Are Adam and Eve really that hated by some Christians?

[Reluctant Watchman]

I said that my reason was due to the scriptures, not Brigham.

And that's my point. The interpretation of scripture which tends towards an anti-Adam-God mindset is actually not natural, but has been subtly implanted into members' minds for generations, without their realizing it. The curricula / correlation-department writers have been extremely crafty and careful to embed these ideas into children's minds from a very young age, so that they see scriptural problems with such doctrines, where in reality there are none. Christianity at large has also been affected by this same type of agenda, but Mormons actually more so. It's mainly because certain brethren disbelieved the doctrine in the early 20th-century and wanted to make sure it no longer became influential in members' thinking any more.

Although Brigham did some horrific things.

So say many people about Joseph Smith, or even the Savior. You're free to have whatever opinions you want to about the man—I'm talking about doctrine.

Ok, good luck with that.

Just tell me, why would God command himself not to partake of the fruit? This has all the smatterings of a trinitarian god.

[stormcloak]

Ok, good luck with that.

Just tell me, why would God command himself not to partake of the fruit? This has all the smatterings of a trinitarian god.

The God that Adam spoke with in the Garden of Eden was His Father. If you read any of Joseph Smith's sermons in the late Nauvoo period, you'll understand that there was a plurality of Gods. This is also evident from the Book of Abraham. The Endowment ceremony teaches the same concept pretty plainly. The original understanding was that there are 4 Gods of the Creation—Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, and Jesus Christ. Yahovah proper was Adam's Father. Christ's proper title is the Son Yahovah. This confusion stems from more changes which occurred in the early 20th-century where certain leaders sought to conflate Christ with Adam's Father. This was not the original understanding which came from Joseph Smith.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ok, good luck with that.

Just tell me, why would God command himself not to partake of the fruit? This has all the smatterings of a trinitarian god.

The God that Adam spoke with in the Garden of Eden was His Father. If you read any of Joseph Smith's sermons in the late Nauvoo period, you'll understand that there was a plurality of Gods. This is also evident from the Book of Abraham. The Endowment ceremony teaches the same concept pretty plainly. The original understanding was that there are 4 Gods of the Creation—Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, and Jesus Christ. Yahovah proper was Adam's Father. Christ's proper title is the Son Yahovah. This confusion stems from more changes which occurred in the early 20th-century where certain leaders sought to conflate Christ with Adam's Father. This was not the original understanding which came from Joseph Smith.

I understand and find intrigue in the concept of the plurality of Gods. That is hinted at in scripture sufficiently. But where I diverge is that I believe Elohim is both our mother and father, not one male God. Jesus himself was an exalted being, but he had not progressed to the state of Elohim.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, you don’t believe Adam was THE God (the god/father of our spirits), but a god, correct?

[jreuben]

Yes, @stormcloak - right and succinct in all accounts. It's unfortunate to see people such as @Reluctant Watchman who are so close and open in so many other areas simultaneously so caught up and deceived in this point. It is such a liberating and revelatory experience to come to this understanding both intellectually AND spiritually. I'm so grateful for the peace and clarity that this additional understanding brings to the table of bounteous knowledge and puzzle-piece fitting it facilitates. So many ancient things fall into place once you can see that this is true doctrine and that Adam is both our Father and God in His roles. The order of Heaven begins to come into view!!!

[LDS Watchman]

Ok, good luck with that.

Just tell me, why would God command himself not to partake of the fruit? This has all the smatterings of a trinitarian god.

The God that Adam spoke with in the Garden of Eden was His Father. If you read any of Joseph Smith's sermons in the late Nauvoo period, you'll understand that there was a plurality of Gods. This is also evident from the Book of Abraham. The Endowment ceremony teaches the same concept pretty plainly. The original understanding was that there are 4 Gods of the Creation—Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, and Jesus Christ. Yahovah proper was Adam's Father. Christ's proper title is the Son Yahovah. This confusion stems from more changes which occurred in the early 20th-century where certain leaders sought to conflate Christ with Adam's Father. This was not the original understanding which came from Joseph Smith.

My current understanding is that there were three God's who councilled together to create this earth Michael/Adam, his Father, and His Grandfather. Then Michael/Adam created everything through his son Jesus Christ.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Ok, good luck with that.

Just tell me, why would God command himself not to partake of the fruit? This has all the smatterings of a trinitarian god.

The God that Adam spoke with in the Garden of Eden was His Father. If you read any of Joseph Smith's sermons in the late Nauvoo period, you'll understand that there was a plurality of Gods. This is also evident from the Book of Abraham. The Endowment ceremony teaches the same concept pretty plainly. The original understanding was that there are 4 Gods of the Creation—Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, and Jesus Christ. Yahovah proper was Adam's Father. Christ's proper title is the Son Yahovah. This confusion stems from more changes which occurred in the early 20th-century where certain leaders sought to conflate Christ with Adam's Father. This was not the original understanding which came from Joseph Smith.

My current understanding is that there were three God's who councilled together to create this earth Michael/Adam, his Father, and His Grandfather. Then Michael/Adam created everything through his son Jesus Christ.

Hold on there cowboy. I thought your “prophets” could never lead you astray. You just went on endlessly about this point in the other thread. They have completely condemned the Adam/god theory.

[jreuben]

@Reluctant Watchman, The Elohim are our parentage race of Gods. They are our progenitors and the parents and family of Adam, Jesus and each Jehovah (Jehovah being a title) - and each of us. Lucifer is a fallen Elohim and aligned with the Satans (satan is a title of the rulers of those that hate the Elohim and all of the Family of Adam and they bend their will and efforts towards our destruction. We area headed towards the Battle of the Great God which will incorporate all of these parties as we war for the winding up scene of this round of this Earth.

[jreuben]

@LDS Watchman you might consider this as such, but it would demonstrate more understanding to open the Elohim up as I have in my last remark. We should and must see the Elohim as our Heavenly Family - which is enormously expansive and beyond our imagining. We refer to Them as the Council of The Gods for a reason.

[Reluctant Watchman]

@Reluctant Watchman, The Elohim are our parentage race of Gods. They are our progenitors and the parents and family of Adam, Jesus and each Jehovah (Jehovah being a title) - and each of us. Lucifer is a fallen Elohim and aligned with the Satans (satan is a title of the rulers of those that hate the Elohim and all of the Family of Adam and they bend their will and efforts towards our destruction. We area headed towards the Battle of the Great God which will incorporate all of these parties as we war for the winding up scene of this round of this Earth.

I see truth in a lineage of Gods, and that they (Elohim) are not only parents of those you listed, but all of us. Lucifer was an angel, not a God. He was not like our parents. I do see Satan/Devil as a title.

I assumed the Adam/God theory was that Father in Heaven became Adam.

[LDS Watchman]

Ok, good luck with that.

Just tell me, why would God command himself not to partake of the fruit? This has all the smatterings of a trinitarian god.

The God that Adam spoke with in the Garden of Eden was His Father. If you read any of Joseph Smith's sermons in the late Nauvoo period, you'll understand that there was a plurality of Gods. This is also evident from the Book of Abraham. The Endowment ceremony teaches the same concept pretty plainly. The original understanding was that there are 4 Gods of the Creation—Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, and Jesus Christ. Yahovah proper was Adam's Father. Christ's proper title is the Son Yahovah. This confusion stems from more changes which occurred in the early 20th-century where certain leaders sought to conflate Christ with Adam's Father. This was not the original understanding which came from Joseph Smith.

My current understanding is that there were three God's who councilled together to create this earth Michael/Adam, his Father, and His Grandfather. Then Michael/Adam created everything through his son Jesus Christ.

Hold on there cowboy. I thought your “prophets” could never lead you astray. You just went on endlessly about this point in the other thread. They have completely condemned the Adam/god theory.

You're once again intentionally twisting my words. Not interested in playing that game with you right now.

[LDS Watchman]

@LDS Watchman you might consider this as such, but it would demonstrate more understanding to open the Elohim up as I have in my last remark. We should and must see the Elohim as our Heavenly Family - which is enormously expansive and beyond our imagining. We refer to Them as the Council of The Gods for a reason.

I think I see it the same way. There's a reason why Elohim is plural. It was never meant to be applied to a single being. Although in sense it is, because the Gods are all one. But that gets confusing to the finite mind.

[Reluctant Watchman]

The God that Adam spoke with in the Garden of Eden was His Father. If you read any of Joseph Smith's sermons in the late Nauvoo period, you'll understand that there was a plurality of Gods. This is also evident from the Book of Abraham. The Endowment ceremony teaches the same concept pretty plainly. The original understanding was that there are 4 Gods of the Creation—Elohim, Yahovah, Michael, and Jesus Christ. Yahovah proper was Adam's Father. Christ's proper title is the Son Yahovah. This confusion stems from more changes which occurred in the early 20th-century where certain leaders sought to conflate Christ with Adam's Father. This was not the original understanding which came from Joseph Smith.

My current understanding is that there were three God's who councilled together to create this earth Michael/Adam, his Father, and His Grandfather. Then Michael/Adam created everything through his son Jesus Christ.

Hold on there cowboy. I thought your “prophets” could never lead you astray. You just went on endlessly about this point in the other thread. They have completely condemned the Adam/god theory.

You're once again intentionally twisting my words. Not interested in playing that game with you right now.

True, true, better to pluck them out.

[jreuben]

@Reluctant Watchman, that is what I said regarding The Elohim and even including Lucifer. You can look more closely into history and ancient scripture to see what I'm saying about satan being a title. He is the ruler that sits upon a throne ruling over the cavern world of Earth and all of these beings are close to revealing themselves under the rebranding of "extraterrestrials" with superior (Babylonian) tech. In reality they are those who were cursed to be under the feet of Man and have been the curse and consumers of the children of Adam for far more than Millennia. They are they who the tales are written about for countless generations before us, but they have been working on this master scheme to recreate their image and position. The false messiah will be part of this effort.

[Reluctant Watchman]

@Reluctant Watchman, that is what I said regarding The Elohim and even including Lucifer. You can look more closely into history and ancient scripture to see what I'm saying about satan being a title. He is the ruler that sits upon a throne ruling over the cavern world of Earth and all of these beings are close to revealing themselves under the rebranding of "extraterrestrials" with superior (Babylonian) tech. In reality they are those who were cursed to be under the feet of Man and have been the curse and consumers of the children of Adam for far more than Millennia. They are they who the tales are written about for countless generations before us, but they have been working on this master scheme to recreate their image and position. The false messiah will be part of this effort.

I’m tracking with you on almost all of this. But what about Father in Heaven becoming Adam. I thought that is what the Adam/God theory that was taught by Brigham in the original endowment was.

[stormcloak]

I understand and find intrigue in the concept of the plurality of Gods. That is hinted at in scripture sufficiently. But where I diverge is that I believe Elohim is both our mother and father, not one male God. Jesus himself was an exalted being, but he had not progressed to the state of Elohim.

You are correct in that Elohim refers to a male and female God, as a singular title. The funny thing about the various titles of God is that they really can apply to either God of the Creation equally:

• Elohim—simply means "the Gods." Likely a particular reference to the parental Gods over a particular dominion in the cosmos. This title can be applied to any of the Gods, because they are all part of the same Family.
• Jehovah—often translated to mean "I Am that I Am," or alternatively, "I Am He Who Is Self-Existent." This title again applies to any God, because they have all reached the capacity of becoming Self-Existent, as explained in the Lectures on Faith.
  • There is another interesting title in the scriptures which is "Lord God," which in the Bible is an English rendition of "Jehovah-Elohim." This can mean "The Creator Gods" or the "Creators of Gods," depending on which syntax you prefer. This can again quite literally apply to any of the Gods in a number of contexts.
• Michael—literally means "Who is like God?" This again could apply to any Godly being.
• Yeshuah (Jesus)—means "Yahovah is Salvation" or "Yahovah Saves." This title is a declaration of a fact, which again could really be applied to any of the Gods, although more properly to the one that officiates in the Messiah role.
• Messiah (Christ)—means "the Anointed One," i.e., the one set apart before the foundation of the world to function as Savior and Redeemer. Any of the Gods can have this title because they all have had to officiate in this calling in order to attain any higher level of Godhood. Joseph Smith also taught this during the King Follett Discourse (among many other occasions): "Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (TPJS 346-347)

Thus Michael can rightly be considered a member of "the Elohim"—but that title, as given to a particular God, only properly applies to the God which stands at the head of the council.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, you don’t believe Adam was THE God (the god/father of our spirits), but a god, correct?

I believe that Michael presides over our spirits as our Father, which Joseph Smith taught also:

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

(TPJS 157)

[stormcloak]

My current understanding is that there were three God's who councilled together to create this earth Michael/Adam, his Father, and His Grandfather. Then Michael/Adam created everything through his son Jesus Christ.

That's basically correct, but early Endowment ceremonies explicitly contained 4 Gods to depict the Creation. Christ's role was not really expounded upon because He likely participated mainly in the Spiritual Creation rather than the Temporal one.

[Reluctant Watchman]

I understand and find intrigue in the concept of the plurality of Gods. That is hinted at in scripture sufficiently. But where I diverge is that I believe Elohim is both our mother and father, not one male God. Jesus himself was an exalted being, but he had not progressed to the state of Elohim.

You are correct in that Elohim refers to a male and female God, as a singular title. The funny thing about the various titles of God is that they really can apply to either God of the Creation equally:

• Elohim—simply means "the Gods." Likely a particular reference to the parental Gods over a particular dominion in the cosmos. This title can be applied to any of the Gods, because they are all part of the same Family.
• Jehovah—often translated to mean "I Am that I Am," or alternatively, "I Am He Who Is Self-Existent." This title again applies to any God, because they have all reached the capacity of becoming Self-Existent, as explained in the Lectures on Faith.
  • There is another interesting title in the scriptures which is "Lord God," which in the Bible is an English rendition of "Jehovah-Elohim." This can mean "The Creator Gods" or the "Creators of Gods," depending on which syntax you prefer. This can again quite literally apply to any of the Gods in a number of contexts.
• Michael—literally means "Who is like God?" This again could apply to any Godly being.
• Yeshuah (Jesus)—means "Yahovah is Salvation" or "Yahovah Saves." This title is a declaration of a fact, which again could really be applied to any of the Gods, although more properly to the one that officiates in the Messiah role.
• Messiah (Christ)—means "the Anointed One," i.e., the one set apart before the foundation of the world to function as Savior and Redeemer. Any of the Gods can have this title because they all have had to officiate in this calling in order to attain any higher level of Godhood. Joseph Smith also taught this during the King Follett Discourse (among many other occasions): "Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (TPJS 346-347)

Thus Michael can rightly be considered a member of "the Elohim"—but that title, as given to a particular God, only properly applies to the God which stands at the head of the council.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, you don’t believe Adam was THE God (the god/father of our spirits), but a god, correct?

I believe that Michael presides over our spirits as our Father, which Joseph Smith taught also:

Daniel in his seventh chapter speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael, he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family.

(TPJS 157)

Ok, ok, I see. But this isn’t Adam/God theory as taught by Brigham in the temple. I also diverge a little in grouping all “Gods” into equal states of progression. Elohim as one, Jesus as the first born and most exalted, the rest of their children ranged from “noble and great” to fallen. Michael presiding over the human family doesn’t elevate him to the status of our parents.

[stormcloak]

Ok, ok, I see. But this isn’t Adam/God theory as taught by Brigham in the temple. I also diverge a little in grouping all “Gods” into equal states of progression. Elohim as one, Jesus as the first born and most exalted, the rest of their children ranged from “noble and great” to fallen.

I'm not grouping all of the Gods into a single state of progression. I'm simply pointing out that there is often serious title confusion when it pertains to this issue, and "which God is which" largely because the scriptures play pretty fast-and-loose with these titles. As Brigham Young once expressed the issue:

You may trace the scriptures through and you will find that He [i.e. God the Father of our spirits and of Jesus Christ] is known to one people [by] one title today and tomorrow and the next day by another and there he leaves it.

(Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, vol. 2, p. 937)

A careful perusal of the Bible will confirm this as being the case, which has been readily acknowledged by many Biblical scholars, and has led to numerous interpretations of scripture on this issue.

There is no conflict between the statements I quoted above and what was taught by Brigham Young in the temple. Brigham Young simply enunciated the doctrine a little more clearly for people to understand who might otherwise miss the point. Joseph Smith was deliberately careful in how he explained it to others because it would have fueled more persecution against him. The historical record is full of evidence demonstrating how much hatred this doctrine has engendered against Brigham Young.

[jreuben]

Elohim is a RACE (really I think this name/title/term may be more of an alignment of thought-desire-will; freedom of core choice by one's intelligence/personal spirit identity being the overriding and governing principal). We actually all may be engineered and constructed not dissimilar to "robots" (brains are effectively antennas, note how they work nearly identically to extremely complex (transmitting seemingly quadrillions, or more, of bytes of data per minute) and efficient spark gap antennae such as those that the Navy popularized in the first half of the 20th century). It appears, and is taught in scriptures, that we existed similarly to and from the same time as the Great God Himself, without beginning or end, but were at different levels of progression and He (which He I don't know and I suppose that we ourselves will do the same when the time comes and we obtain the level He wants us to obtain) gathered us into His own family unity because of His love, compassion, empathy and all of the other great attributes of a true God so that we could begin to progress in order and unity and to obtain His heart and mind's attributes and likeness. When I use the term Elohim I use it for a vast family that loves us and is pre-existent in superior progression to us and who are working to bring to pass our unity with Them.

[jreuben]

I should also add to this that I will label the Anunnaki and Babylonian/Sumerian/Akkadian/etc. super-race/gods as the antithesis to the Elohim as I presently understand it. They are they who created the "slave" races of humanity that the Elohim saved and improved on in order to facilitate salvation/progression. The Anunnaki operate at the amygdalic/"reptile" brain (see also "corpus amygdaloideum") level with all of the attributes you'll find therein and that we normally attribute to the hosts of satan/lucifer. Also known as the "natural man" generally or at least the root of the most base of these.

Fascinating discussion over on MindReach.net about these topics. Highly recommend tuning into some of that discussion there as it has guided some serious aspects of my understanding on these topics.

[Niemand]

Adam and Eve are generally viewed as people who did something very wicked and thus introduced original sin into the world (hence baptising babies), death etc.

However, I don't know of any Christian groups that think Adam and Eve are damned... partly because they acted in ignorance.

Someone once pointed out to me that the first real sin in Genesis is when Adam and Eve lie to God about the matter. This is because they did not know what they were doing with the fruit, but they did know what they were doing when they tried to hide the truth.

Cain is in another category again. His sin is one of utter evil. We can tell he envied Abel, but he murdered him. However, even in that case, it was something which hadn't been done before so Cain was in "unexplored territory".

[LDS Watchman]

My current understanding is that there were three God's who councilled together to create this earth Michael/Adam, his Father, and His Grandfather. Then Michael/Adam created everything through his son Jesus Christ.

That's basically correct, but early Endowment ceremonies explicitly contained 4 Gods to depict the Creation. Christ's role was not really expounded upon because He likely participated mainly in the Spiritual Creation rather than the Temporal one.

I have read the exposes of the Nauvoo Endowment and only remember there being 3 God's, not 4. Do you have a source for there having been 4?

I actually think Christ participated more in the physical creation based on what the Book of Mormon, D&C, and NT say. I think Christ's role wasn't and isn't really expounded upon in the creation account in the Endowment because the focus is mainly on the spiritual not physical creation.

Why do you think Christ likely participated mainly in the spiritual creation?

[FrankOne]

Well, I kind of agree with her, minus the hatred. I think it's like having a divine DNA blueprint and then getting enticed into eating something that has the crispr editing gene in it. We have to learn how to create consciousness more powerful than the serpent seed. Jesus showed us that we can do it through following His instructions which, when we can not hear them directly, we still have the Holy Spirit to guide us. We have to chose love over hate. Even for the wrongs of Adam and Eve, and everyone that came after them. Isn't that why we do temple work?

So you disagree with 2 Nephi 2? Could we have entered mortality without them transgressing the law and partaking of the fruit.

On this question, I would like to propose the idea that the way things happened on this planet isn't the only 'way'. I speculate that there was another way, albeit much more 'slow'. The method of learning through adversity is what was employed on earth. Another way of understanding this more clearly is "the process of overcoming adversity results in spiritual growth".

Spiritual Growth being a literal process, just like physical growth. We are taught to be righteous. The weakness of the flesh as well as dark influence promotes 'evil'. Our struggle to be righteous in the face of adversity creates friction. That friction results in spiritual growth. Those that go along with evil do not grow spiritually.

The institutions of religion have ensured that men work against evil which has served to promote spiritual growth.

What is real? Spiritual growth and nothing more.

All the rest is an experience in a world of pain and success (pleasure).

The reason that spiritual growth is the only real thing is because the result of spiritual growth is forever. The results of the world are pure vanity and go to dust, always. Everything under the sun is vanity - Solomon.

So... I believe there was another way to spiritually grow, but we chose this world and this way. It was said somewhere that this was the only planet that contained a people that would kill Christ. Food for thought.

[stormcloak]

Adam and Eve are generally viewed as people who did something very wicked and thus introduced original sin into the world (hence baptising babies), death etc.

However, I don't know of any Christian groups that think Adam and Eve are damned... partly because they acted in ignorance.

Thank you for pointing this out. This is what I was referring to earlier in this thread. The wider Christian / non-LDS viewpoint of Adam and Eve is often even softer than the Mormon / LDS viewpoint because certain brethren sought to subtly imply that Adam was in fact something akin to a son of perdition for his partaking of the forbidden fruit. Consider the following statement from Joseph F. Smith:

I want to speak a word or two in relation to another death, which is a more terrible death than that of the body. When Adam, our first parent, partook of the forbidden fruit, transgressed the law of God, and became subject unto Satan, he was banished from the presence of God. [...] This was the first death. Yet living, he was dead—dead to God, dead to light and truth, dead spiritually; cast out from the presence of God; communication between the Father and the Son cut off. He was as absolutely thrust out from the presence of God as was Satan and the hosts that followed him. That was spiritual death.

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, p. 96)

In this quote, Joseph F. Smith implies ever so subtly, gently that Adam was in fact a son of perdition, or at least that He experienced "spiritual death" when He partook of the forbidden fruit. The scriptures make no such declaration, and in fact teach the opposite. The Book of Moses makes it abundantly clear that Adam experienced remorse over His transgression, continued to communicate with God, even performed the ordinances of the Gospel, and was eventually fully baptized and it was made known unto Him that His Lord had already forgiven His mistake. Furthermore, this blasphemous teaching from Joseph F. Smith runs DIRECTLY CONTRARY to what Joseph Smith taught regarding Adam's transgression:

Joseph said in answer to Mr [Hosea] Stout that Adam Did Not Comit sin in [e]ating the fruits for God had Decre[e]d that he should Eat & fall—But in complyance with the Decree he should Die—only [that] he should Die was the saying of the Lord[.] Therefore the Lord apointed us to fall & also Redeemed us—for where sin a bounded Grace did Much more a bound—for Paul says Rom—5. 10 for if—when were enemys we were Reconciled to God by the Death of his Son, much more, being Reconciled, we shall be saved by his Life—

(Words of Joseph Smith, p. 63; 9 February 1841 (Tuesday); McIntire Minute Book)

Thus, even the Prophet Joseph Smith taught that Adam's transgression was NOT a sin—and by extension, Eve's transgression was not either. After all, she did it with only the purest of intentions! She wanted to become like God! This was the selling-point that the serpent tricked her on. He neglected to remind her that it would bring her and her posterity a painful life, terminated by death. Eve was simply trying to become more like God, and Adam simply wanted His companion to not be alone!

Contrast this with the poisonous false doctrine taught by Joseph F. Smith above. How could Joseph F. Smith teach such things, considering that he himself was Joseph Smith's nephew and was even raised by Brigham Young? The fact is that Joseph F. Smith once believed in the Adam-God doctrine, as documented in 1873 in the Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minutes. He said that the doctrine "gave him great joy." What changed?

Well, in 1878 he served a mission with Orson Pratt to go out East to negotiate for the JST Bible original manuscripts from Emma Smith's family. On this mission, Elder Orson Pratt (who had been bitterly opposed to the Adam-God doctrine from the very beginning) poisoned young Joseph F. Smith's mind against the doctrine, who saw no way to argue with the highly-educated savant, Professor Pratt, who knew formal theology very well. Ever since then, Joseph F. Smith dropped his belief in the doctrine, notwithstanding the fact that Orson Pratt admitted on multiple occasions that he felt very darkened and guilty when he fought against the doctrine promulgated by President Young.

Joseph F. Smith never seems to have felt the same guilty conscience, and instead used his influence as an Apostle and later as President of the Church to turn the whole church's mind towards Orson Pratt's interpretation of the Doctrine of Deity, which was largely based on secular philosophy rather than inspired teachings. He wasn't the only one who subsequently used his leadership position to promote his own personal interpretations of scripture.

[stormcloak]

I have read the exposes of the Nauvoo Endowment and only remember there being 3 God's, not 4. Do you have a source for there having been 4?

There are five exposés of the early Utah Endowment (going back as far as 1857) which feature 4 Gods in the Endowment ceremony. I don't really want to link these publicly because they sometimes contain signs and tokens which are obviously under covenant not to share.

Joseph Smith also referred to Jehovah, not as the Son Jesus Christ, but as a higher Father throughout D&C 109. There is an interesting study here on the Adam-God doctrine in the Endowment which demonstrates that Joseph Smith used similar identification throughout 1841 and 1842. Brigham Young and John Taylor also predominantly used "Jehovah" as a title for God the Father, not for Jesus Christ. These utterances are documented in "Appendix A" of that paper.

There is also another, older paper on this subject here: https://sunstone.org/wp-content/uploads ... -36-44.pdf

I actually think Christ participated more in the physical creation based on what the Book of Mormon, D&C, and NT say. I think Christ's role wasn't and isn't really expounded upon in the creation account in the Endowment because the focus is mainly on the spiritual not physical creation.

I believe that the Endowment is primarily referencing and portraying the physical creation. Joseph Fielding Smith evidently believed this also:

[There Is] No Revealed Account of Spirit Creation.

There is no account of the creation of man or other forms of life when they were created as spirits. There is just the simple statement that they were so created before the physical creation. The statements in Moses 3:5 and Genesis 2:5 are interpolations thrown into the account of the physical creation, explaining that all things were first created in the spirit existence in heaven before they were placed upon this earth.

(Doctrines of Salvation 1:75)

Why would Joseph Fielding Smith make such a statement if the Endowment ceremony was supposed to be conveying an account of the spiritual creation? It just doesn't seem to be the case.

Why do you think Christ likely participated mainly in the spiritual creation?

Because of Moses 2:1 (and other verses throughout the Book of Moses wherein God refers to "mine Only Begotten" as the means of the spiritual creation). There are also many scriptures in the Bible which refer to Christ being involved in the creation of "all things" such as Colossians 1:16 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. I believe the words "all things" is an obfuscated reference to the creation of things in the pre-existence. Jesus Christ is also referred to consistently in the scriptures as "the Lord of Hosts," especially in the Book of Mormon. The word "hosts means "spirits," and thus I believe His title indicates a preeminent role in the spirit creation of the earth under Michael.