understanding eternal progression, making them and us static in one point in time, either now, or in the millennium or after the millennium or during the creation or the premortal council, will NEVER get you the understanding as we've all progressed in some way. Including the Father and his son.

Look at Jesus --- was the First born in premortality and was "one like unto the son" but it doesn't say the son yet. Became the only begotten in the flesh some 2000 years ago, i.e. the "son". After the atonement and his sacrifice and learning he became "the father", not our father, i.e. the father of the human race or father of all this creation (earth), but "the Father" a title. He becomes the father (figuratively) of those that follow him and accept him as their Christ. Then they are born again in the spirit, then born again in the flesh and literal offspring of god............................ progression............................. READ KFD and if the spirit speaks you'll see a simple plan, but one much, much broader than LDS plan of salvation, and even greater than that of Christianity with no-premortality and only heaven or hell. And much greater than the limited scope of BoM or OT where even resurrection isn't directly called out and it is about this life only and Adam is the father because he was the first man! And Abraham was the father because Israel and the Jews descended from him................ progession and progressive truths.............SIMPLE
Not so simple. There are the outer teachings of the gospel of Christ. And there are the hidden or deeper teachings of the gospel of Christ.

13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


This is a real thing! I'm not just making this up. But in these days I have made plain the parables that, Jesus/The Indwelling Father has spoken, right here on LDSFF. I did it at the prodding of the Spirit. But few have heard the words of the Spirit that teaches me.
very simple, in the end, if and when your eyes are opened and you can see...... Just like it says in the temple. "all truth" fits together. If you see it as complex, then you don't yet see.

Arm Chair Quarterback
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1528

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Arm Chair Quarterback »

RosyPosy wrote: June 15th, 2024, 6:05 pm
Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: June 15th, 2024, 5:43 pm
RosyPosy wrote: June 15th, 2024, 5:31 pm

I have to agree with this. I never had a good feeling about BY from my childhood.

Another one to add to your list. BY was a high-ranking freemason and has some responsibilities for freemasonry being part of temple ceremonies. BTW JS is a post-mortem freemason.
What do you mean by post Morten free mason?
"Post-mortem" as in occurred after death. I know I read it somewhere and if I find it again I'll post it. But it's possible JS's name was put in low rank free masons after his martyrdom.
I've never heard that before....interesting. But with all the infighting about Joseph Good, Brigham Bad, makes you wonder if the Joseph Good crowd made that one up to protect Joseph.

User avatar
Michael Sherwin
The Wickerman
Posts: 2129

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Michael Sherwin »

TheDuke wrote: June 15th, 2024, 8:51 pm
Michael Sherwin wrote: June 15th, 2024, 8:03 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 15th, 2024, 7:10 pm

what does it mean to say the gospel is complex? I guess I'm asking what is the gospel in this context?

Lets say it another way. What is complex? Understanding this world? Understanding what god wants of us or would like us to want of him? Eternity? Eternal progression? How to play nice with you neighbors? How to learn what he is like? Are all these things together what you would call "a gospel"?

It seems complex because it is very many things. You have to sort out each one at a time, else the concepts and rules and terminology gets too fuzzy. The key thing to realize is spiritual progression is eternal. It began billions of years ago for all of us. It puts us all in different places, not necessarily levels but places. It is very, very broad. there is much to learn to become like god, to have any or all of his powers. So it is HUGE.

IT IS NOT COMPLEX, but very very broad and deep. When it finally hits you, that is the basic premise of eternal progression, then all truth fits together or (may be circumscribed into one great whole!). Then bam you can see right through it to the core. No longer complex, but simple and the stories make sense but they are parables at best, all have a purpose but none as the seemed before.

Take the topic of this thread. Is Adam our Father? Not is Adam a god. I mean he is a god, either way. but understanding who Adam is and who the Father is and who Jesus is, IS understanding god, which is eternal life. But without understanding eternal progression, making them and us static in one point in time, either now, or in the millennium or after the millennium or during the creation or the premortal council, will NEVER get you the understanding as we've all progressed in some way. Including the Father and his son.

Look at Jesus --- was the First born in premortality and was "one like unto the son" but it doesn't say the son yet. Became the only begotten in the flesh some 2000 years ago, i.e. the "son". After the atonement and his sacrifice and learning he became "the father", not our father, i.e. the father of the human race or father of all this creation (earth), but "the Father" a title. He becomes the father (figuratively) of those that follow him and accept him as their Christ. Then they are born again in the spirit, then born again in the flesh and literal offspring of god............................ progression............................. READ KFD and if the spirit speaks you'll see a simple plan, but one much, much broader than LDS plan of salvation, and even greater than that of Christianity with no-premortality and only heaven or hell. And much greater than the limited scope of BoM or OT where even resurrection isn't directly called out and it is about this life only and Adam is the father because he was the first man! And Abraham was the father because Israel and the Jews descended from him................ progession and progressive truths.............SIMPLE
Not so simple. There are the outer teachings of the gospel of Christ. And there are the hidden or deeper teachings of the gospel of Christ.

13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
13:15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.


This is a real thing! I'm not just making this up. But in these days I have made plain the parables that, Jesus/The Indwelling Father has spoken, right here on LDSFF. I did it at the prodding of the Spirit. But few have heard the words of the Spirit that teaches me.
very simple, in the end, if and when your eyes are opened and you can see...... Just like it says in the temple. "all truth" fits together. If you see it as complex, then you don't yet see.
I don't think it is so complex. I just think that some do not have the eyes to see or the ears to hear. Am I wrong about that? I can tell you that there is a deeper knowledge and I have not yet seen anyone at the top that has that knowledge. Maybe they have it and like Jesus they are not openly sharing it. But personally I doubt it. And Masonry does not have that knowledge either. And BY said that the Church has the true Masonry. If the Church's deep knowledge comes from the "true Masonry" then it is a false deep knowledge. That is what I know and you are unlikely to change my mind. But you can have the last word. I will not respond any further. :)

User avatar
madvin
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1212
Location: Stillwater OK

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by madvin »

TheDuke wrote: June 14th, 2024, 10:47 pm I only know one thing for sure. I dissed on BY in prayer for a while, years actually. I dismissed AGT. I did read some about it, from BY's perspective, not too much from anti-LDS (Kimball on down). I threw it away.

then 4 years ago, I learned (directly in word) that only those and all of those in premortal council get bodies and are born in this earthly mortality. Took a while to dismiss the Fielding crap of Lucifer and 1/3 part cast down not to get bodies. After I recovered, months later (maybe 2 years) I was pondering the concepts of premortal council from Abraham (and some writtings of John Pratt). And the Lord told me (again in words) to read part of BY's AGT. I tossed it after a couple of pages. Later the Lord said (again in his own words, not feelings or such). That Adam was in deed "the Father", the father of creation and the literal father of Jesus in the flesh. I responded "maybe I could accept it". He repeated it. I responded, that I'd consider it. He then said "if you cannot accept the revelations I give to you then I will not give you any more". So, I wrote that day in my journal that Adam is actually the father. Then I remembered the two year earlier statement that "all" in the premortal council get bodies. I felt a strong impression (not words but spirit only) that the only fair way for creation to work is for everyone that has a hand in it to participate and with the same rules. Not me and thou but god saying "us".

I don't know anything else about AGT, I haven't been compelled to read anything about it ever again. Not even a tiny feeling. Like I said, I didn't like it the first or second or third time I was told to look at it. But this one thing I do know.

And, unlike those on the FF that want god to be so mystical they cannot comprehend him (them), I feel the opposite. The most important thing to me about Adam being the Father, is that he is not only real, but he was here and he knows what it is like to be here. He isn't above putting himself in the fray. He is not ony the Father of this creation but the father of our mortal family as well.
I appreciate your post on this.
I feel and think similarly, in that knowing the true nature and character of the father immeasurably enhances worshipping Him.
Last edited by madvin on June 16th, 2024, 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

Lynn
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1114

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Lynn »

As to Abraham & Sarah, the names were infused with a variant of "Aha", another name of God, which does signify the spirit. But I think the AG shares the best angle on it, as A-Brahm was a devout practitioner of the Brahmic faith was given a new name due to this. See AG chapter 10.

I might add that Abraham dwelled a little further in the east than most realize. The Sodom & Gomorah of the Bible were actually the cities known discovered and referred to as Mohenjo-daro & Harappa of the Indus Valley. They were descendants left (those that stayed here) in the journeys of the Brother of Jared (Peleg in the OT) & Jared (Joktan in the OT) as they headed to the east coast of China. When it was Abraham's time to leave, he was directed to go to Egypt, the land of the initiates.

In fact, I will try to share AG 10 later. This was explained by a teacher in Egypt, who was teaching Mary & Elizabeth as to raising their two boys, as they were in Egypt due to the edict of killing the young lads back in the Jerusalem area.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4323

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by ransomme »

TheDuke wrote: June 15th, 2024, 7:10 pm
Arm Chair Quarterback wrote: June 15th, 2024, 12:58 pm LIke a good friend of mine always says.....hard to believe that the gospel would be so complex, hidden behind Hebrew lexicon, twisted, lost down deep rabbit holes-. If that's how it is and we excuse all of that by saying that Satan is responsible for twisting all of that---but if gospel doctrine is that convoluted and hard to wrap the brain around, reserved for only those who claim to be deep thinkers and above the masses---if that's the way it is, then its fair to say that this is not from Jesus.

Brigham Young was messed up. Joseph Smith may have been too, but he was a little better at covering the rabbit holes where he stored his more heretical Christianity.
what does it mean to say the gospel is complex? I guess I'm asking what is the gospel in this context?

Lets say it another way. What is complex? Understanding this world? Understanding what god wants of us or would like us to want of him? Eternity? Eternal progression? How to play nice with you neighbors? How to learn what he is like? Are all these things together what you would call "a gospel"?

It seems complex because it is very many things. You have to sort out each one at a time, else the concepts and rules and terminology gets too fuzzy. The key thing to realize is spiritual progression is eternal. It began billions of years ago for all of us. It puts us all in different places, not necessarily levels but places. It is very, very broad. there is much to learn to become like god, to have any or all of his powers. So it is HUGE.

IT IS NOT COMPLEX, but very very broad and deep. When it finally hits you, that is the basic premise of eternal progression, then all truth fits together or (may be circumscribed into one great whole!). Then bam you can see right through it to the core. No longer complex, but simple and the stories make sense but they are parables at best, all have a purpose but none as the seemed before.

Take the topic of this thread. Is Adam our Father? Not is Adam a god. I mean he is a god, either way. but understanding who Adam is and who the Father is and who Jesus is, IS understanding god, which is eternal life. But without understanding eternal progression, making them and us static in one point in time, either now, or in the millennium or after the millennium or during the creation or the premortal council, will NEVER get you the understanding as we've all progressed in some way. Including the Father and his son.

Look at Jesus --- was the First born in premortality and was "one like unto the son" but it doesn't say the son yet. Became the only begotten in the flesh some 2000 years ago, i.e. the "son". After the atonement and his sacrifice and learning he became "the father", not our father, i.e. the father of the human race or father of all this creation (earth), but "the Father" a title. He becomes the father (figuratively) of those that follow him and accept him as their Christ. Then they are born again in the spirit, then born again in the flesh and literal offspring of god............................ progression............................. READ KFD and if the spirit speaks you'll see a simple plan, but one much, much broader than LDS plan of salvation, and even greater than that of Christianity with no-premortality and only heaven or hell. And much greater than the limited scope of BoM or OT where even resurrection isn't directly called out and it is about this life only and Adam is the father because he was the first man! And Abraham was the father because Israel and the Jews descended from him................ progession and progressive truths.............SIMPLE
He was meaning overly convoluted.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4323

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by ransomme »

Did God fall?

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6562
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by TheDuke »

if the question is did the father of creation agree to become telestial so that his children could learn to become like them, then "yes".

So, of interest, what two people in all history have never been accused of sinning?

Adam and Jesus............ Adam is said to have "transgressed", but transgression isn't sin, now is it.

Lynn
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1114

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Lynn »

In D&C (Coc-RLDS 104:28B/ LDS 107:54), it states Adam is Michael.

Elsewhere, Michael is the "Lord of the Way", the chief archangel, associated with the Word & the Son, and called "Deus Angelorum" (God of the Angels).

In 'The Book of Knowledge: The Keys of Enoch' by J.J. Hurtak by way of revelation from Enoch & Metatron, it speaks of Michael in Key 108:24 and that he is "Creator of this local universe, for this is the return of the programmers who do the Father's Will...".

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3097

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by simpleton »

President Young preached this afternoon & spoke upon the Law of Consecration & had an interesting conversation in our Prayer Circle; the subject of Elder Orson Pratt publishing the Seer & the doctrine it contained was brought up in conversation. President Young said he ought not to have published the marriage ceremony, it was sacred & one of the last ceremonies attended to in the endowments & ought not to have been given to the world. Brother Pratt said that he thought it was no harm as the plurality of wives & its doctrines was to be published to the world. He said he should not have done it---if he had thought there had been the least harm in it. President Young said he was satisfied that he intended no wrong in it. He said that the doctrine taught in the Seer that God had arrived at that state whereby he could not advance any further in knowledge, power & glory was a false doctrine & not true. That there never will be a time to all eternity when all the Gods of eternity will cease advancing in power, knowledge, experience & glory, for if this was the case, eternity would cease to be & the glory of God would come to an end, but all of the celestial beings will continue to advance in knowledge & power, worlds without end. Joseph would always be ahead of us, we should never catch up with him in all eternity nor he with his leaders. Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children & they were earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning & get revelation from God to govern him & enlighten his mind more & it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books & go into the canyons as some of the rest of us was doing & it would be better for him. He said his philosophy injured him in a measure many good things was said by President Young that we should grow up in revelation so that principle would govern every act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Joseph's death.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4323

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by ransomme »

TheDuke wrote: June 16th, 2024, 11:50 am if the question is did the father of creation agree to become telestial so that his children could learn to become like them, then "yes".

So, of interest, what two people in all history have never been accused of sinning?

Adam and Jesus............ Adam is said to have "transgressed", but transgression isn't sin, now is it.
If He fell then God would need a Savior. The fall cut Adam off from God. Adam was no longer perfect. You can try to wrest out differences between sin, transgression, iniquity, etc., but the fact is Adam was no longer clean enough.

And Adam also died. So how did he impregnate Mary? If you say he was resurrected then, you are saying Jesus wasn't the firstfruits of the grave, so then God lied and so did Jesus, and the prophets.

It is convoluted to say the least. It's written nowhere, not in any scripture or apocrypha. But BY got all the details about it too spread it to the world?

User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1263
Location: A galaxy far, far away

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

madvin wrote: June 9th, 2024, 3:33 pm I wanted to, once and for all, be convinced of this doctrine, whether it be true or false, so I read Mark Peterson's book " Adam Who Was He?" and have studied and compared that to the much larger book "Understanding Adam-God Teachings".
I was a bit appalled at the attitude of Peterson's book in that he rather arrogantly declared that anybody who claims the truth of AGD, which he of course calls theory, just doesn't understand the scriptures, and further are labeled dissidents. However most of his arguments against did not prove the falsity of the doctrine, except for possibly one incident, but did allow for his understanding to appear logical. He comes across as preachy as well, and although he did bring up some points worth considering, he could have made his view more palpable for the "dissidents" by just presenting them in a less accusatory manner, although not much more convincing. I don't think it added much to the argument.
I remain convinced that the present and the recent past leaders have stayed away from this subject or declared it false, because of the lack of their inquiry of same. To me, they are prone to mistakes when they don't do this. They are not perfect so it is imperative that we always seek our own revelation and forgive when appropriate, one of the major purposes of this life. A test, a Test, a TEST.
That one incident that I spoke of above, is in D&C 78:16 where it says "As Michael, the prince, he holds the keys of all dispensations under Jesus Christ who hath appointed Michael your prince..." All other evidences can be interpreted as being grandfather, or council, above Adam. There still may be others which I don't see at this time.
The Adam-God doctrine is bogus and I can prove it with just one scripture.

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.
(Alma 11:45)

The Adam-God doctrine essentially says that Ahman shed his immortal resurrected body and became Adam. Based on the above scripture, this is impossible.

simpleton
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3097

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by simpleton »

Rumpelstiltskin wrote: June 17th, 2024, 5:22 pm
madvin wrote: June 9th, 2024, 3:33 pm I wanted to, once and for all, be convinced of this doctrine, whether it be true or false, so I read Mark Peterson's book " Adam Who Was He?" and have studied and compared that to the much larger book "Understanding Adam-God Teachings".
I was a bit appalled at the attitude of Peterson's book in that he rather arrogantly declared that anybody who claims the truth of AGD, which he of course calls theory, just doesn't understand the scriptures, and further are labeled dissidents. However most of his arguments against did not prove the falsity of the doctrine, except for possibly one incident, but did allow for his understanding to appear logical. He comes across as preachy as well, and although he did bring up some points worth considering, he could have made his view more palpable for the "dissidents" by just presenting them in a less accusatory manner, although not much more convincing. I don't think it added much to the argument.
I remain convinced that the present and the recent past leaders have stayed away from this subject or declared it false, because of the lack of their inquiry of same. To me, they are prone to mistakes when they don't do this. They are not perfect so it is imperative that we always seek our own revelation and forgive when appropriate, one of the major purposes of this life. A test, a Test, a TEST.
That one incident that I spoke of above, is in D&C 78:16 where it says "As Michael, the prince, he holds the keys of all dispensations under Jesus Christ who hath appointed Michael your prince..." All other evidences can be interpreted as being grandfather, or council, above Adam. There still may be others which I don't see at this time.
The Adam-God doctrine is bogus and I can prove it with just one scripture.

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.
(Alma 11:45)

The Adam-God doctrine essentially says that Ahman shed his immortal resurrected body and became Adam. Based on the above scripture, this is impossible.
But then BY claims light upon the subject, none of the naysayers can, or have not.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6562
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by TheDuke »

ransomme wrote: June 17th, 2024, 4:29 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 16th, 2024, 11:50 am if the question is did the father of creation agree to become telestial so that his children could learn to become like them, then "yes".

So, of interest, what two people in all history have never been accused of sinning?

Adam and Jesus............ Adam is said to have "transgressed", but transgression isn't sin, now is it.
If He fell then God would need a Savior. The fall cut Adam off from God. Adam was no longer perfect. You can try to wrest out differences between sin, transgression, iniquity, etc., but the fact is Adam was no longer clean enough.

And Adam also died. So how did he impregnate Mary? If you say he was resurrected then, you are saying Jesus wasn't the firstfruits of the grave, so then God lied and so did Jesus, and the prophets.

It is convoluted to say the least. It's written nowhere, not in any scripture or apocrypha. But BY got all the details about it too spread it to the world?
Interesting you say "fall" yet Nephi says "condescension". I suppose in a way it is max-nix, but there is a huge theological difference.

And he did become a telestial being, that is what condescension of god means, giving up being god, becoming human (telestial), having a veil placed over you, and yes needing a savior as well for the infirmities. He never sinned. He only did what the Elohim commanded him to do. Read KFD.

His pre-deluvian state has nothing to do with Mary?

I guess you need to think more deeply about what "resurrection" means. It is a quickening. There are multiple resurrections, first, second, last, etc.... They are all different. To say that condescending god is resurrected may be true but not as a child of god is resurrected. They alreay have eternal bodies and simply return their consciousness to them. Hence condescending vs... descending. He doesn't go through the process of being born again (spiritually then physically). He (they) are already immortal. They are already elect (from before this earth, etc....).

Abraham talks of souls, spirits and intelligences coming here. souls, those elect given Jesus from his father (already celestial beings) take path of "quickening" that is pretty direct, sort of "twinkling" if you like that word/phrase.

BTW if you honestly see that all mankind is in the same plane and takes the same path back home, i.e. intelligences, spirits and souls, then you don't really see the concept of eternal progression. that is ok, as most don't, it is after all one of the mysteries of the kingdom and isn't important (other than discussions like this) until you're ready to accept the differences and that many people are above you and many below, and one size or one law doesn't fit all humans or even spirits or telestial souls on this earth.

This is the complexity and why it is hidden. Many (look at this forum) can NOT let go of the concept of others having higher laws. The must tear them down to their level. Often the same with accepting people are ok with lower laws, however, much less likely on this forum as they see these people as "evil" vs. just less progressed or mature.

If this makes sense, I'm to continue the discussion, if not, as in you already have your answer, then no further discussion is necessary as I said it is a mystery and can only be taught (learned) by the power of the HG, even just HS isn't enough for this discussion of eternal progression, or that Adam is the Father.

User avatar
I Dont Know...
captain of 100
Posts: 592
Location: Aotearoa New Zealand Land of the long white cloud

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by I Dont Know... »

TheDuke wrote: June 16th, 2024, 11:50 am if the question is did the father of creation agree to become telestial so that his children could learn to become like them, then "yes".

So, of interest, what two people in all history have never been accused of sinning?

Adam and Jesus............ Adam is said to have "transgressed", but transgression isn't sin, now is it.
...Two without sin entered the world in the flesh?...

...this begs the question, where was Adam when the other guy without sin was being scourged, beaten, spit upon, mocked, given vinegar to quench his thirst, had a plaited crown of thorns, "JESUS OF NAZARETH KING OF THE JEWS", having nails driven through his hands...

...maybe, he was taking a shower?...just getting ready to rip in, and replace Christ upon the cross?...

....if only he had Microsoft Calendar...then he definitely wouldn't have been late....

...grow up...and stop doing what the Pharisees do...claiming that they...not Christ...had the words of eternal life....

...stand up for Christ and don't waste his time pretending that there was anyone else, who was without sin...

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

...Christ only, is worthy of the crown of life everlasting...He is God incarnate, and now he is Lord of Lord and King of Kings...He it is who was found worthy to unlock the bands of death and hell...

1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

...who was the only one worthy to open the 7 seals and the book of life?....the risen Lord himself tells us in verse 3, that it was himself as the sacrificial lamb who was found worthy...no man in heaven, nor in the earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, or even to look at it...why/..because NO ONE else was found worthy...

...still...nothing Mormons do surprise me anymore...just wow!...

...I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could think the LDS is a cult!...

...I know the church has fallen, but please, try not to shout from the rooftops about it!...

...alas, as Isaiah said, the deaf will not hear and the blind will not see...

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4323

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by ransomme »

TheDuke wrote: June 17th, 2024, 7:43 pm
ransomme wrote: June 17th, 2024, 4:29 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 16th, 2024, 11:50 am if the question is did the father of creation agree to become telestial so that his children could learn to become like them, then "yes".

So, of interest, what two people in all history have never been accused of sinning?

Adam and Jesus............ Adam is said to have "transgressed", but transgression isn't sin, now is it.
If He fell then God would need a Savior. The fall cut Adam off from God. Adam was no longer perfect. You can try to wrest out differences between sin, transgression, iniquity, etc., but the fact is Adam was no longer clean enough.

And Adam also died. So how did he impregnate Mary? If you say he was resurrected then, you are saying Jesus wasn't the firstfruits of the grave, so then God lied and so did Jesus, and the prophets.

It is convoluted to say the least. It's written nowhere, not in any scripture or apocrypha. But BY got all the details about it too spread it to the world?
Interesting you say "fall" yet Nephi says "condescension". I suppose in a way it is max-nix, but there is a huge theological difference.

And he did become a telestial being, that is what condescension of god means, giving up being god, becoming human (telestial), having a veil placed over you, and yes needing a savior as well for the infirmities. He never sinned. He only did what the Elohim commanded him to do. Read KFD.

His pre-deluvian state has nothing to do with Mary?

I guess you need to think more deeply about what "resurrection" means. It is a quickening. There are multiple resurrections, first, second, last, etc.... They are all different. To say that condescending god is resurrected may be true but not as a child of god is resurrected. They alreay have eternal bodies and simply return their consciousness to them. Hence condescending vs... descending. He doesn't go through the process of being born again (spiritually then physically). He (they) are already immortal. They are already elect (from before this earth, etc....).

Abraham talks of souls, spirits and intelligences coming here. souls, those elect given Jesus from his father (already celestial beings) take path of "quickening" that is pretty direct, sort of "twinkling" if you like that word/phrase.

BTW if you honestly see that all mankind is in the same plane and takes the same path back home, i.e. intelligences, spirits and souls, then you don't really see the concept of eternal progression. that is ok, as most don't, it is after all one of the mysteries of the kingdom and isn't important (other than discussions like this) until you're ready to accept the differences and that many people are above you and many below, and one size or one law doesn't fit all humans or even spirits or telestial souls on this earth.

This is the complexity and why it is hidden. Many (look at this forum) can NOT let go of the concept of others having higher laws. The must tear them down to their level. Often the same with accepting people are ok with lower laws, however, much less likely on this forum as they see these people as "evil" vs. just less progressed or mature.

If this makes sense, I'm to continue the discussion, if not, as in you already have your answer, then no further discussion is necessary as I said it is a mystery and can only be taught (learned) by the power of the HG, even just HS isn't enough for this discussion of eternal progression, or that Adam is the Father.
2 Nephi 2
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

When Nephi talks about "condescension," he is talking about YHWH/Jesus.

Well I've read everything that AGTs have cited. It is not there. The stretching and redefining and suspension of logic that is required to make AGT work is intense and a lot.

Like what MS said about Michael/miy-kha-eyl (who is like God?

The psalmist writes,

113:5
Who is like YHWH our God, the one who dwells on high?

The name Miykha'el is a short form of the phrase above "Who is like YHWH our God" which is miy khamokha YHWH eloheynu.

Yet MS wants it to mean who is like god? because He is God. MS says that I AM is Michael and not YHWH (rather they are all the same), and Michael was the one speaking inside of Jesus, not Jesus, when He said ' before Abraham was I AM.'.

Which is odd considering once again it's in the name. YHWH: the Hebrew name יהושע (yehoshu'a, Strong's #3091 Latinized as Joshua, transliterated from Greek Jesus), which means "YHWH saves."

HAND BEHOLD NAIL BEHOLD
Y H W H

The Gospel is eloquent, while AGT is convoluted.

Resurrection doesn't always mean resurrection. Somehow the fallen, which is a corruption can put on incorruption by a special resurrection (reuniting of spirit with body (immortal)) that's not resurrection. The way isn't always the way, truth is sometimes different. It does not add up well, IE align well with the word/Word of God.

One has to read the KFD in a special way, just like Jacob 2 to defy the text and say there is a loophole.

So either the rest of scripture is basically correct or AGT is. They are not compatible. For AGT to work, so many exceptions need to be made, many things need to be redefined, etc. etc.

It's not that I already have my mind made up or my heart closed off, it's that at every turn the scriptures, the patterns, symbols, meanings, etc., or what has been witnessed to me in spirit/by the Spirit, do not support AGT.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4323

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by ransomme »

simpleton wrote: June 17th, 2024, 5:32 pm
Rumpelstiltskin wrote: June 17th, 2024, 5:22 pm
madvin wrote: June 9th, 2024, 3:33 pm I wanted to, once and for all, be convinced of this doctrine, whether it be true or false, so I read Mark Peterson's book " Adam Who Was He?" and have studied and compared that to the much larger book "Understanding Adam-God Teachings".
I was a bit appalled at the attitude of Peterson's book in that he rather arrogantly declared that anybody who claims the truth of AGD, which he of course calls theory, just doesn't understand the scriptures, and further are labeled dissidents. However most of his arguments against did not prove the falsity of the doctrine, except for possibly one incident, but did allow for his understanding to appear logical. He comes across as preachy as well, and although he did bring up some points worth considering, he could have made his view more palpable for the "dissidents" by just presenting them in a less accusatory manner, although not much more convincing. I don't think it added much to the argument.
I remain convinced that the present and the recent past leaders have stayed away from this subject or declared it false, because of the lack of their inquiry of same. To me, they are prone to mistakes when they don't do this. They are not perfect so it is imperative that we always seek our own revelation and forgive when appropriate, one of the major purposes of this life. A test, a Test, a TEST.
That one incident that I spoke of above, is in D&C 78:16 where it says "As Michael, the prince, he holds the keys of all dispensations under Jesus Christ who hath appointed Michael your prince..." All other evidences can be interpreted as being grandfather, or council, above Adam. There still may be others which I don't see at this time.
The Adam-God doctrine is bogus and I can prove it with just one scripture.

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.
(Alma 11:45)

The Adam-God doctrine essentially says that Ahman shed his immortal resurrected body and became Adam. Based on the above scripture, this is impossible.
But then BY claims light upon the subject, none of the naysayers can, or have not.
BY claimed many things, like a loophole for abominations and whoredoms, like the Savior's blood wasn't enough for repentance and sometimes they need to murder people so they could be saved, he claimed tithing for himself, other people's wives for himself, and many other and just as invalid and wrong claims.

User avatar
Rumpelstiltskin
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1263
Location: A galaxy far, far away

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by Rumpelstiltskin »

simpleton wrote: June 17th, 2024, 5:32 pm
Rumpelstiltskin wrote: June 17th, 2024, 5:22 pm
madvin wrote: June 9th, 2024, 3:33 pm I wanted to, once and for all, be convinced of this doctrine, whether it be true or false, so I read Mark Peterson's book " Adam Who Was He?" and have studied and compared that to the much larger book "Understanding Adam-God Teachings".
I was a bit appalled at the attitude of Peterson's book in that he rather arrogantly declared that anybody who claims the truth of AGD, which he of course calls theory, just doesn't understand the scriptures, and further are labeled dissidents. However most of his arguments against did not prove the falsity of the doctrine, except for possibly one incident, but did allow for his understanding to appear logical. He comes across as preachy as well, and although he did bring up some points worth considering, he could have made his view more palpable for the "dissidents" by just presenting them in a less accusatory manner, although not much more convincing. I don't think it added much to the argument.
I remain convinced that the present and the recent past leaders have stayed away from this subject or declared it false, because of the lack of their inquiry of same. To me, they are prone to mistakes when they don't do this. They are not perfect so it is imperative that we always seek our own revelation and forgive when appropriate, one of the major purposes of this life. A test, a Test, a TEST.
That one incident that I spoke of above, is in D&C 78:16 where it says "As Michael, the prince, he holds the keys of all dispensations under Jesus Christ who hath appointed Michael your prince..." All other evidences can be interpreted as being grandfather, or council, above Adam. There still may be others which I don't see at this time.
The Adam-God doctrine is bogus and I can prove it with just one scripture.

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.
(Alma 11:45)

The Adam-God doctrine essentially says that Ahman shed his immortal resurrected body and became Adam. Based on the above scripture, this is impossible.
But then BY claims light upon the subject, none of the naysayers can, or have not.
Joseph Smith said, "If any man writes to you, or preaches to you, doctrines contrary to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, or the book of Doctrine and Covenants, set him down as an imposter." Brigham taught against the scriptures, but I didn't need to know that to know he was a major fraud.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6562
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by TheDuke »

ransomme wrote: June 17th, 2024, 10:04 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 17th, 2024, 7:43 pm
ransomme wrote: June 17th, 2024, 4:29 pm

If He fell then God would need a Savior. The fall cut Adam off from God. Adam was no longer perfect. You can try to wrest out differences between sin, transgression, iniquity, etc., but the fact is Adam was no longer clean enough.

And Adam also died. So how did he impregnate Mary? If you say he was resurrected then, you are saying Jesus wasn't the firstfruits of the grave, so then God lied and so did Jesus, and the prophets.

It is convoluted to say the least. It's written nowhere, not in any scripture or apocrypha. But BY got all the details about it too spread it to the world?
Interesting you say "fall" yet Nephi says "condescension". I suppose in a way it is max-nix, but there is a huge theological difference.

And he did become a telestial being, that is what condescension of god means, giving up being god, becoming human (telestial), having a veil placed over you, and yes needing a savior as well for the infirmities. He never sinned. He only did what the Elohim commanded him to do. Read KFD.

His pre-deluvian state has nothing to do with Mary?

I guess you need to think more deeply about what "resurrection" means. It is a quickening. There are multiple resurrections, first, second, last, etc.... They are all different. To say that condescending god is resurrected may be true but not as a child of god is resurrected. They alreay have eternal bodies and simply return their consciousness to them. Hence condescending vs... descending. He doesn't go through the process of being born again (spiritually then physically). He (they) are already immortal. They are already elect (from before this earth, etc....).

Abraham talks of souls, spirits and intelligences coming here. souls, those elect given Jesus from his father (already celestial beings) take path of "quickening" that is pretty direct, sort of "twinkling" if you like that word/phrase.

BTW if you honestly see that all mankind is in the same plane and takes the same path back home, i.e. intelligences, spirits and souls, then you don't really see the concept of eternal progression. that is ok, as most don't, it is after all one of the mysteries of the kingdom and isn't important (other than discussions like this) until you're ready to accept the differences and that many people are above you and many below, and one size or one law doesn't fit all humans or even spirits or telestial souls on this earth.

This is the complexity and why it is hidden. Many (look at this forum) can NOT let go of the concept of others having higher laws. The must tear them down to their level. Often the same with accepting people are ok with lower laws, however, much less likely on this forum as they see these people as "evil" vs. just less progressed or mature.

If this makes sense, I'm to continue the discussion, if not, as in you already have your answer, then no further discussion is necessary as I said it is a mystery and can only be taught (learned) by the power of the HG, even just HS isn't enough for this discussion of eternal progression, or that Adam is the Father.
2 Nephi 2
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

When Nephi talks about "condescension," he is talking about YHWH/Jesus.

Well I've read everything that AGTs have cited. It is not there. The stretching and redefining and suspension of logic that is required to make AGT work is intense and a lot.

Like what MS said about Michael/miy-kha-eyl (who is like God?

The psalmist writes,

113:5
Who is like YHWH our God, the one who dwells on high?

The name Miykha'el is a short form of the phrase above "Who is like YHWH our God" which is miy khamokha YHWH eloheynu.

Yet MS wants it to mean who is like god? because He is God. MS says that I AM is Michael and not YHWH (rather they are all the same), and Michael was the one speaking inside of Jesus, not Jesus, when He said ' before Abraham was I AM.'.

Which is odd considering once again it's in the name. YHWH: the Hebrew name יהושע (yehoshu'a, Strong's #3091 Latinized as Joshua, transliterated from Greek Jesus), which means "YHWH saves."

HAND BEHOLD NAIL BEHOLD
Y H W H

The Gospel is eloquent, while AGT is convoluted.

Resurrection doesn't always mean resurrection. Somehow the fallen, which is a corruption can put on incorruption by a special resurrection (reuniting of spirit with body (immortal)) that's not resurrection. The way isn't always the way, truth is sometimes different. It does not add up well, IE align well with the word/Word of God.

One has to read the KFD in a special way, just like Jacob 2 to defy the text and say there is a loophole.

So either the rest of scripture is basically correct or AGT is. They are not compatible. For AGT to work, so many exceptions need to be made, many things need to be redefined, etc. etc.

It's not that I already have my mind made up or my heart closed off, it's that at every turn the scriptures, the patterns, symbols, meanings, etc., or what has been witnessed to me in spirit/by the Spirit, do not support AGT.
ok, if you say so, that is ok....... everyone has their understanding of god and that is acceptable to their needs.

User avatar
TheDuke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6562
Location: Eastern Sodom Suburbs

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by TheDuke »

I Dont Know... wrote: June 17th, 2024, 9:26 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 16th, 2024, 11:50 am if the question is did the father of creation agree to become telestial so that his children could learn to become like them, then "yes".

So, of interest, what two people in all history have never been accused of sinning?

Adam and Jesus............ Adam is said to have "transgressed", but transgression isn't sin, now is it.
...Two without sin entered the world in the flesh?...

...this begs the question, where was Adam when the other guy without sin was being scourged, beaten, spit upon, mocked, given vinegar to quench his thirst, had a plaited crown of thorns, "JESUS OF NAZARETH KING OF THE JEWS", having nails driven through his hands...

...maybe, he was taking a shower?...just getting ready to rip in, and replace Christ upon the cross?...

....if only he had Microsoft Calendar...then he definitely wouldn't have been late....

...grow up...and stop doing what the Pharisees do...claiming that they...not Christ...had the words of eternal life....

...stand up for Christ and don't waste his time pretending that there was anyone else, who was without sin...

11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

...Christ only, is worthy of the crown of life everlasting...He is God incarnate, and now he is Lord of Lord and King of Kings...He it is who was found worthy to unlock the bands of death and hell...

1 And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a book written within and on the backside, sealed with seven seals.

2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.

5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

...who was the only one worthy to open the 7 seals and the book of life?....the risen Lord himself tells us in verse 3, that it was himself as the sacrificial lamb who was found worthy...no man in heaven, nor in the earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, or even to look at it...why/..because NO ONE else was found worthy...

...still...nothing Mormons do surprise me anymore...just wow!...

...I can't for the life of me understand how anyone could think the LDS is a cult!...

...I know the church has fallen, but please, try not to shout from the rooftops about it!...

...alas, as Isaiah said, the deaf will not hear and the blind will not see...
I'm not sure your point here? all you said applies to the father whether or not he was also the first man on the earth in the gods' image. WOW!.... as you say. all is the same. BTW I'm not pushing my understanding as I said, only the HG can lead you to a deeper understanding of god. But, know this it is to "know god" that IS eternal life. But, one step at a time.

AND it is very rude and improper to say something like you said above "nothing Mormons do surprise me any more..." That is a broad put down and has no place in an LDS FF discussion. IMO. I feel as you say "just wow".

BTW the LDS disavow all AGT stories. So, you have also doubled back here. I tell you a bit of truth revealed by the HG and disavowed by LDS and you get on "Mormons".

I don't expect you to reconsider a life's understanding of who your god is. And I accept you have the truth you have................. I just say to you the same "WOW" that you find it impossible to accept that some, maybe some have some insights to other truths and you don't have to tear them down because you don't.

You may wake up tomorrow and discover that you've learned something on some topic. That something (anything) has been revealed to you and what you beleived yesterday was not totally correct. Maybe that is. And then you'll realize you were less right in your comments then and somone else may have had some insight.

Like I said 65 years i put down BY and AGT (if I even gave it a thought). Then a light came, 4 times in a 48 hour period and told me a simple little truth. He came FOUR timese because I fully dismissed it twice and only gave it a little space the third time before accepting that perhaps i was wrong and god knew more. I will as you say, "shout it from the rooftops" if that is what he tells me to do, even if it pisses off all the FF OT beleivers and my bishop and SP! But, here there is no shouting and I prefaced all my comments with it being my own truth and not for all as it is as I SAID THE VERY FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD a mystery.................................. doesn't sound like Mormon rooftop shouting to me!

So, if it seems like it to you, pick another thread, there are many to choose from.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4323

Re: Adam God Teachings: Doctrine or Theory

Post by ransomme »

TheDuke wrote: June 18th, 2024, 10:11 am
ransomme wrote: June 17th, 2024, 10:04 pm
TheDuke wrote: June 17th, 2024, 7:43 pm

Interesting you say "fall" yet Nephi says "condescension". I suppose in a way it is max-nix, but there is a huge theological difference.

And he did become a telestial being, that is what condescension of god means, giving up being god, becoming human (telestial), having a veil placed over you, and yes needing a savior as well for the infirmities. He never sinned. He only did what the Elohim commanded him to do. Read KFD.

His pre-deluvian state has nothing to do with Mary?

I guess you need to think more deeply about what "resurrection" means. It is a quickening. There are multiple resurrections, first, second, last, etc.... They are all different. To say that condescending god is resurrected may be true but not as a child of god is resurrected. They alreay have eternal bodies and simply return their consciousness to them. Hence condescending vs... descending. He doesn't go through the process of being born again (spiritually then physically). He (they) are already immortal. They are already elect (from before this earth, etc....).

Abraham talks of souls, spirits and intelligences coming here. souls, those elect given Jesus from his father (already celestial beings) take path of "quickening" that is pretty direct, sort of "twinkling" if you like that word/phrase.

BTW if you honestly see that all mankind is in the same plane and takes the same path back home, i.e. intelligences, spirits and souls, then you don't really see the concept of eternal progression. that is ok, as most don't, it is after all one of the mysteries of the kingdom and isn't important (other than discussions like this) until you're ready to accept the differences and that many people are above you and many below, and one size or one law doesn't fit all humans or even spirits or telestial souls on this earth.

This is the complexity and why it is hidden. Many (look at this forum) can NOT let go of the concept of others having higher laws. The must tear them down to their level. Often the same with accepting people are ok with lower laws, however, much less likely on this forum as they see these people as "evil" vs. just less progressed or mature.

If this makes sense, I'm to continue the discussion, if not, as in you already have your answer, then no further discussion is necessary as I said it is a mystery and can only be taught (learned) by the power of the HG, even just HS isn't enough for this discussion of eternal progression, or that Adam is the Father.
2 Nephi 2
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

When Nephi talks about "condescension," he is talking about YHWH/Jesus.

Well I've read everything that AGTs have cited. It is not there. The stretching and redefining and suspension of logic that is required to make AGT work is intense and a lot.

Like what MS said about Michael/miy-kha-eyl (who is like God?

The psalmist writes,

113:5
Who is like YHWH our God, the one who dwells on high?

The name Miykha'el is a short form of the phrase above "Who is like YHWH our God" which is miy khamokha YHWH eloheynu.

Yet MS wants it to mean who is like god? because He is God. MS says that I AM is Michael and not YHWH (rather they are all the same), and Michael was the one speaking inside of Jesus, not Jesus, when He said ' before Abraham was I AM.'.

Which is odd considering once again it's in the name. YHWH: the Hebrew name יהושע (yehoshu'a, Strong's #3091 Latinized as Joshua, transliterated from Greek Jesus), which means "YHWH saves."

HAND BEHOLD NAIL BEHOLD
Y H W H

The Gospel is eloquent, while AGT is convoluted.

Resurrection doesn't always mean resurrection. Somehow the fallen, which is a corruption can put on incorruption by a special resurrection (reuniting of spirit with body (immortal)) that's not resurrection. The way isn't always the way, truth is sometimes different. It does not add up well, IE align well with the word/Word of God.

One has to read the KFD in a special way, just like Jacob 2 to defy the text and say there is a loophole.

So either the rest of scripture is basically correct or AGT is. They are not compatible. For AGT to work, so many exceptions need to be made, many things need to be redefined, etc. etc.

It's not that I already have my mind made up or my heart closed off, it's that at every turn the scriptures, the patterns, symbols, meanings, etc., or what has been witnessed to me in spirit/by the Spirit, do not support AGT.
ok, if you say so, that is ok....... everyone has their understanding of god and that is acceptable to their needs.
But you said that Adam didn't fall.

I think you should address that. The scriptures there and elsewhere clearly teach that he did. And in Adam all mankind dies, as Adam did too.

So where did AGT God Adam get a body to impregnate Mary?

How could he get a body if there was no resurrection yet?

No proponent of AGT ever answers questions with string reasoning or with explanations that do not contradict fundamental truths, like Jesus the Messiah was the FIRSTfruits of the grave.

Post Reply