If God ended polygamy in 1890, but members(leaders) didn't stop..

[sandman45]

But Joseph, how can Michael, give dominion and glory to Jesus Christ, unless he had it first? It's impossible to give something you don't first have possession of.

.

Thanks for clearing that up, Joseph.

Clear as mud since someone had to give those keys to Adam. Maybe Jesus let Adam borrow them and Adam gives them back later.

How could Jesus give the keys to Adam? doesn't make sense since Jesus didn't have a body and therefore could not pass on keys and priesthood authority by the 'laying on of hands'..

Maybe Adam's Father gives him the keys.. and then Adam then gives those keys to his Son, Christ? this makes more sense and follows and fits the eternal pattern and patriarchal order.

so yes.. Thanks Joseph for clearing it up.. clear as day.

Another thought. Adam was at the mount of transfiguration? If he was, he didn't have a body either since the resurrection hadn't happened yet. Moses and Elijah were taken up/translated.

And I thought the "Father" was supposed to be Adam (according to your premise). It must be grandpa God you are talking about.... Except Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:...
And Jesus said great are the words of Isaiah, not BY, or JSs King Follett Sermon

So you don't believe the doctrine Joseph taught about the plurality of Gods?

[sandman45]

But the united order has communistic characteristics, but more benevolent since it is voluntary rather than being compulsory

And the notion that Michael is God the Father, the Father of Jehovah, promoted on this site seems compulsory as well. There is no let up on the matter, against all teachings of current prophets that have clearly denounced this uncanonized doctrine, of which, by the way, has never been in canon, only opinion that has been propagated and more recently proven incorrect.

Never said he was the Father of Jehovah.. only the Father of All which would include Jesus ( jesus is not the Jehovah you are talking about)

[sandman45]

I don't recall if Aaron had gotten the Levitical priesthood by laying on of hands... Will look that up later. But if God can say let there be light, and there is light, He can probably give PH authority by just saying so

BESTOWAL OF THE GIFTS AND RIGHTS OF AN OFFICE. Moses ordained Joshua as his successor by the laying on of hands (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9). Jesus' apostles used this procedure in authorizing seven men to manage practical economic matters in the early church (Acts 6:1-6). Paul and Barnabas were ordained to a missionary journey by the laying on of hands of the "prophets and teachers at Antioch" (Acts 13:3).

The Book of Mormon reports that Jesus conferred upon his disciples the power to give the Holy Ghost by laying his hands upon them (3 Ne. 18:37; Moro. 2:3). The Aaronic Priesthood was conferred on the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by the hands of the resurrected John the Baptist (JS-H 1:68-69). All subsequent transmission of authority comes from the president of the church by the laying on of hands. A revelation on priesthood states: "Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High priesthood of the Church…From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands" (D&C 107:65-67). Accordingly, all men and women are installed in any Church office or calling by a setting apart by the laying on of hands of those in authority.

https://www.lds.org/topics/laying-on-of-hands?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

see also

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-jo ... 8?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the above link

The ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. “The keys [of the priesthood],” the Prophet declared, “have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.”

and later in that same chapter we see where they got the quote from...

The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam’s authority.

also see this

“There has been a chain of authority and power from Adam down to the present time.”3

“The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed

if you read the chapter you will see that the Laying on of Hands is how one gets the Keys and Authority of the priesthood, the priesthood is also eternal..

“The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years

notice how in the restoration when Joseph and Oliver received the priesthood of Aaron who did they receive it from? John the Baptist... who was a resurrected being..

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/12/the- ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the above link

“We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. …

“He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us … that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.

later Peter James and John (resurrected beings or angels) laid their hands on Joseph's head and gave unto them the Melchezidek priesthood..

It is a pattern that is eternal..

[freedomforall]

But the united order has communistic characteristics, but more benevolent since it is voluntary rather than being compulsory

And the notion that Michael is God the Father, the Father of Jehovah, promoted on this site seems compulsory as well. There is no let up on the matter, against all teachings of current prophets that have clearly denounced this uncanonized doctrine, of which, by the way, has never been in canon, only opinion that has been propagated and more recently proven incorrect.

Never said he was the Father of Jehovah.. only the Father of All which would include Jesus ( jesus is not the Jehovah you are talking about)

Try telling him that. Just how many Jesus' and Adam's and Michael's and Redeemer's and on and on do you think there are pertaining to this earth?

Tell us, would you enter into President Monson's office and tell him the doctrine you teach is superior to his own knowledge? Could you stand before him and commence to tell him that Michael is the father of Jesus? Could you tell him that the temple endowment teaches differently than the scriptures, the same scriptures, including the Book of Mormon...all, of which, are read by millions?

Did you teach this stuff while on your mission? And if you didn't would you like to go back to all the people you spoke to and tell them you taught them wrong information, and that the church has it all wrong?

How many church members that have studied for years and have acquired strong testimonies of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost...would all of a sudden appreciate having their intelligence insulted by this doctrine?

How would dismissing a lot of this doctrine be justified? Such as:

God the Father, Elohim

Jesus Christ, Jehovah

God the Father, Jehovah

Jesus Christ, Creator

Mosiah 13:34 (33–34)
33 For behold, did not Moses prophesy unto them concerning the coming of the Messiah, and that God should redeem his people? Yea, and even all the prophets who have prophesied ever since the world began—have they not spoken more or less concerning these things?
34 Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?

Which Jesus do we become sons and daughters to?

Mosiah 5:7
7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

There is so much more, but let this suffice for now.

[freedomforall]

Romans 5:12 says they sinned!

transgression = evildoing, actus reus
sin = evildoing, transgression, an act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of

so... what do you say about all the quotes from Lehi, Nephi, Joseph, Brigham, Bruce, JFS etc about how our first parents did NOT sin? But let's ignore Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith and others. What about them? Sin = transgression of God's laws. They sinned, period. Not to mention all the sins committed during the next 900+ years after they left the garden. After all, they were mortal! Good grief.

- Are you disregarding their comments on the topic since they dont agree with what you personally believe?

- Are you just picking and choosing from the Doctrine like its a buffet....instead of trying to accept and learn all of it like you should when your parents tell you broccoli is good for you..?

don't reject pieces of doctrine that you do not personally and fully understand..As if you do? :)) :)) :))

I suppose two out of every five thousand people believing this nonsense is truly convincing.

Of course it's all nonsense to you. You are exactly those spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants 45:28-30.

"they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men."

Thank you for the compliment. I really mean that. Since I don't follow your counsel, if I were to do that I would be fearing man and their own precepts more than God's word in scripture. Your evaluation of me is spot on.

D&C 3:6 (6–7)
6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—

[slimjamm]

so... what do you say about all the quotes from Lehi, Nephi, Joseph, Brigham, Bruce, JFS etc about how our first parents did NOT sin? But let's ignore Spencer Kimball, Joseph Fielding Smith and others. What about them? Sin = transgression of God's laws. They sinned, period. Not to mention all the sins committed during the next 900+ years after they left the garden. After all, they were mortal! Good grief.

- Are you disregarding their comments on the topic since they dont agree with what you personally believe?

- Are you just picking and choosing from the Doctrine like its a buffet....instead of trying to accept and learn all of it like you should when your parents tell you broccoli is good for you..?

don't reject pieces of doctrine that you do not personally and fully understand..As if you do? :)) :)) :))

I suppose two out of every five thousand people believing this nonsense is truly convincing.

Of course it's all nonsense to you. You are exactly those spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants 45:28-30.

"they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men."

Thank you for the compliment. I really mean that. Since I don't follow your counsel, if I were to do that I would be fearing man and their own precepts more than God's word in scripture. Your evaluation of me is spot on.

Thanks for being honest about not being able to perceive the light. Seeing as I have not given you any counsel, rather words of prophets; no, you haven't followed my counsel. I'm glad you realize you're not receiving the fullness, you perceive not the light. And as you've now stated, because you turn your heart against the Lord because your reliance on the precepts of men.

[freedomforall]

I suppose two out of every five thousand people believing this nonsense is truly convincing.

Of course it's all nonsense to you. You are exactly those spoken of in Doctrine and Covenants 45:28-30.

"they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men."

Thank you for the compliment. I really mean that. Since I don't follow your counsel, if I were to do that I would be fearing man and their own precepts more than God's word in scripture. Your evaluation of me is spot on.

Thanks for being honest about not being able to perceive the light. Seeing as I have not given you any counsel, rather words of prophets; no, you haven't followed my counsel. I'm glad you realize you're not receiving the fullness, you perceive not the light. And as you've now stated, because you turn your heart against the Lord because your reliance on the precepts of men.

Please expound. Because you told me that I do not listen to precepts of men, which clearly means those other than myself, which also includes nonsensical doctrine coming from people not really in the know, but think they are. And I thanked you for that. Can't you simply take my gratitude and leave it at that. Must I say thank you in a different way, for my not paying heed to false doctrine on this forum...doctrine that has clearly been denounced by current prophets. I mean, let's get real...Spencer Kimball said the Adam-God doctrine is false, and you want me to deny his word, a man of God no less? Are you also accusing him of listening to and accepting precepts of men same as you stated I do as spoken in D&C 45:29? I believe him so in your eyes he is wrong as well, a prophet of God?
And you didn't answer my other questions. Did I hit a cord?

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77.

[freedomforall]

BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

"Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly." [1]

{1] Stephen E. Robinson, "The Exclusion by Misrepresentation".

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... God_theory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father

Brigham Young taught that Adam, the first man, was God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and commonly accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable.

Brigham never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine

Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won't be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.

The Church's official position is that Adam-God is not the doctrine of the Church

Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church. If there are any particles of truth to anything surrounding the Adam-God doctrine, one would expect those things to harmonize with what has already been revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed would be able to clear up many points surrounding that doctrine.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_ ... God_theory" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

Even my Great-great grandfather, Wilford Woodruff, was not buying into this non doctrinal nonsense.

It was near the end of the nineteenth century, during the Presidency of Wilford Woodruff, that Church members were given specific counsel with regard to the standing of President Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam.
Following is part of a letter written on 7 January 1897 by Joseph F. Smith (a member of the First Presidency). In it he stated,

President Woodruff ... partially outlined what I should say.... I am happy to know that he and I are in accord on the subject....[In his April 1852 discourse] President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor
upon the consciences of any of the members thereof.

The very next year on November 28th President Cannon informed attendees at the Church’s first Sunday School convention: “Concerning the doctrine in regard to Adam and the Savior, the Prophet Brigham [Young] taught some things concerning that; but the First Presidency and the Twelve do not think it wise to advocate these matters...If we confine ourselves to the facts as they are written in the word that the Lord has given unto us, we will do well.”
During all the time that the Adam–God Theory was being advocated there was never any consensus about it among the top two Priesthood quorums of the Church. Now, however, a consensus had finally been reached among those who presided over and administered the kingdom. And the consensus was against the Adam–God Theory.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/up ... n_Adam.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

Even some of BY's peers didn't agree with his teachings.

The Lord Steadies the Ark

On 17 June 1866 President Brigham Young—in speaking at the Salt Lake City tabernacle about the earthly kingdom of God and those individuals who serve within it—reminded the Latter-day Saints that when any jostling of the kingdom occurs they can count on divine intervention because “it is the Lord’s work” and “the Lord steadies the ark.”

It should be emphasized that when it comes to the Lord’s kingdom it is He who decides who will preside over it and guide it on the earth. And Brigham Young was no exception. Elder Orson Hyde openly testified that in February of 1848 he and other members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were meeting together at Council Bluffs, Iowa, in his own home, when they both heard and felt the voice of God sanction the appointment of Elder Brigham Young as the new President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And yet, such a divine appointment does not make any mortal man or woman super-human. And Brigham Young as no exception. A little less than five months after the second President of the LDS Church passed away Elder George Q. Cannon wrote the following: “Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President righam Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed, and yet they dare not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. . . . ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/up ... n_Adam.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77

This and other evidences previously posted is rather simple to understand, I'd say.

[Rachael]

Clear as mud since someone had to give those keys to Adam. Maybe Jesus let Adam borrow them and Adam gives them back later.

How could Jesus give the keys to Adam? doesn't make sense since Jesus didn't have a body and therefore could not pass on keys and priesthood authority by the 'laying on of hands'..

Maybe Adam's Father gives him the keys.. and then Adam then gives those keys to his Son, Christ? this makes more sense and follows and fits the eternal pattern and patriarchal order.

so yes.. Thanks Joseph for clearing it up.. clear as day.

Another thought. Adam was at the mount of transfiguration? If he was, he didn't have a body either since the resurrection hadn't happened yet. Moses and Elijah were taken up/translated.

And I thought the "Father" was supposed to be Adam (according to your premise). It must be grandpa God you are talking about.... Except Isaiah 45:5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:...
And Jesus said great are the words of Isaiah, not BY, or JSs King Follett Sermon

So you don't believe the doctrine Joseph taught about the plurality of Gods?

No I don't

[sandman45]

So you dont believe that Jesus is a God, or that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are now Gods?

You dont believe we can become like our father in heaven and our savior?

so you dont believe in eternal progression?

are you even lds?

[sandman45]

@freedomforall

so in this thread we have evidence that

1- Adam-God was taught..quite a bit...
2- Adam-God was said to be false doctrine
3- Joseph and early brethren taught that Jehovah was God the Father and that Jehovah was a title..
4- That it was taught that Jesus was Jehovah and God of old testament (Jehovah is not a title).
5- It was taught that Adam and Eve's transgression was not sin.
6- It was taught that Adam and Eve's transgression is a sin..(according to you but the evidence is overwhelming that it is not a sin)
7- Leaders cannot lead us astray or teach false doctrine.
8- Leaders can and will lead us astray and teach false doctrine.
9- Polygamy was a higher law and if commanded by the Lord it is justified
10- Polygamy is always an abomination and evil in the sight of the Lord..
11- Joseph didn't teach Plurality of Gods
12- Joseph did teach Plurality of Gods

So which is it.. there is so much contradiction which is causing contention..
reminds me of when I was on my mission and explaining to people why there were so many religions...

when I read your posts I feel as if you are screaming as loud as you can.. maybe you are not but that is what I perceive.

So what is the final say? like Slimjamm has brought up..

either Brigham was a false prophet and led us astray and now the current leaders are leading us and teaching correct doctrine or
He was correct and the church is currently being led astray by its leaders teaching false doctrines and being friends with their enemies (babylon).

I stand on the side that He taught correct doctrine and principles and a lot of it was taken away because it was too precious (pearl of great price) and members rejected it and it was taken away and we are currently under condemnation. Current leaders just teach the plain and precious parts (milk and honey) and not the mysteries of the kingdom (meat) because the saints are under condemnation.. that is why when compared with the mysteries it seems that people think the current doctrine of the church is false or the older doctrine of the church is false when in reality I bet they are both true depending on the point of view.

as for what I would say to Monson

I would stand in front of Monson and say "I believe what Joseph and Brigham taught. There is quite a bit of evidence of it and in my opinion not enough against it.. its just speculation and personal opinions of those who deny it ever being taught or who cannot understand it themselves that makes them enemies of this particular doctrine that Brigham revealed. Can you speak to the Father and clear this up and release a new revelation that we can put into the D&C?".

even if given the chance I bet he would be surrounded by church security and people from the PR department to make sure he didn't say anything contrary to current church doctrine..

respectfully,

Sandman

p.s. I enjoy these discussions and I learn quite a bit from everyone

[freedomforall]

Joseph F Smith through Wilford Woodruff, said:

The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof.

So you go ahead and believe what you will. It is, unequivocally, false doctrine that you can never prove otherwise no matter what you present.

It was rejected then and it is rejected now, period.

And this forum is not for promoting false doctrine, such as is the Adam-God doctrine.

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

—Spencer W. Kimball, "Our Own Liahona," Ensign (November 1976), 77

And yet, such a divine appointment does not make any mortal man or woman super-human. And Brigham Young as no exception. A little less than five months after the second President of the LDS Church passed away Elder George Q. Cannon wrote the following: “Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President righam Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed, and yet they dare not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held. . . . ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled.

Adam as God is a theory, also false doctrine.

During all the time that the Adam–God Theory was being advocated there was never any consensus about it among the top two Priesthood quorums of the Church. Now, however, a consensus had finally been reached among those who presided over and administered the kingdom. And the consensus was against the Adam–God Theory.

Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won't be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.

The Church's official position is that Adam-God is not the doctrine of the Church

Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church. If there are any particles of truth to anything surrounding the Adam-God doctrine, one would expect those things to harmonize with what has already been revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed would be able to clear up many points surrounding that doctrine.

I've done my own research and found the Adam -God Theory/Doctrine to be false and is not official church doctrine.

We are no longer living in the Dark Ages.

As for yelling loud, I echo Robert Sinclair's words that we must weep and howl.

And we have lurkers to the forum that could go away with the wrong teachings about God and Adam coming from people bent on giving the church a bad name.

Out of 15,372,337? members of the lds church, how many of this number believe in the Adam-God doctrine?
How many do not?
How many have never heard of it?
How many think it is a bunch of whooey?

Upon using a conservative figure, how can about 12,000,000 members be wrong compared to those that fall for such nonsense as the Adam-God Theory/Doctrine? Doctrine that has clearly been refuted and giving any thought to believing it is wrong?

Having disagreement is fine, but receiving personal abasement is a different matter. ;)

[slimjamm]

Your attempts to disregard what Brigham plainly taught is the true nonsense. D&C 88:112-115 CLEARLY notes Michael as the great God, fighting for His children. But you clearly don't see that and will try to explain it away. My point being, it doesn't matter if I provide Scripture or words of prophets, you'll simply run to FAIR's website (speaking of nonsense) to try and refute. Do you believe Jesus was married and had children? If so, show me all the scriptures that specifically state this. Show me where it states this is official Church doctrine. If you don't believe this, explain to me how Jesus can be said to have fulfilled all righteousness, while neglecting God's first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Then show me the scriptures that specifically state that he wasn't married or had children, and why. Also, that this is offical Church doctrine.

This is the reason you have partial truth but not a fullness. If you feel it's not your individual understanding of the Scriptures, or official Church doctrine, you reject it. This is you turning your heart from God because you rely on the precepts of men. God desires us to search Him out and let Him teach us, not read a few books and wait for a few men to tell us what to believe, not moving until they tell us. The Church has it's inspired place, but it surely isn't the source of all truth. I would hope you understand the Gospel and the Church are not the same thing. I see you're still at the point you are completely dependant on the Church, and you needing them to tell you exactly what is what. I hope in time you get to the point in which the Father desires you to be in. One where you act for yourself, by following His precepts and counsel.

[Rachael]

So you dont believe that Jesus is a God, or that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are now Gods?

You dont believe we can become like our father in heaven and our savior?

so you dont believe in eternal progression?

are you even lds?

I believe Isaiah. Jesus said his words were great.
Why do you want to be a god so bad? Seems a tad luciferian according to Isaiah.
I'm still LDS but I see the irony of history repeating itself from scripture... Ya know scriptures mingled with the precepts of men,/trusting in the arm of flesh, apostasy from the gospel by those that refuse to awake from this situation, modern phairisaism, looking on outward appearances, puffed up with pride, pursuing mammon instead of succoring the poor, building great spacious buildings, etc..

[Rachael]

I don't recall if Aaron had gotten the Levitical priesthood by laying on of hands... Will look that up later. But if God can say let there be light, and there is light, He can probably give PH authority by just saying so

BESTOWAL OF THE GIFTS AND RIGHTS OF AN OFFICE. Moses ordained Joshua as his successor by the laying on of hands (Num. 27:18, 23; Deut. 34:9). Jesus' apostles used this procedure in authorizing seven men to manage practical economic matters in the early church (Acts 6:1-6). Paul and Barnabas were ordained to a missionary journey by the laying on of hands of the "prophets and teachers at Antioch" (Acts 13:3).

The Book of Mormon reports that Jesus conferred upon his disciples the power to give the Holy Ghost by laying his hands upon them (3 Ne. 18:37; Moro. 2:3). The Aaronic Priesthood was conferred on the Prophet Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery by the hands of the resurrected John the Baptist (JS-H 1:68-69). All subsequent transmission of authority comes from the president of the church by the laying on of hands. A revelation on priesthood states: "Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High priesthood of the Church…From the same comes the administering of ordinances and blessings upon the church, by the laying on of the hands" (D&C 107:65-67). Accordingly, all men and women are installed in any Church office or calling by a setting apart by the laying on of hands of those in authority.

https://www.lds.org/topics/laying-on-of-hands?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

see also

https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-jo ... 8?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the above link

The ancient Apostles Peter, James, and John conferred the Melchizedek Priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. “The keys [of the priesthood],” the Prophet declared, “have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent.”

and later in that same chapter we see where they got the quote from...

The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam’s authority.

also see this

“There has been a chain of authority and power from Adam down to the present time.”3

“The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed

if you read the chapter you will see that the Laying on of Hands is how one gets the Keys and Authority of the priesthood, the priesthood is also eternal..

“The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years

notice how in the restoration when Joseph and Oliver received the priesthood of Aaron who did they receive it from? John the Baptist... who was a resurrected being..

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/12/the- ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

from the above link

“We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting baptism for the remission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a cloud of light, and having laid his hands upon us, he ordained us, saying:

“Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. …

“He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us … that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.

later Peter James and John (resurrected beings or angels) laid their hands on Joseph's head and gave unto them the Melchezidek priesthood..

It is a pattern that is eternal..

Never mind I had a somewhat long response, internet blanked out, erased it, but go ahead and believe as you wish
11th article of faith.

[slimjamm]

So you dont believe that Jesus is a God, or that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are now Gods?

You dont believe we can become like our father in heaven and our savior?

so you dont believe in eternal progression?

are you even lds?

I believe Isaiah.

No you dont. Isaiah taught who Christ was; who in turn taught we are gods (very image of). Remember, we're commanded to fulfill the measure of our creation. But by all means, go ahead and reject that.

You refer to Sandman's desire to become like his Father as Luciferian. The same was said to Christ for trying to make himself equal with God. To desire anything less than becoming like our Father, is Luciferian. That more closely parallels modern Phariseesism.

[Rachael]

So you dont believe that Jesus is a God, or that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob are now Gods?

You dont believe we can become like our father in heaven and our savior?

so you dont believe in eternal progression?

are you even lds?

I believe Isaiah.

No you dont. Isaiah taught who Christ was; who in turn taught we are gods (very image of). Remember, we're commanded to fulfill the measure of our creation. But by all means, go ahead and reject that.

You refer to Sandman's desire to become like his Father as Luciferian. The same was said to Christ for trying to make himself equal with God. To desire anything less than becoming like our Father, is Luciferian. That more closely parallels modern Phariseesism.

John 1King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
Jesus was just saying I Am that I Am, and I believe He is.

[Rachael]

Your attempts to disregard what Brigham plainly taught is the true nonsense. D&C 88:112-115 CLEARLY notes Michael as the great God, fighting for His children. But you clearly don't see that and will try to explain it away. My point being, it doesn't matter if I provide Scripture or words of prophets, you'll simply run to FAIR's website (speaking of nonsense) to try and refute. Do you believe Jesus was married and had children? If so, show me all the scriptures that specifically state this. Show me where it states this is official Church doctrine. If you don't believe this, explain to me how Jesus can be said to have fulfilled all righteousness, while neglecting God's first commandment to multiply and replenish the earth. Then show me the scriptures that specifically state that he wasn't married or had children, and why. Also, that this is offical Church doctrine.

This is the reason you have partial truth but not a fullness. If you feel it's not your individual understanding of the Scriptures, or official Church doctrine, you reject it. This is you turning your heart from God because you rely on the precepts of men. God desires us to search Him out and let Him teach us, not read a few books and wait for a few men to tell us what to believe, not moving until they tell us. The Church has it's inspired place, but it surely isn't the source of all truth. I would hope you understand the Gospel and the Church are not the same thing. I see you're still at the point you are completely dependant on the Church, and you needing them to tell you exactly what is what. I hope in time you get to the point in which the Father desires you to be in. One where you act for yourself, by following His precepts and counsel.

BY taught a lot of cr-p, so come find me and slit my throat ear to ear, disembowel me. Yeah, he taught that.

Adam wasn't resurrected yet to lay hands on Jesus. Moses and Elijah were supposedly translated, therefore had bodies to do so. Fine. Go to a temple ceremony, and Peter James and John go to Adam and want something that requires physical contact when they don't have bodies yet. Yet the D&C demands a litmus test of sorts... You know what I'm speaking of...
But the book of Hebrews clarifies that Jesus is the eternal high priest, He was perfect and did not need baptism for the remission of His sins, He didn't need to be ordained on the mount of transfiguration to get priesthood He already had, He did it to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law

[Rachael]

It wasn't just that they didn't want to tear apart existing polygamous families, but there were a considerable number of new polygamous marriages performed for a number of years after the 1890 Manifesto. These marriages were done for the highest leaders in the Church, not by renegades. I'll post some links tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. D. Michael Quinn wrote a paper on this, after being allowed access to Church Archives.

Unfortunately this thread has digressed and degenerated to an Adam/GOD discussion. Glad I'm not the only one with ADD.
You're right. It's disturbing this happened. I don't understand why we got to go through church history rotations if the GAs want us to cherry pick and acquiesce to correlated history...then preach about values with an emphasis on honesty

[Lizzy60]

It wasn't just that they didn't want to tear apart existing polygamous families, but there were a considerable number of new polygamous marriages performed for a number of years after the 1890 Manifesto. These marriages were done for the highest leaders in the Church, not by renegades. I'll post some links tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. D. Michael Quinn wrote a paper on this, after being allowed access to Church Archives.

Unfortunately this thread has digressed and degenerated to an Adam/GOD discussion. Glad I'm not the only one with ADD.
You're right. It's disturbing this happened. I don't understand why we got to go through church history rotations if the GAs want us to cherry pick and acquiesce to correlated history...then preach about honesty

Speaking of honesty......a woman in my ward just returned from a mission working in the office of the Seventy who is in charge of all the Phillipine Missions. She did not give any examples of what she was referring to, but in her testimony today, she said that she now knows that it's right and proper that the Church doesn't tell the members everything, as some things may destroy their testimonies. It was a very weird testimony, and I am left wondering how long she will be able to convince herself that not all truth is helpful, so it's okay for Authorities to omit and actually lie about unhelpful truths.

[Rachael]

She should not spread disease germs.... it's not helpful