Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

For non-mainstream, heterodoxical discussions. Request access to the Heretic Group here.
User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:53 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 4:36 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 1:15 pm Odd that Michael is Christ's archangel
Why is it odd? It means chief angel. According to Joseph, all heavenly beings are known as “angels”.
It means chief messenger. When is a Father an errand boy for a son?
That’s how you interpret it to be.

Joseph stated that it was always through Michael that Christ was revealed. Now, who revealed Christ at the First Vision?

There’s no point saying any more on this topic because it’s sacred, and gets trampled on by herds of swine frequently on this forum. Take it to God—He’ll show you.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by nightlight »

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
_______

Imagine God the Father speaking this way to Satan 🤔

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by ransomme »

Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:54 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:51 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 4:34 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 1:18 pm It's also clearly not in the ancient worldview or you'd have at least one evangelical or other sect promoting it as well. Can you name any other Christians who agree with AGT?
It was in the ancient worldview, as I’ve documented here numerous times.

And whether some evangelicals preach it or not doesn’t make one lick of difference.
But it does. With the many many biblical scholars out there and somehow not a one picks up on the AGT??? Only BY it seems.
Coincidence? I think not.
LOL!

In other words, you prefer to place your trust in the arm of flesh.

I am absolutely DUMBFOUNDED, GOBSMACKED, BEWILDERED and IN UTTER AWE at what I have just read.

Sorry mate, but what you just wrote is utterly ridiculous, bordering on mad.
Haha nice one, I am not placng any trust in the arm of the flesh.

Here's the thing though, bits and pieces of the truth are out there everywhere. Many sacred truths even. Funny how we can find sacred temple endowments from Egypt to modem day royal ascension rituals and just about every other doctrine. But supposedly AGT was an ancient world view and yet not a single person outside of BY'/etc al. has picked up on it?
Last edited by ransomme on December 15th, 2021, 11:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by Luke »

nightlight wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:58 pm 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
_______

Imagine God the Father speaking this way to Satan 🤔
Not so fast there mate.

Zechariah 3
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:54 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:51 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 4:34 pm

It was in the ancient worldview, as I’ve documented here numerous times.

And whether some evangelicals preach it or not doesn’t make one lick of difference.
But it does. With the many many biblical scholars out there and somehow not a one picks up on the AGT??? Only BY it seems.
Coincidence? I think not.
LOL!

In other words, you prefer to place your trust in the arm of flesh.

I am absolutely DUMBFOUNDED, GOBSMACKED, BEWILDERED and IN UTTER AWE at what I have just read.

Sorry mate, but what you just wrote is utterly ridiculous, bordering on mad.
Haha nice one, I am not placng any trust in the arm of the flesh.

Here's the thing though, bits and pieces of the truth are out there everywhere. Many sacred truths even. Funny how we can find sacred temple endowments from Egypt to modem day royal ascension rituals and just about every other doctrine. But supposedly AGT was an ancient world view and yet not a single person or side of Bay's time has picked up on it?
They have though. I know that because I’ve read it time and time again. Dig a little deeper, brother.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by ransomme »

Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:06 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:54 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:51 pm

But it does. With the many many biblical scholars out there and somehow not a one picks up on the AGT??? Only BY it seems.
Coincidence? I think not.
LOL!

In other words, you prefer to place your trust in the arm of flesh.

I am absolutely DUMBFOUNDED, GOBSMACKED, BEWILDERED and IN UTTER AWE at what I have just read.

Sorry mate, but what you just wrote is utterly ridiculous, bordering on mad.
Haha nice one, I am not placng any trust in the arm of the flesh.

Here's the thing though, bits and pieces of the truth are out there everywhere. Many sacred truths even. Funny how we can find sacred temple endowments from Egypt to modem day royal ascension rituals and just about every other doctrine. But supposedly AGT was an ancient world view and yet not a single person or side of Bay's time has picked up on it?
They have though. I know that because I’ve read it time and time again. Dig a little deeper, brother.
I'm sure that is the problem. I just need to read between the lines and infer it, or just make it up just like BY.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:06 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:54 pm

LOL!

In other words, you prefer to place your trust in the arm of flesh.

I am absolutely DUMBFOUNDED, GOBSMACKED, BEWILDERED and IN UTTER AWE at what I have just read.

Sorry mate, but what you just wrote is utterly ridiculous, bordering on mad.
Haha nice one, I am not placng any trust in the arm of the flesh.

Here's the thing though, bits and pieces of the truth are out there everywhere. Many sacred truths even. Funny how we can find sacred temple endowments from Egypt to modem day royal ascension rituals and just about every other doctrine. But supposedly AGT was an ancient world view and yet not a single person or side of Bay's time has picked up on it?
They have though. I know that because I’ve read it time and time again. Dig a little deeper, brother.
I'm sure that is the problem. I just need to read between the lines and infer it, or just make it up just like BY.
Sorry, but BY didn’t make it up. He got it from Joseph.

Some day you will see that.

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by abijah` »

Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm Not so fast there mate.

Zechariah 3
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
This is referring to the HolyGhost/AngeloftheLord -
abijah` wrote: December 15th, 2021, 2:56 pm The Holy Ghost = the Angel of the LORD.
  • Zech 3
    Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him...
    Now Joshua was standing before the angel of, clothed with filthy garments.
    And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.”
    And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.
Thus we see how the Holy Ghost is the agent and means whereby we are cleansed and sanctified:
  • 3 Nephi 27
    Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day.
Even the "standing before me" [the Lord] aligns with Zech 3, which repeatedly mentions Joshua standing before Him.

"that ye may stand spotless" likewise aligns perfectly w/ Zech 3, since Joshua begins by standing before God in "filthy garments", afterwards being clothed in new, spotless garments via the agency of the Angel/HolyGhost.

Being newly-clothed is a characteristic function of the Holy Ghost:
  • Luke 24
    And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father [Gift of the Holy Ghost] upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high.
Back to Zech 3:
  • Zech 3:1
    Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.
^This is a courtroom setting, a judicial hearing, with Satan (the Accuser..) serving as the plaintiff, Joshua being the defendant, and the Angel functioning as Joshua's legal advocate.

This is exactly how the Holy Spirit gets spoken of in John:
  • John 14
    And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
"Comforter" is not a very good translation. The actual word is "parakletos", which is more accurately an Advocate, Intercessor or Legal Counsellor.

Which is exactly what the Angel is doing here for Joshua in Zech 3, providing a legal defense for him.
  • John 16
    Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Advocate will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
    And when he comes, he will reprove the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment
  • Isaiah 29
    Those who by a word make a man out to be an offender [what satan does to Joshua], and lay a snare for the mediator who reproves in the gate, and with an empty plea turn aside him who is in the right.
The Angel is the one who "reproves" in the OT, just as the Paraclete reproves in the NT, such as in the case of Balaam, the Angel being the reprover who stands "in the gate/way", and this idea of "turning aside"
  • Numbers 22
    But God’s anger was kindled because Balaam went, and the angel of the LORD took his stand in the way as his adversary.
    And the donkey saw the angel of the LORD standing in the road, with a drawn sword in his hand. And the donkey turned aside out of the road and went into the field.
Thus we see how the Angel = the Paraclete, both of them whose job is to advocate for the cause of the righteous, and to "reprove" the wicked.
  • Zech 3:2
    And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this a brand plucked from the fire?”
Since I think the Angel = Holy Ghost = Michael, the "the LORD rebuke you" language directly corresponds w/ the latter:
  • Jude 9
    But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.”
The Angel/HolyGhost/Michael is repeatedly portrayed as the "contender":
  • Genesis 6
    Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not contend with man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”
  • Genesis 32
    And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
  • Daniel 10
    But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.
More connections between the sanctified/cleansed clothing, and the intercessory Angel:
  • Judges 6
    Then Gideon perceived that he was the angel of the LORD. And Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.”
    But the LORD said to him, “Peace be to you. Do not fear; you shall not die...."
    And the Spirit of the LORD clothed Gideon, and he sounded the trumpet, and the Abiezrites were called out to follow him.
  • Isaiah 51
    Awake, awake, put on "[clothe yourself with" - לָבַשׁ] strength, O arm of the LORD... ["put on strength", or in other words, "endow yourself with power" rather than fig leaves, no longer naked and vulnerable..]
  • 1 Chronicles 12
    Then the Spirit clothed Amasai, chief of the thirty, and he said, “We are yours, O David, and with you, O son of Jesse! Peace, peace to you, and peace to your helpers! For your God helps you.”
He is likewise the messianic figure of David's famous song:
  • Psalm 110
    Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by nightlight »

Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm
nightlight wrote: December 15th, 2021, 10:58 pm 9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
_______

Imagine God the Father speaking this way to Satan 🤔
Not so fast there mate.

Zechariah 3
2 And the LORD said unto Satan, The LORD rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?
Why would the Father "durst not bring railing accusations" against Satan?

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by ransomme »

Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:06 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm

Haha nice one, I am not placng any trust in the arm of the flesh.

Here's the thing though, bits and pieces of the truth are out there everywhere. Many sacred truths even. Funny how we can find sacred temple endowments from Egypt to modem day royal ascension rituals and just about every other doctrine. But supposedly AGT was an ancient world view and yet not a single person or side of Bay's time has picked up on it?
They have though. I know that because I’ve read it time and time again. Dig a little deeper, brother.
I'm sure that is the problem. I just need to read between the lines and infer it, or just make it up just like BY.
Sorry, but BY didn’t make it up. He got it from Joseph.

Some day you will see that.
Thanks for hoping. But my extensive study and prayer has revealed to me otherwise.

Joseph did not expressly make any statements on the idea. The KFD does not include AGT or even hint at it IMMHO. It is one of BY's "cats" that he let out of his own bag. (1853)

BY didn't support your view of Elohim>Jehovah>Michael>Jesus or however AGT hierarchy goes, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim... There is not a person here to-day but what is a son or a daughter of that Being."
BY says that God the Father, the Father of our spirits is Elohim. BY was inconsistent say the very least.

User avatar
Alexander
the Great
Posts: 4590
Location: amongst the brotherhood of the Black Robed Regiment; cocked hat and cocked rifle

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by Alexander »

Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:06 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:04 pm

Haha nice one, I am not placng any trust in the arm of the flesh.

Here's the thing though, bits and pieces of the truth are out there everywhere. Many sacred truths even. Funny how we can find sacred temple endowments from Egypt to modem day royal ascension rituals and just about every other doctrine. But supposedly AGT was an ancient world view and yet not a single person or side of Bay's time has picked up on it?
They have though. I know that because I’ve read it time and time again. Dig a little deeper, brother.
I'm sure that is the problem. I just need to read between the lines and infer it, or just make it up just like BY.
Sorry, but BY didn’t make it up. He got it from Joseph.

Some day you will see that.
Brigham took what Joseph said and got parts right, but he also got parts wrong.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: December 16th, 2021, 6:50 am
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:06 pm

They have though. I know that because I’ve read it time and time again. Dig a little deeper, brother.
I'm sure that is the problem. I just need to read between the lines and infer it, or just make it up just like BY.
Sorry, but BY didn’t make it up. He got it from Joseph.

Some day you will see that.
Thanks for hoping. But my extensive study and prayer has revealed to me otherwise.

Joseph did not expressly make any statements on the idea. The KFD does not include AGT or even hint at it IMMHO. It is one of BY's "cats" that he let out of his own bag. (1853)

BY didn't support your view of Elohim>Jehovah>Michael>Jesus or however AGT hierarchy goes, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim... There is not a person here to-day but what is a son or a daughter of that Being."
BY says that God the Father, the Father of our spirits is Elohim. BY was inconsistent say the very least.
Once again, he used the name “Eloheim” as a name for various different characters. You will see this if you read all his statements.

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by NewEliza »

Luke wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:23 am
ransomme wrote: December 16th, 2021, 6:50 am
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm
ransomme wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm

I'm sure that is the problem. I just need to read between the lines and infer it, or just make it up just like BY.
Sorry, but BY didn’t make it up. He got it from Joseph.

Some day you will see that.
Thanks for hoping. But my extensive study and prayer has revealed to me otherwise.

Joseph did not expressly make any statements on the idea. The KFD does not include AGT or even hint at it IMMHO. It is one of BY's "cats" that he let out of his own bag. (1853)

BY didn't support your view of Elohim>Jehovah>Michael>Jesus or however AGT hierarchy goes, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim... There is not a person here to-day but what is a son or a daughter of that Being."
BY says that God the Father, the Father of our spirits is Elohim. BY was inconsistent say the very least.
Once again, he used the name “Eloheim” as a name for various different characters. You will see this if you read all his statements.
It’s too hard to read luke. Just dump it into their heads.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

ransomme

Post by ransomme »

NewEliza wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:13 pm
Luke wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:23 am
ransomme wrote: December 16th, 2021, 6:50 am
Luke wrote: December 15th, 2021, 11:09 pm

Sorry, but BY didn’t make it up. He got it from Joseph.

Some day you will see that.
Thanks for hoping. But my extensive study and prayer has revealed to me otherwise.

Joseph did not expressly make any statements on the idea. The KFD does not include AGT or even hint at it IMMHO. It is one of BY's "cats" that he let out of his own bag. (1853)

BY didn't support your view of Elohim>Jehovah>Michael>Jesus or however AGT hierarchy goes, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim... There is not a person here to-day but what is a son or a daughter of that Being."
BY says that God the Father, the Father of our spirits is Elohim. BY was inconsistent to say the very least.
Once again, he used the name “Eloheim” as a name for various different characters. You will see this if you read all his statements.
It’s too hard to read luke. Just dump it into their heads.
Dumping it on our heads is all too accurate :P

@Luke
Yes, Elohim may be applied to more than one individual, and in this case, BY applied it to "God the Father, the Father of our spirits", but AGT proponents change whom Elohim, Jehovah, etc. refer to on a whim, whichever way can be favorably "interpreted" to support their view.

So was BY speaking about Michael, or Jehovah (grandfather) or Elohim (great grandfather) above?

NewEliza -
"Elohim: (Adam’s grandfather)
Jehovah: (Adam’s father)
Michael: (Heavenly Father who is Adam)
Jesus. "

So again looking at the above, the AGT PoV is plainly saying that Christ is not included in the Endownment other than by distant reference. Does that not seem odd to you considering the covenants of the Endowment? What's more, it would also be absurd to also think that Jesus the Creator was absent from the Creation story.

These are just two obvious and simple points that AGT does not reconcile with. AGT requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics at every turn.

User avatar
Luke
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10785
Location: England

Re: ransomme

Post by Luke »

ransomme wrote: December 28th, 2021, 11:05 am
NewEliza wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:13 pm
Luke wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:23 am
ransomme wrote: December 16th, 2021, 6:50 am

Thanks for hoping. But my extensive study and prayer has revealed to me otherwise.

Joseph did not expressly make any statements on the idea. The KFD does not include AGT or even hint at it IMMHO. It is one of BY's "cats" that he let out of his own bag. (1853)

BY didn't support your view of Elohim>Jehovah>Michael>Jesus or however AGT hierarchy goes, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim... There is not a person here to-day but what is a son or a daughter of that Being."
BY says that God the Father, the Father of our spirits is Elohim. BY was inconsistent to say the very least.
Once again, he used the name “Eloheim” as a name for various different characters. You will see this if you read all his statements.
It’s too hard to read luke. Just dump it into their heads.
Dumping it on our heads is all too accurate :P

@Luke
Yes, Elohim may be applied to more than one individual, and in this case, BY applied it to "God the Father, the Father of our spirits", but AGT proponents change whom Elohim, Jehovah, etc. refer to on a whim, whichever way can be favorably "interpreted" to support their view.

So was BY speaking about Michael, or Jehovah (grandfather) or Elohim (great grandfather) above?

NewEliza -
"Elohim: (Adam’s grandfather)
Jehovah: (Adam’s father)
Michael: (Heavenly Father who is Adam)
Jesus. "

So again looking at the above, the AGT PoV is plainly saying that Christ is not included in the Endownment other than by distant reference. Does that not seem odd to you considering the covenants of the Endowment? What's more, it would also be absurd to also think that Jesus the Creator was absent from the Creation story.

These are just two obvious and simple points that AGT does not reconcile with. AGT requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics at every turn.
Just like all the other mysteries of Godliness. If you knew everything that God knows now, your mind would be blown. But when you get to the other side you will see that it is pretty simple.

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: ransomme

Post by abijah` »

Luke wrote: December 28th, 2021, 1:24 pmJust like all the other mysteries of Godliness. If you knew everything that God knows now, your mind would be blown. But when you get to the other side you will see that it is pretty simple.
Image

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: ransomme

Post by NewEliza »

ransomme wrote: December 28th, 2021, 11:05 am
NewEliza wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:13 pm
Luke wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:23 am
ransomme wrote: December 16th, 2021, 6:50 am

Thanks for hoping. But my extensive study and prayer has revealed to me otherwise.

Joseph did not expressly make any statements on the idea. The KFD does not include AGT or even hint at it IMMHO. It is one of BY's "cats" that he let out of his own bag. (1853)

BY didn't support your view of Elohim>Jehovah>Michael>Jesus or however AGT hierarchy goes, "I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our Heavenly Father, or the great Elohim... There is not a person here to-day but what is a son or a daughter of that Being."
BY says that God the Father, the Father of our spirits is Elohim. BY was inconsistent to say the very least.
Once again, he used the name “Eloheim” as a name for various different characters. You will see this if you read all his statements.
It’s too hard to read luke. Just dump it into their heads.
Dumping it on our heads is all too accurate :P

@Luke
Yes, Elohim may be applied to more than one individual, and in this case, BY applied it to "God the Father, the Father of our spirits", but AGT proponents change whom Elohim, Jehovah, etc. refer to on a whim, whichever way can be favorably "interpreted" to support their view.

So was BY speaking about Michael, or Jehovah (grandfather) or Elohim (great grandfather) above?

NewEliza -
"Elohim: (Adam’s grandfather)
Jehovah: (Adam’s father)
Michael: (Heavenly Father who is Adam)
Jesus. "

So again looking at the above, the AGT PoV is plainly saying that Christ is not included in the Endownment other than by distant reference. Does that not seem odd to you considering the covenants of the Endowment? What's more, it would also be absurd to also think that Jesus the Creator was absent from the Creation story.

These are just two obvious and simple points that AGT does not reconcile with. AGT requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics at every turn.
That’s not true at all. I sincerely believe you do not understand the Adam god teaching. I don’t say this to try to be snarky, I just honestly think that if you actually understood the doctrine you would understand the endowment charectors and their purpose. There’s lots of quotes you can read to put it all together, as well as some good books.

Jesus is absolutely a vital part of the endowment. The creation takes place between the three gods in that particular godhead who have already become gods as well as including the next son in line who is Jesus. It’s all about the patriarchal line and the ladder we must all follow.

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: ransomme

Post by NewEliza »

abijah` wrote: December 28th, 2021, 1:30 pm
Luke wrote: December 28th, 2021, 1:24 pmJust like all the other mysteries of Godliness. If you knew everything that God knows now, your mind would be blown. But when you get to the other side you will see that it is pretty simple.
Image
Yes correct! But you are missing the rest of his quotes. The Holy Ghost being is the third member of any godhead.

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by NewEliza »

I believe no one should judge a theory until they truly understand what it is the theory’s “teacher” meant. Only then can you give it a fair trial.

I am not afraid to say that I have taken the time and effort and I do believe I understand quite well what Brigham young was meaning to get across. And that is why I can now fairly decide what my opinion is about it. I just happen to agree with him.

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by abijah` »

NewEliza wrote: January 1st, 2022, 7:01 pm Yes correct! But you are missing the rest of his quotes. The Holy Ghost being is the third member of any godhead.
🤦🏼 Fanfiction meets mormonism

for me i reckn at least i got supporting evidence to point to in the scripts, and a whole heaping pile of it too

The Spirit, aka Michael is he who strives with/contends with mankind (dad wrestling w/ the kids)
  • Genesis 6
    And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man [unlike the Comforter Jesus promised, who abides forever] for that he also is flesh
  • Daniel 10
    there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince.
  • Genesis 32
    And Jacob was left alone. And a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
    When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched his hip socket, and Jacob’s hip was put out of joint as he wrestled with him...
    Then he said, “Your name shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”
Why? Because he's the warrior angel, who commands the Lord's hosts, and who shoulders martial responsibility for Israel's temporal welfare.
  • Rev` 12
    And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels...
  • Joshua 5
    When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand.
    And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.
  • Daniel 12
    And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
  • Psalm 34
    The angel of the LORD encampeth [military term] round about them that fear him, and delivereth them.
  • Ephesians 6
    and take the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God
  • Numbers 22
    Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way, with his drawn sword in his hand.
^this is why he's such a central topic/figure in the militaristic Gideon narrative, and with an arckangel's trumpet, because of course -
  • Judges 6
    But the Spirit of the LORD clothed Gideon, and he sounded the **trumpet**, and the Abiezrites were called out to follow him...
    Then Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said,
    behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said.”
    And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water.
All preparatory for a battle, a military engagement, which is Michael's sphere, who's the Holy Ghost, as we can see how the ^above in Judges gets hyperlinked-to elsewhere:
  • Psalm 110
    Your people will offer themselves freely on the day of your power, in holy garments; from the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours.
  • John 3
    4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
    5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
  • Isa 51
    Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not you who cut Rahab in pieces, who pierced the dragon?
    Was it not you who dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep, who made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over?
  • Judges 6
    But the Spirit of the LORD clothed Gideon, and he sounded the trumpet, and the Abiezrites were called out to follow him...
    Then Gideon said to God, “If you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said,
    behold, I am laying a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece alone, and it is dry on all the ground, then I shall know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you have said.”
    And it was so. When he rose early next morning and squeezed the fleece, he wrung enough dew from the fleece to fill a bowl with water.
  • Zech 3
    Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him...
    Now Joshua was standing before the angel of the LORD, clothed with filthy garments.
    And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.”
    And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD was standing by.
  • D&C 85
    6 Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
    7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose bowels shall be a fountain of truth...
He's the one who has access to the Book and all the Names:
abijah` wrote: December 21st, 2021, 5:38 pmLook how
In Isaiah 34 its "the Spirit of the Lord".
In Daniel 12 its "Michael the great prince"
And in D&C 85 its "One mighty and strong"
  • Isaiah 34
    16 Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them.
    17 He has cast the lot for them; his hand has portioned it out to them with the line; they shall possess it forever; from generation to generation they shall dwell in it.
  • Daniel 12
    And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
  • Doctrine & Covenants 85
    6 Yea, thus saith the still small voice, which whispereth through and pierceth all things, and often times it maketh my bones to quake while it maketh manifest, saying:
    7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God

abijah`
~dog days~
Posts: 3481

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by abijah` »

NewEliza wrote: January 1st, 2022, 7:04 pm I believe no one should judge a theory until they truly understand what it is the theory’s “teacher” meant. Only then can you give it a fair trial.

I am not afraid to say that I have taken the time and effort and I do believe I understand quite well what Brigham young was meaning to get across. And that is why I can now fairly decide what my opinion is about it. I just happen to agree with him.
So theories can't be tried once the one who came up with them dies? i don't think it works quite like that tbh

if a theory relies on the dead to speak for it or prop it up, then its probly not a true, not a *living* theory, i reckon, nor a framework w/ sufficient stability, like some kind of cognitive necromancy, like building on a dodgy foundation, one constructed using brick&mortar that = the word/testimony of yesteryear, not stable or sure in the slightest, methinks..

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: ransomme

Post by ransomme »

NewEliza wrote: January 1st, 2022, 7:00 pm
ransomme wrote: December 28th, 2021, 11:05 am
NewEliza wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:13 pm
Luke wrote: December 16th, 2021, 8:23 am

Once again, he used the name “Eloheim” as a name for various different characters. You will see this if you read all his statements.
It’s too hard to read luke. Just dump it into their heads.
Dumping it on our heads is all too accurate :P

@Luke
Yes, Elohim may be applied to more than one individual, and in this case, BY applied it to "God the Father, the Father of our spirits", but AGT proponents change whom Elohim, Jehovah, etc. refer to on a whim, whichever way can be favorably "interpreted" to support their view.

So was BY speaking about Michael, or Jehovah (grandfather) or Elohim (great grandfather) above?

NewEliza -
"Elohim: (Adam’s grandfather)
Jehovah: (Adam’s father)
Michael: (Heavenly Father who is Adam)
Jesus. "

So again looking at the above, the AGT PoV is plainly saying that Christ is not included in the Endownment other than by distant reference. Does that not seem odd to you considering the covenants of the Endowment? What's more, it would also be absurd to also think that Jesus the Creator was absent from the Creation story.

These are just two obvious and simple points that AGT does not reconcile with. AGT requires Olympic-level mental gymnastics at every turn.
That’s not true at all. I sincerely believe you do not understand the Adam god teaching. I don’t say this to try to be snarky, I just honestly think that if you actually understood the doctrine you would understand the endowment charectors and their purpose. There’s lots of quotes you can read to put it all together, as well as some good books.

Jesus is absolutely a vital part of the endowment. The creation takes place between the three gods in that particular godhead who have already become gods as well as including the next son in line who is Jesus. It’s all about the patriarchal line and the ladder we must all follow.
no, I must be dull.

Let's see... Elohim, check; Jehovah, check; Michael, check; Jesus (the Creator)...huh?, nope never seen once... But wait we see Jesus Christ's closest ministers who hold the keys to, "minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth." (D&C 7) And Jehovah deal directly with P, J & J...

Why is there an absence of Christ? Why is there a gap between Jehovah and Peter, James, and John? Everywhere one looks AGT is full of holes, impossible leaps in logic, and denials of the Gospel of Christ.

And yet Jesus Christ is central to the entire ceremony, is Creator, and is seen as Jehovah in the ceremony because AGT is a false empty house of cards.

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by NewEliza »

abijah` wrote: January 1st, 2022, 8:25 pm
NewEliza wrote: January 1st, 2022, 7:04 pm I believe no one should judge a theory until they truly understand what it is the theory’s “teacher” meant. Only then can you give it a fair trial.

I am not afraid to say that I have taken the time and effort and I do believe I understand quite well what Brigham young was meaning to get across. And that is why I can now fairly decide what my opinion is about it. I just happen to agree with him.
So theories can't be tried once the one who came up with them dies? i don't think it works quite like that tbh

if a theory relies on the dead to speak for it or prop it up, then its probly not a true, not a *living* theory, i reckon, nor a framework w/ sufficient stability, like some kind of cognitive necromancy, like building on a dodgy foundation, one constructed using brick&mortar that = the word/testimony of yesteryear, not stable or sure in the slightest, methinks..
That’s… not really what I said I don’t think. But you can’t judge a theory if you’re not actually judging it, but an incorrect interpretation of it

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4014

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by ransomme »

NewEliza wrote: January 3rd, 2022, 10:19 pm
abijah` wrote: January 1st, 2022, 8:25 pm
NewEliza wrote: January 1st, 2022, 7:04 pm I believe no one should judge a theory until they truly understand what it is the theory’s “teacher” meant. Only then can you give it a fair trial.

I am not afraid to say that I have taken the time and effort and I do believe I understand quite well what Brigham young was meaning to get across. And that is why I can now fairly decide what my opinion is about it. I just happen to agree with him.
So theories can't be tried once the one who came up with them dies? i don't think it works quite like that tbh

if a theory relies on the dead to speak for it or prop it up, then its probly not a true, not a *living* theory, i reckon, nor a framework w/ sufficient stability, like some kind of cognitive necromancy, like building on a dodgy foundation, one constructed using brick&mortar that = the word/testimony of yesteryear, not stable or sure in the slightest, methinks..
That’s… not really what I said I don’t think. But you can’t judge a theory if you’re not actually judging it, but an incorrect interpretation of it
If he couldn't make it clear over 30 years then what does that say about the theory?

NewEliza
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1991

Re: Was Adam aware that he was Michael?

Post by NewEliza »

ransomme wrote: January 4th, 2022, 8:25 am
NewEliza wrote: January 3rd, 2022, 10:19 pm
abijah` wrote: January 1st, 2022, 8:25 pm
NewEliza wrote: January 1st, 2022, 7:04 pm I believe no one should judge a theory until they truly understand what it is the theory’s “teacher” meant. Only then can you give it a fair trial.

I am not afraid to say that I have taken the time and effort and I do believe I understand quite well what Brigham young was meaning to get across. And that is why I can now fairly decide what my opinion is about it. I just happen to agree with him.
So theories can't be tried once the one who came up with them dies? i don't think it works quite like that tbh

if a theory relies on the dead to speak for it or prop it up, then its probly not a true, not a *living* theory, i reckon, nor a framework w/ sufficient stability, like some kind of cognitive necromancy, like building on a dodgy foundation, one constructed using brick&mortar that = the word/testimony of yesteryear, not stable or sure in the slightest, methinks..
That’s… not really what I said I don’t think. But you can’t judge a theory if you’re not actually judging it, but an incorrect interpretation of it
If he couldn't make it clear over 30 years then what does that say about the theory?
There are plenty of people who would argue that he did make it crystal clear.

Funny you say that because when I first learned and understood the doctrine, it was like a light suddenly turned on in the universe that explained SO much, about Mormonism but also about everything else. My head had never been more clear, and that’s one reason why I knew it was true

Post Reply