Names/titles for Deity in the Scriptures applied to more than one person

[Luke]

Yesterday this idea was ridiculed, well now it is time that we opened the Scriptures to see what they have to say:

The following names/titles can be used to refer to multiple different beings, and I will prove it from the Scriptures:

“God
“Lord”
“LORD” / “Jehovah” / “I am”
“God of Israel”
“Father”

“God”

Applied to God the Father:

• 1 Corinthians 8
  
  6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

• Hebrews 1
  
  1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
  2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

• Moses 1
  
  1 THE words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,
  2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.
  3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?
  

Applied to Jesus Christ:

• John 1
  
  1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

• John 20
  
  28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

• 1 Nephi 11
  
  16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
  

• Mosiah 13
  
  28 And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.
  

• Mosiah 15
  
  1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
  

• Alma 42
  
  15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.
  

“Lord”

Applied to God the Father:

• Revelation 19
  
  22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it.

• D&C 109
  
  1 THANKS be to thy name, O Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and showest mercy unto thy servants who walk uprightly before thee, with all their hearts--
  4 And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom . . .

• Moses 1
  
  3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

Applied to Jesus Christ:

• John 20
  
  28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

• 1 Corinthians 8
  
  6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

• Revelation 22
  
  20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Applied to the Holy Ghost:

• 2 Corinthians 3
  
  17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
  

“LORD” / “Jehovah” / “I am”

Applied to God the Father:

• Luke 20
  
  42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
  

• D&C 109
  4 And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom . . .
  34 O Jehovah, have mercy upon this people, and as all men sin forgive the transgressions of thy people, and let them be blotted out forever.
  42 But deliver thou, O Jehovah, we beseech thee . . .
  56 That their hearts may be softened when thy servants shall go out from thy house, O Jehovah . . .
  68 O Lord, remember thy servant, Joseph Smith, Jun., and all his afflictions and persecutions--how he has covenanted with Jehovah, and vowed to thee, O Mighty God of Jacob . . .
  

Applied to Jesus Christ:

• John 8
  
  58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
  

• D&C 110
  
  3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:
  4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.
  

Applied to the angel of the Lord:

• Judges 6
  
  14 And the LORD looked upon him, and said, Go in this thy might, and thou shalt save Israel from the hand of the Midianites: have not I sent thee?

“God of Israel”

Applied to God the Father:

• D&C 109
  
  1 THANKS be to thy name, O Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and showest mercy unto thy servants who walk uprightly before thee, with all their hearts--
  4 And now we ask thee, Holy Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of thy bosom . . .
  

Applied to Jesus Christ:

• 1 Nephi 19
  
  13 And as for those who are at Jerusalem, saith the prophet, they shall be scourged by all people, because they crucify the God of Israel, and turn their hearts aside, rejecting signs and wonders, and the power and glory of the God of Israel.

• 3 Nephi 11
  
  14 Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.
  

“Father”

Applied to God the Father:

• John 20
  
  17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
  

Applied to Jesus Christ:

• Ether 3
  
  14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.
  

• Ether 4
  
  12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me--that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.
  

Applied to God the Father’s Father:

• Revelation 1
  
  6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

^^ Joseph Smith confirms that this is the correct interpretation of the verse:

• “Our text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.’ The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 370, 16 June 1844)
  

All this nonsense about these names/titles only referring to one person has now been silenced and deserves to never be repeated again. It is not true

This then opens up a new can of worms, as to who is the “Holy One”, etc—In a word, they all are. The Gods are one. They may all use the same names

Brigham was right when he said:

• “We begin with the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our spirits—who is he? Do you know anything about him? Can you find out who he is? Suppose we go to the scriptures and enquire who he is. At one time he says ‘I am that I am,’ at another time when the question was proposed by somebody, he replied, ‘I am the Lord your God’; at another time he is spoken of as a Man of War, a General and so on. You may trace the scriptures through, and you will find that he is known to one people by one title today, and tomorrow by another, and the next day by another, and there he leaves it.” (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, 25 April 1855)

And these titles can rightfully be applied to another

[abijah`]

no one contests the fluidity of titles across the three members of the godhead. at least not in my case, thats not what i take issue with. david didnt either, as jesus aptly points out, addressing his descendant as "my lord" (essentially proving the third god's messianic advent, assuming "my LORD" = jesus)

the heresy here is taking the title and introducing some higher fourth or fifth character into the mix and saying sometimes its actually referring to him.

its all baseless, with no established system of when the title refers to adam, versus when it refers to adam's god. which is simply not how the scriptures work.

the god adam worshipped in the garden is our god, the god he prayed to is the one we pray to. to say he isnt, but instead applying the title to some even-higher order of deity is baseless, its wrong, its a legit heresy. theres zero precedent anywhere in scripture to suggest this is the case.

obviously there are orders and generations extending above the sphere of the three gods with which we have to do. but the idea that we can just insert them into the scriptures under the supposed-ambiguity of the titles to fit the weird constructs of speculating saints years and years ago without any base or precedent for doing so is an idea worthy of every ridicule.

adam-god is disproven by the scriptures, and trying to redefine "God" as equating with personages higher up than the three members of the godhead is baseless, it is false - yet necessary to prop up the false doctrine that the gods of the endowment who oversaw the creation of this world are adam's gods, not ours.

we are to see ourselves respectively as adam & eve. the god who made them is our god, the god of their exile is the god of our exile, the god adam prayed to is the god we pray to. and he is not an author of confusion.

the scriptures should be interpreted on their own terms, rather than through the distorted lens of brigham's broken theology. "but it was joseph's...", no it wasnt - that argument is simply weaker than weak, and im not going to waste my effort on something objectively impossible to prove or disprove.

michael being deity is so much easier explained by him being the third member of the godhead anyway. the endowment explicitly teaches that the world was crafted by michael, under the direction of the higher two. this perfectly corroborates with the scriptures, which say the world was made by god through his "spirit" (michael) who hovered over the chaotic waters. just like how the dove hovered over jesus when he himself arose from the waters, signalling a new era of a fresh new creation in christ, destined to replace the old.

the scriptures say god created the world by his "spirit". the endowment says god created the world by "michael". i say they are both right and are painting precisely the same tapestry in perfect harmony with one another.

that is good theology. that is harmony between the endowment, and all the scriptures in their entirety. brigham's on the other hand categorically denies both the endowment and the scriptures together. he was simply wrong, with a big fat capital W.

[Luke]

no one contests the fluidity of titles across the three members of the godhead. at least not in my case, thats not what i take issue with.

the heresy here is taking the title and introducing some higher fourth or fifth character into the mix and saying sometimes its actually referring to him.

its all baseless, with no established system of when the title refers to adam, versus when it refers to adam's god. which is simply not how the scriptures work.

the god adam worshipped in the garden is our god, the god he prayed to is the one we pray to. to say he isnt, but instead applying the title to some even-higher order of deity is baseless, its wrong, its a legit heresy. theres zero precedent anywhere in scripture to suggest this is the case.

obviously there are orders and generations extending above the sphere of the three gods with which we have to do. but the idea that we can just insert them into the scriptures under the supposed-ambiguity of the titles to fit the weird constructs of speculating saints years and years ago without any base or precedent for doing so is an idea worthy of every ridicule.

adam-god is disproven by the scriptures, and trying to redefine "God" as equating with personages higher up than the three members of the godhead is baseless, it is false - yet necessary to prop up the false doctrine that the gods of the endowment who oversaw the creation of this world are adam's gods, not ours.

we are to see ourselves respectively as adam & eve. the god who made them is our god, the god of their exile is the god of our exile, the god adam prayed to is the god we pray to. and he is not an author of confusion.

the scriptures should be interpreted on their own terms, rather than through the distorted lens of brigham's broken theology. "but it was joseph's...", no it wasnt - that argument is simply weaker than weak, and im not going to waste my effort on something objectively impossible to prove or disprove.

michael being deity is so much easier explained by him being the third member of the godhead anyway. the endowment explicitly teaches that the world was crafted by michael, under the direction of the higher two. this perfectly corroborates with the scriptures, which say the world was made by god through his "spirit" (michael) who hovered over the chaotic waters. just like how the dove hovered over jesus when he himself arose from the waters, signalling a new era of a fresh new creation in christ, destined to replace the old.

the scriptures say god created the world by his "spirit". the endowment says god created the world by "michael". i say they are both right and are painting precisely the same tapestry in perfect harmony with one another.

that is good theology. that is harmony between the endowment, and all the scriptures in their entirety. brigham's on the other hand categorically denies both the endowment and the scriptures together. he was simply wrong, with a big fat capital W.

What do you think of Joseph applying Revelation 1:6 to a fourth higher character then? Was he preaching heresies?

Also, you do realise that all the endowment we have comes from Brigham, who said he got it from Joseph, and he also said he got Adam-God from Joseph and that's how he interpreted the endowment (don't forget the original Lecture at the Veil either). You can't just pick and choose in this instance (well, technically you can--but it's intellectually dishonest)

All of this is merely your opinion

[Luke]

Besides, I wasn't even trying to say anything about a fourth higher character, I was disproving the idea that these names/titles were only used for one being, aka Trinitarianism being preached on this forum

[abijah`]

What do you think of Joseph applying Revelation 1:6 to a fourth higher character then? Was he preaching heresies?

not if jesus is god, and his father is who we are made kings and priests to. john 17 communicates this precise idea.

Also, you do realise that all the endowment we have comes from Brigham, who said he got it from Joseph, and he also said he got Adam-God from Joseph and that's how he interpreted the endowment (don't forget the original Lecture at the Veil either). You can't just pick and choose in this instance (well, technically you can--but it's intellectually dishonest)

it doesnt matter who it comes from in the scope of this discussion, it utterly contradicts adam-god as taught by brigham. every single version trumps the notion that michael is god-the-first.

All of this is merely your opinion

okay, well i "showed my work" as it were - which is more than brigham ever did or could. feel free to point out where i get it wrong if you disagree.

the scriptures say god made the world by the spirit.

the endowment teaches god made it by michael.

those arent opinions, they are objective facts.

if adam is god-the-first, it necessitates one to redefine who "elohim" and "jehovah" refer to by inserting fourth and fifth tier deities to which he answered to in creating the world.

whereas adam being god-the-third fits like a hand in the glove, and perfectly comports with the scriptures/endowment without any need to skew them.

[Luke]

not if jesus is god, and his father is who we are made kings and priests to. john 17 communicates this precise idea.

But this isn't what Joseph said. Joseph said that here, God referred to God the Father:

• “Our text says, ‘And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father.’ The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. . . . If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son?” (Joseph Smith, TPJS 370, 372, 16 June 1844)

So again, was Joseph preaching heresies when he said this?

it doesnt matter who it comes from in the scope of this discussion, it utterly contradicts adam-god as taught by brigham. every single version trumps the notion that michael is god-the-first.

Original Lecture at the Veil destroys this argument

okay, well i "showed my work" as it were - which is more than brigham ever did or could. feel free to point out where i get it wrong if you disagree.

Brigham elaborated on this quite well

Maybe I'll do a post in the future

the scriptures say god made the world by the spirit.

They also say God made it by Jesus

the endowment teaches god made it by michael.

Yeah, and other Gods too. Don't forget that in the original, Jesus was a separate character, under Michael. The endowment "exposes" show this

those arent opinions, they are objective facts.

No one said they aren't, but you are choosing certain Scriptures (and your interpretation of them) and acting as if it's the be all and end all, when there's undoubtedly much deeper theology to it all

[abijah`]

So again, was Joseph preaching heresies when he said this?

no, like i said there are surely generations of older and higher gods, but i dont think this is the context of revelation 1:6. is being made king and priest to elohim insufficient that we should also need his father also? is he disconnected from them somehow, that the distinction needs to be made? do we receive the fulness of the father, or the fulness of the father and his father, as if the former differs from the latter?

and even if it is, it certainly isnt any kind of evidence in favour of adam-god.

Original Lecture at the Veil destroys this argument

link please, or PM.

not that early-saint notions under an adam-god preaching president are preeminent to the scriptures anyway though.

Brigham elaborated on this quite well

Maybe I'll do a post in the future

id be interested to read it. all im aware of is his grandfather and great-grandfather thing, which is exactly what im getting at with the need to insert fourth and fifth tier deities to make sense of his adam-god notions.

They also say God made it by Jesus.

Yeah, and other Gods too.

so does the endowment. elohim sends "jehovah" + "michael".

and in the scriptures we see "god" + "spirit of god"

just like all the times where we see "yhwh" + "angel of yhwh". almost like its some kind of repeating pattern consistent throughout scripture.

Don't forget that in the original, Jesus was a separate character, under Michael. The endowment "exposes" show this

early saint notions that jesus is not jehovah were obviously wrong. jesus is obviously and objectively jehovah in the bible and the book of mormon. joseph praying to jehovah, and our scraps of history of some primeval endowment version dont trump this.

youre welcome to believe jesus is not jehovah and is under adam. just dont claim to also believe the new testament and book of mormon as well and call them harmonious. they utterly contradict this idea. apostles and prophets throughout the ages have been abundantly clear who they claimed jesus of nazareth was and is.

all your counter evidences are perceived solely through the biased lens of deifying brigham-era beliefs at the expense of the entirety of scripture which utterly contradict them. your pedestal of the understanding of the early saints is far too high in my opinion. these people were not even close to perfect, they were not even close to being illuminated in the purity of all truth and heck they werent even all in agreement with each other. to act like the disparate, shifting opinions of the ones who failed to establish zion > scripture is utter foolishness in my view

No one said they aren't, but you are choosing certain Scriptures (and your interpretation of them) and acting as if it's the be all and end all, when there's undoubtedly much deeper theology to it all

yes, surely things must be much more complicated than they are.

[Luke]

i dont think this is the context of revelation 1:6.

But Joseph said it was, and I'll take Joseph's word for it

and even if it is, it certainly isnt any kind of evidence in favour of adam-god.

Never said it was because that wasn't my original point. Although it perfectly illustrates that there is generations of Gods above the Father

link please, or PM.

I'll send it to you

not that early-saint notions under an adam-god preaching president are preeminent to the scriptures anyway though.

I think you have this really weird idea of what Scripture is. Would you have rejected Isaiah's words because they weren't canonised at the time?

Scripture = words which come from the Holy Ghost according to D&C

id be interested to read it.

Nice one

all im aware of is his grandfather and great-grandfather thing, which is exactly what im getting at with the need to insert fourth and fifth tier deities to make sense of his adam-god notions.

What's the problem with having an understanding of deities above? This seemed to be the problems in Joseph's day, they couldn't accept that the Trinity wasn't real, let alone the existence of a pantheon of Gods. Brigham was just teaching doctrines which should have been palatable decades earlier, yet because of unbelief, they weren't

so does the endowment. elohim sends "jehovah" + "michael".

and in the scriptures we see "god" + "spirit of god"

And Jesus... lol

I'm sure the Holy Ghost also assisted in the creation, as well as many others

early saint notions that jesus is not jehovah were obviously wrong. jesus is obviously and objectively jehovah in the bible and the book of mormon. joseph praying to jehovah, and our scraps of history of some primeval endowment version dont trump this.

youre welcome to believe jesus is not jehovah and is under adam. just dont claim to also believe the new testament and book of mormon as well and call them harmonious. they utterly contradict this idea. apostles and prophets throughout the ages have been abundantly clear who they claimed jesus of nazareth was and is. all your counter evidences are perceived solely through the lens of deifying brigham-era beliefs at the expense of the entirety of scripture which utterly contradict them.

Again this is your interpretation of Scripture, anyone can make an opposing argument

And yes, the original endowment really does trump your interpretation, since it came from Joseph

I'm going to do a post on the ordinance changes later anyway

your pedestal of the understanding of the early saints is far too high in my opinion.

I just think Joseph Smith's teachings are superior teachings

yes, surely things must be much more complicated than they are.

Glad we agree on something

[abijah`]

I think you have this really weird idea of what Scripture is. Would you have rejected Isaiah's words because they weren't canonised at the time?

Scripture = words which come from the Holy Ghost according to D&C

nothing in isaiah contradicted what came before. the counter-arguments you are making based on brigham-era ideas do.

i think your idea of what scripture is is whats weird here. they are all viewed through this brigham-era lens, which forces one to skew many, and full-on ignore even more.

What's the problem with having an understanding of deities above? This seemed to be the problems in Joseph's day, they couldn't accept that the Trinity wasn't real, let alone the existence of a pantheon of Gods. Brigham was just teaching doctrines which should have been palatable decades earlier, yet because of unbelief, they weren't

because they contradict the scriptures. if adam is god, adam praying to god necessitates the insertion or entities who arent at play. its erasing the god elohim who is actually being prayed to in lieu of a yet-higher being who is not presented there.

And Jesus... lol

I'm sure the Holy Ghost also assisted in the creation, as well as many others

this spells out your worldview in a nutshell.

the scriptures explicitly point out the spirit as being immediately carrying out the creation.

yet in your eyes, some historical scrap of a once-used endowment format from yesteryear trumps things like genesis 1:2

clearly you have your own priority and value for what truth is. clearly scripture comes second, and shadows of brigham-era speculations come first

Again this is your interpretation of Scripture, anyone can make an opposing argument

no one does but fundamentalists. no one who believes what the bible and book of mormon teaches about jesus christ would find your argument even slightly compelling.

And yes, the original endowment really does trump your interpretation, since it came from Joseph
I just think Joseph Smith's teachings are superior teachings

you present them as "josephs teachings" like this is objective fact. it isnt. they are brighams teachings who said they came from joseph. this leaves loads of room for all manner of extrapolation and misinterpretation. i didnt hear this from joseph, theres nowhere i can read it from joseph. your assertions that joseph objectively believed adam is god, and jesus is under adam and jesus is not jehovah are empty and unsubstantial, especially in light of the vast multitude of times where he contradicts this anti-scriptural narrative.

you assume this shadow-notion of "well all this came from joseph", and happily ignore all the times where he refers to jesus as I AM, and God-Almighty, and michael as a "prince" or "archangel" which categorically disqualifies him as being god, or higher than jesus

i am not the one picking and choosing here. clearly brigham's adam-god notions and snippets of anti-scriptural nonsense from saints of yesteryear are your touchstone for truth, and the lens through which you interpret (and in many cases openly discount) scripture. and they are indeed brighams. stubbornly and emptily asserting "they're joseph's, they're joseph's" doesnt make it so. for every hazy thread where joseph seems to somewhat have a flavour of what brighams notions and once-upon-a-time endowment scraps later went on to say (or hint at in the latter's case), has dozens of fully-woven counterevidences directly and objectively from him that shut them down.

[Robin Hood]

no one contests the fluidity of titles across the three members of the godhead. at least not in my case, thats not what i take issue with. david didnt either, as jesus aptly points out, addressing his descendant as "my lord" (essentially proving the third god's messianic advent, assuming "my LORD" = jesus)

the heresy here is taking the title and introducing some higher fourth or fifth character into the mix and saying sometimes its actually referring to him.

its all baseless, with no established system of when the title refers to adam, versus when it refers to adam's god. which is simply not how the scriptures work.

the god adam worshipped in the garden is our god, the god he prayed to is the one we pray to. to say he isnt, but instead applying the title to some even-higher order of deity is baseless, its wrong, its a legit heresy. theres zero precedent anywhere in scripture to suggest this is the case.

obviously there are orders and generations extending above the sphere of the three gods with which we have to do. but the idea that we can just insert them into the scriptures under the supposed-ambiguity of the titles to fit the weird constructs of speculating saints years and years ago without any base or precedent for doing so is an idea worthy of every ridicule.

adam-god is disproven by the scriptures, and trying to redefine "God" as equating with personages higher up than the three members of the godhead is baseless, it is false - yet necessary to prop up the false doctrine that the gods of the endowment who oversaw the creation of this world are adam's gods, not ours.

we are to see ourselves respectively as adam & eve. the god who made them is our god, the god of their exile is the god of our exile, the god adam prayed to is the god we pray to. and he is not an author of confusion.

the scriptures should be interpreted on their own terms, rather than through the distorted lens of brigham's broken theology. "but it was joseph's...", no it wasnt - that argument is simply weaker than weak, and im not going to waste my effort on something objectively impossible to prove or disprove.

michael being deity is so much easier explained by him being the third member of the godhead anyway. the endowment explicitly teaches that the world was crafted by michael, under the direction of the higher two. this perfectly corroborates with the scriptures, which say the world was made by god through his "spirit" (michael) who hovered over the chaotic waters. just like how the dove hovered over jesus when he himself arose from the waters, signalling a new era of a fresh new creation in christ, destined to replace the old.

the scriptures say god created the world by his "spirit". the endowment says god created the world by "michael". i say they are both right and are painting precisely the same tapestry in perfect harmony with one another.

that is good theology. that is harmony between the endowment, and all the scriptures in their entirety. brigham's on the other hand categorically denies both the endowment and the scriptures together. he was simply wrong, with a big fat capital W.

Good points.
A question:
So are you saying Adam/Michael is the Holy Ghost, or do you mean some other spirit?
The reason I ask is that the scriptures say that Adam was baptised in water by the spirit. I have never understood why this would be so, or even permitted given it's a physical ordinance.
Just interested in your take.

[Robin Hood]

Having just read the Lecture at the Veil, it is clear that Jehovah and Jesus were not considered to be the same person.
To me, that is the only way the Adam-God doctrine can even begin to work.

And I don't buy this idea of names and titles being interchangeable. Jehovah is a name, not a title.

[abijah`]

Good points.
A question:
So are you saying Adam/Michael is the Holy Ghost, or do you mean some other spirit?
The reason I ask is that the scriptures say that Adam was baptised in water by the spirit. I have never understood why this would be so, or even permitted given it's a physical ordinance.
Just interested in your take.

i do think michael/adam is the third member of the godhead

in moses 5 the holy ghost speaks saying "i am the only begotten" as if it were jesus

therefore i might argue that when one paraclete ("comforter") is operating in a tabernacle of flesh, that the other one takes up the duties of the other somehow, though im not sure of the details of how it would work.

i suspect it has a lot to do with why john says the gift of the holy ghost was only given in limited capacity during jesus's ministry. connected with that, i also find it very interesting how in the endowment its the apostles job to come down and endow adam with power, while in the new testament its the precise inverse that occurs.

the ones who clothe adam become the the ones who are then clothed by the holy ghost.

maybe the spirit in the moses narrative could be some way of referring to the capacity of the apostles as we see them in the temple drama ministering to adam and eve in the lone and dreary world. they doing for him what he later does for them, answering the physical ordinance conundrum. they baptising him with water, and then him baptising them with fire. it only makes sense, and the gospel is full of these poetic inversions.

also kind of weird how the holy ghost is nowhere to be seen in the endowment, and the three-part godhead is presented as elohim-yhwh-michael

plus adam and eve explicitly get commanded to teach their children the gospel. who teaches mankind (all of adam's children)? the holy ghost. i submit only the father of all has stewardship to enter the tabernacles of all his natural children to teach them. seems to me like only the natural patriarch from whom those tabernacles were produced and descended from would have authority to dwell inside them to do that. family business is family business after all, and i reckon theres an order to it. we are all to view ourselves as adam moreover, who more fitting to be the internal testator of all truth to the hearts of the children as they in turn become receptive to the heart of the firstfather who begat them.

[nightlight]

no one contests the fluidity of titles across the three members of the godhead. at least not in my case, thats not what i take issue with. david didnt either, as jesus aptly points out, addressing his descendant as "my lord" (essentially proving the third god's messianic advent, assuming "my LORD" = jesus)

the heresy here is taking the title and introducing some higher fourth or fifth character into the mix and saying sometimes its actually referring to him.

its all baseless, with no established system of when the title refers to adam, versus when it refers to adam's god. which is simply not how the scriptures work.

the god adam worshipped in the garden is our god, the god he prayed to is the one we pray to. to say he isnt, but instead applying the title to some even-higher order of deity is baseless, its wrong, its a legit heresy. theres zero precedent anywhere in scripture to suggest this is the case.

obviously there are orders and generations extending above the sphere of the three gods with which we have to do. but the idea that we can just insert them into the scriptures under the supposed-ambiguity of the titles to fit the weird constructs of speculating saints years and years ago without any base or precedent for doing so is an idea worthy of every ridicule.

adam-god is disproven by the scriptures, and trying to redefine "God" as equating with personages higher up than the three members of the godhead is baseless, it is false - yet necessary to prop up the false doctrine that the gods of the endowment who oversaw the creation of this world are adam's gods, not ours.

we are to see ourselves respectively as adam & eve. the god who made them is our god, the god of their exile is the god of our exile, the god adam prayed to is the god we pray to. and he is not an author of confusion.

the scriptures should be interpreted on their own terms, rather than through the distorted lens of brigham's broken theology. "but it was joseph's...", no it wasnt - that argument is simply weaker than weak, and im not going to waste my effort on something objectively impossible to prove or disprove.

michael being deity is so much easier explained by him being the third member of the godhead anyway. the endowment explicitly teaches that the world was crafted by michael, under the direction of the higher two. this perfectly corroborates with the scriptures, which say the world was made by god through his "spirit" (michael) who hovered over the chaotic waters. just like how the dove hovered over jesus when he himself arose from the waters, signalling a new era of a fresh new creation in christ, destined to replace the old.

the scriptures say god created the world by his "spirit". the endowment says god created the world by "michael". i say they are both right and are painting precisely the same tapestry in perfect harmony with one another.

that is good theology. that is harmony between the endowment, and all the scriptures in their entirety. brigham's on the other hand categorically denies both the endowment and the scriptures together. he was simply wrong, with a big fat capital W.

Good points.
A question:
So are you saying Adam/Michael is the Holy Ghost, or do you mean some other spirit?
The reason I ask is that the scriptures say that Adam was baptised in water by the spirit. I have never understood why this would be so, or even permitted given it's a physical ordinance.
Just interested in your take.

So was alma:
Mosiah18
And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.
And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.
And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.
--------------

[Luke]

And I don't buy this idea of names and titles being interchangeable. Jehovah is a name, not a title.

• Hebrews 1
  
  4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
  

• Philippians 2
  
  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Seems that Jesus obtained the divine name

[Robin Hood]

no one contests the fluidity of titles across the three members of the godhead. at least not in my case, thats not what i take issue with. david didnt either, as jesus aptly points out, addressing his descendant as "my lord" (essentially proving the third god's messianic advent, assuming "my LORD" = jesus)

the heresy here is taking the title and introducing some higher fourth or fifth character into the mix and saying sometimes its actually referring to him.

its all baseless, with no established system of when the title refers to adam, versus when it refers to adam's god. which is simply not how the scriptures work.

the god adam worshipped in the garden is our god, the god he prayed to is the one we pray to. to say he isnt, but instead applying the title to some even-higher order of deity is baseless, its wrong, its a legit heresy. theres zero precedent anywhere in scripture to suggest this is the case.

obviously there are orders and generations extending above the sphere of the three gods with which we have to do. but the idea that we can just insert them into the scriptures under the supposed-ambiguity of the titles to fit the weird constructs of speculating saints years and years ago without any base or precedent for doing so is an idea worthy of every ridicule.

adam-god is disproven by the scriptures, and trying to redefine "God" as equating with personages higher up than the three members of the godhead is baseless, it is false - yet necessary to prop up the false doctrine that the gods of the endowment who oversaw the creation of this world are adam's gods, not ours.

we are to see ourselves respectively as adam & eve. the god who made them is our god, the god of their exile is the god of our exile, the god adam prayed to is the god we pray to. and he is not an author of confusion.

the scriptures should be interpreted on their own terms, rather than through the distorted lens of brigham's broken theology. "but it was joseph's...", no it wasnt - that argument is simply weaker than weak, and im not going to waste my effort on something objectively impossible to prove or disprove.

michael being deity is so much easier explained by him being the third member of the godhead anyway. the endowment explicitly teaches that the world was crafted by michael, under the direction of the higher two. this perfectly corroborates with the scriptures, which say the world was made by god through his "spirit" (michael) who hovered over the chaotic waters. just like how the dove hovered over jesus when he himself arose from the waters, signalling a new era of a fresh new creation in christ, destined to replace the old.

the scriptures say god created the world by his "spirit". the endowment says god created the world by "michael". i say they are both right and are painting precisely the same tapestry in perfect harmony with one another.

that is good theology. that is harmony between the endowment, and all the scriptures in their entirety. brigham's on the other hand categorically denies both the endowment and the scriptures together. he was simply wrong, with a big fat capital W.

Good points.
A question:
So are you saying Adam/Michael is the Holy Ghost, or do you mean some other spirit?
The reason I ask is that the scriptures say that Adam was baptised in water by the spirit. I have never understood why this would be so, or even permitted given it's a physical ordinance.
Just interested in your take.

So was alma:
Mosiah18
And now it came to pass that Alma took Helam, he being one of the first, and went and stood forth in the water, and cried, saying: O Lord, pour out thy Spirit upon thy servant, that he may do this work with holiness of heart.

And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world.
And after Alma had said these words, both Alma and Helam were buried in the water; and they arose and came forth out of the water rejoicing, being filled with the Spirit.
And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.
--------------

There is a difference.
Alma baptised himself, whereas Adam was baptised by the spirit. He was literally caught up by the spirit and chucked into the water.

[Robin Hood]

And I don't buy this idea of names and titles being interchangeable. Jehovah is a name, not a title.

• Hebrews 1
  
  4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
  

• Philippians 2
  
  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Seems that Jesus obtained the divine name

Very tenuous.

[Luke]

And I don't buy this idea of names and titles being interchangeable. Jehovah is a name, not a title.

• Hebrews 1
  
  4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
  

• Philippians 2
  
  9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Seems that Jesus obtained the divine name

Very tenuous.

Not really, since YHWH was the highest name according to the Hebrew belief, it's clear that Paul says twice that Jesus obtained this name

It's clearly used for different beings in D&C and in the Temple according to the early Church leaders, so whose name is it? The answer is all of them, since they obtained the name at one time or another

[Alaris]

Speaking without the power of the Spirit in the campaign to disappear the Holy Ghost. The irony.

[Luke]

Speaking without the power of the Spirit in the campaign to disappear the Holy Ghost. The irony.

No one is campaigning to disappear the Holy Ghost though

[Alaris]

Speaking without the power of the Spirit in the campaign to disappear the Holy Ghost. The irony.

No one is campaigning to disappear the Holy Ghost though

Who do you think the third member of the Godhead is?

[abijah`]

No one is campaigning to disappear the Holy Ghost though

perhaps im mistaken, but he may be referring to where i said the godhead gets presented as elohim jehovah and then michael in lieu of his epithet as the "holy spirit"

ive seen elsewhere where alaris thinks the holy ghost is the one who leads adam to the veil, which is incorrect as i have pointed out in the the past.

peter is the one who leads adam to the veil and assists him there. one can refer to the endowment script to clearly see this. it also further confirms the connection between the apostles and adam.

in the endowment, the apostles are the means by which adam is empowered and clothed with power from on high.

in the new testament, it is the holy spirit who is the means by which the apostles are empowered and clothed with power from on high.

like a proper mirror image.

[Alaris]

No one is campaigning to disappear the Holy Ghost though

perhaps im mistaken, but he may be referring to where i said the godhead gets presented as elohim jehovah and then michael in lieu of his epithet as the "holy spirit"

ive seen elsewhere where alaris thinks the holy ghost is the one who leads adam to the veil, which is incorrect as i have pointed out in the the past.

peter is the one who leads adam to the veil and assists him there. one can refer to the endowment script to clearly see this. it also further confirms the connection between the apostles and adam.

in the endowment, the apostles are the means by which adam is empowered and clothed with power from on high.

in the new testament, it is the holy spirit who is the means by which the apostles are empowered and clothed with power from on high.

like a proper mirror image.

Testament of Levi is one of the many works that shows the Davidic Servant removes the threatening sword from Adam. Peter James and John take Adam to the veil. Let that sink in...


The mystery of the Holy Ghost is hiding in plain sight and Abijah is soooooo close. The holy ghost did baptize Adam and no he wasn't Jesus.

[abijah`]

Testament of Levi is one of the many works that shows the Davidic Servant removes the threatening sword from Adam.

its interesting to read and consider the apocryphal works, though its important to remember the lord said there are distruths sown amongst the truths found in them. if you could quote the verse(s) youre referring to it would be helpful.

as for myself, i think its pretty clear who redeems adam. the veil to the holy of holies (the flaming sword blocking the way to the tree of life) was rent in twain by the sacrifice of jesus.

jesus christ is the redeemer of adam, and of us all (who are to consider ourselves as adam). jesus christ is the saviour of mankind.

Peter James and John take Adam to the veil. Let that sink in...

well yeah ive been saying this the whole time. its been sinking in.

The mystery of the Holy Ghost is hiding in plain sight and Abijah is soooooo close. The holy ghost did baptize Adam and no he wasn't Jesus.

well, perhaps it wasnt jesus. like i mentioned above i could see this as referring to the ministering unto adam by the apostles in the lone & dreary world. theres plenty of correlation between what they do for adam in the endowment and what the holy ghost in turn does for them as ive been pointing out.

i could just as easily consider the book of moses an imperfect document. one prime example of this is how it gets the sons of god and daughters of men narrative wrong. the bene`elohim are clearly members of the heavenly council, which is why all the other instances of that phrase is always referring to spiritual beings, from the book of job, to the psalms, to jude's epistle, to peter's epistle etc. so i view the book of moses as suspect at best, contradicting all these other scriptures in at least this one subject.

[Alaris]

Testament of Levi is one of the many works that shows the Davidic Servant removes the threatening sword from Adam.

its interesting to read and consider the apocryphal works, though its important to remember the lord said there are distruths sown amongst the truths found in them. if you could quote the verse(s) youre referring to it would be helpful.

as for myself, i think its pretty clear who redeems adam. the veil to the holy of holies (the flaming sword blocking the way to the tree of life) was rent in twain by the sacrifice of jesus.

jesus christ is the redeemer of adam, and of us all (who are to consider ourselves as adam). jesus christ is the saviour of mankind.

Peter James and John take Adam to the veil. Let that sink in...

well yeah ive been saying this the whole time. its been sinking in.

The mystery of the Holy Ghost is hiding in plain sight and Abijah is soooooo close. The holy ghost did baptize Adam and no he wasn't Jesus.

well, perhaps it wasnt jesus. like i mentioned above i could see this as referring to the ministering unto adam by the apostles in the lone & dreary world.

i could just as easily consider the book of moses an imperfect document. one prime example of this is how it gets the sons of god and daughters of men narrative wrong. the bene`elohim are clearly members of the heavenly council, which is why all the other instances of that phrase is always referring to spiritual beings, from the book of job, to the psalms etc.

Jesus does redeem Adam but The Holy Ghost officiates Yom Kippur. The way into the holiest of all is not yet made manifest... By the Holy Ghost.

Is not the veil of separation what separates Adam from returning to the presence of God?

Who takes Adam to the veil?

You know there are tons of writings that confirm this. Discourse in Abbaton is the most comprehensive restored scripture as the Premortal covenant is revealed... Peter asks Jesus about the final mystery on the 40th day. Who is this Abaddon guy?

Then there are several works that reveal James... James is the one sitting upon Adams throne. If James had the keys you could spend an eternity looking for him, Joseph said in King Follett with an enormous wink and nod. But Jacob is really his name.

[nightlight]

No one is campaigning to disappear the Holy Ghost though

perhaps im mistaken, but he may be referring to where i said the godhead gets presented as elohim jehovah and then michael in lieu of his epithet as the "holy spirit"

ive seen elsewhere where alaris thinks the holy ghost is the one who leads adam to the veil, which is incorrect as i have pointed out in the the past.

peter is the one who leads adam to the veil and assists him there. one can refer to the endowment script to clearly see this. it also further confirms the connection between the apostles and adam.

in the endowment, the apostles are the means by which adam is empowered and clothed with power from on high.

in the new testament, it is the holy spirit who is the means by which the apostles are empowered and clothed with power from on high.

like a proper mirror image.

Testament of Levi is one of the many works that shows the Davidic Servant removes the threatening sword from Adam. Peter James and John take Adam to the veil. Let that sink in...


The mystery of the Holy Ghost is hiding in plain sight and Abijah is soooooo close. The holy ghost did baptize Adam and no he wasn't Jesus.

If you think the Holy Ghost(Peter/Moroni/some guy currently in the 20s,30s, or forties) is next in line to be the new Jesus Christ, where would that put Adam in your train?

According to your format, wouldn't that put Adam as the next Jesus and the Peter as the next Holy Ghost, making Adam the current Holy Ghost, with Peter in route to take his set?

And how would this relate to you and me? What do think is this New New Covenant consist of?
You think when Peter/Mornoi/some guy currently between 20-50 years old... comes out of obscurity, takes his seat.....and we'll covenant with him to be our new Jesus??

^^^^^^ Do you think the climax of this work will be for us to bow to our new Jesus/God/King...???

Do you the the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ will not be Jesus of Nazareth, but this cat you look at as the new Jesus?