Are Adam and Eve really that hated by some Christians?

[Serragon]

I recently had a bit of a spat with a Christian woman on social media. She asked about which “plain and precious” truths were included in the BoM, but not the Bible. I cited a handful of doctrines, but the one that blew up was the idea that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit in their innocence so that mankind would enter mortality. Here are the verses I quoted from 2 Nephi 2:

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.
23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.
24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

Now this is where she flipped out. She believes that they sinned against God and this is the reason that we are all now born into a fallen world because of them and that we no longer live in the Garden of Eden, in a realm of glory. BUT, she went on to say that it was because of Adam and Eve’s poor decision that Christ was made to suffer. Adam and Eve were the reason for the Atonement, but it could have been prevented had they not been such bad people.

I was honestly dumbfounded. I asked repeatedly why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil, but received no response. She then started calling me a snake and twisting a few concepts about why Satan was in the garden and how we shouldn’t listen to him (duh!)… weird stuff.

Anyway, I was just curious, how consistent is this belief held among Christian sects today that Adam and Eve were really bad people?

The scripture you quote refers to Adam and what would have happened if he had not also taken the fruit after Eve took it.

I agree with her for the most part. It is rather ludicrous to me to believe that God's plan required disobedience and that it would have been frustrated by obedience. I have no doubt that if they had not followed Satan, God would have prepared them to take the fruit willingly and with eyes wide open when they were ready.

From your friend's perspective, Mormon teaching's on this topic are very anti-christian. We revere Eve's sinful act while at the same time deny God's power. To me, this is one teaching that can't really be reconciled with the creation scriptures and God's character.

I don’t know… 2 Nephi 2 is pretty straight forward. Plain and precious if you ask me.

To put it more simply... Adam and Eve were always going to fall. The only question was whether they would follow Satan or follow God.

In my EQ class 2 weeks ago, our EQ president said that Eve was extremely wise and we should celebrate her actions. He said if we had waited on Adam none of us would be here today. So even though Eve said she was deceived, she was wise. Even though Adam was obedient, he was a fool. Even though God wanted them to succumb to the temptations of Satan, he cursed them mightily.

None of this makes any sense, yet this is the kind of nonsense that gets taught and is believed. The error in LDS teaching is that Adam and Eve needed to succumb to the devil in order to complete God's plan. It isn't that your friend hates Adam/Eve. It's that she hates this nonsensical doctrine that reveres sin and makes the plans of God rendered moot if Adam/Eve choose to be obedient to him.

[FrankOne]

I recently had a bit of a spat with a Christian woman on social media. She asked about which “plain and precious” truths were included in the BoM, but not the Bible. I cited a handful of doctrines, but the one that blew up was the idea that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit in their innocence so that mankind would enter mortality. Here are the verses I quoted from 2 Nephi 2:



Now this is where she flipped out. She believes that they sinned against God and this is the reason that we are all now born into a fallen world because of them and that we no longer live in the Garden of Eden, in a realm of glory. BUT, she went on to say that it was because of Adam and Eve’s poor decision that Christ was made to suffer. Adam and Eve were the reason for the Atonement, but it could have been prevented had they not been such bad people.

I was honestly dumbfounded. I asked repeatedly why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil, but received no response. She then started calling me a snake and twisting a few concepts about why Satan was in the garden and how we shouldn’t listen to him (duh!)… weird stuff.

Anyway, I was just curious, how consistent is this belief held among Christian sects today that Adam and Eve were really bad people?

The scripture you quote refers to Adam and what would have happened if he had not also taken the fruit after Eve took it.

I agree with her for the most part. It is rather ludicrous to me to believe that God's plan required disobedience and that it would have been frustrated by obedience. I have no doubt that if they had not followed Satan, God would have prepared them to take the fruit willingly and with eyes wide open when they were ready.

From your friend's perspective, Mormon teaching's on this topic are very anti-christian. We revere Eve's sinful act while at the same time deny God's power. To me, this is one teaching that can't really be reconciled with the creation scriptures and God's character.

I don’t know… 2 Nephi 2 is pretty straight forward. Plain and precious if you ask me.

To put it more simply... Adam and Eve were always going to fall. The only question was whether they would follow Satan or follow God.

In my EQ class 2 weeks ago, our EQ president said that Eve was extremely wise and we should celebrate her actions. He said if we had waited on Adam none of us would be here today. So even though Eve said she was deceived, she was wise. Even though Adam was obedient, he was a fool. Even though God wanted them to succumb to the temptations of Satan, he cursed them mightily.

None of this makes any sense, yet this is the kind of nonsense that gets taught and is believed. The error in LDS teaching is that Adam and Eve needed to succumb to the devil in order to complete God's plan. It isn't that your friend hates Adam/Eve. It's that she hates this nonsensical doctrine that reveres sin and makes the plans of God rendered moot if Adam/Eve choose to be obedient to him.

apparently you didn't get the memo from Church HQ. Eve was the heroine and Adam was a stupid, unenlightened stick in the mud. From what they are now teaching, Eve was Adam's leader and that men today need to take the back seat of the bus. Patriarchy is dead and needs to stay dead. Forget about what the bible says, listen to the living profits.

[LDS Watchman]

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.

Would you be willing to PM the link to the exposes? I started a side by side study of the different endowment accounts several years ago and would like to add this. I've been trying to document as many changes as possible. I would remove the signs and tokens and other sensitive information.

I think Joseph Fielding Smith got that one wrong. In my opinion he has it backwards. According to the accounts of Moses and Abraham the 6 days of creation and the day of rest are all referring to the spiritual creation, not the physical one. We are only given a very brief, much less detailed account of the physical creation following the 7th day of rest.

On a side not, I have also concluded that Adam naming the animals in the garden is part of that physical creation as is the 4 rivers that go out of the garden of Eden. If you read that accounts in Moses and Abraham carefully you'll notice that Adam is created or placed on the earth before anything else. He was here before the plants and the animals, before there was any rain or mist upon the earth, which would have been required to sustain life.

[LDS Watchman]

I recently had a bit of a spat with a Christian woman on social media. She asked about which “plain and precious” truths were included in the BoM, but not the Bible. I cited a handful of doctrines, but the one that blew up was the idea that Adam and Eve partook of the fruit in their innocence so that mankind would enter mortality. Here are the verses I quoted from 2 Nephi 2:



Now this is where she flipped out. She believes that they sinned against God and this is the reason that we are all now born into a fallen world because of them and that we no longer live in the Garden of Eden, in a realm of glory. BUT, she went on to say that it was because of Adam and Eve’s poor decision that Christ was made to suffer. Adam and Eve were the reason for the Atonement, but it could have been prevented had they not been such bad people.

I was honestly dumbfounded. I asked repeatedly why there was a tree of knowledge of good and evil, but received no response. She then started calling me a snake and twisting a few concepts about why Satan was in the garden and how we shouldn’t listen to him (duh!)… weird stuff.

Anyway, I was just curious, how consistent is this belief held among Christian sects today that Adam and Eve were really bad people?

The scripture you quote refers to Adam and what would have happened if he had not also taken the fruit after Eve took it.

I agree with her for the most part. It is rather ludicrous to me to believe that God's plan required disobedience and that it would have been frustrated by obedience. I have no doubt that if they had not followed Satan, God would have prepared them to take the fruit willingly and with eyes wide open when they were ready.

From your friend's perspective, Mormon teaching's on this topic are very anti-christian. We revere Eve's sinful act while at the same time deny God's power. To me, this is one teaching that can't really be reconciled with the creation scriptures and God's character.

I don’t know… 2 Nephi 2 is pretty straight forward. Plain and precious if you ask me.

To put it more simply... Adam and Eve were always going to fall. The only question was whether they would follow Satan or follow God.

In my EQ class 2 weeks ago, our EQ president said that Eve was extremely wise and we should celebrate her actions. He said if we had waited on Adam none of us would be here today. So even though Eve said she was deceived, she was wise. Even though Adam was obedient, he was a fool. Even though God wanted them to succumb to the temptations of Satan, he cursed them mightily.

None of this makes any sense, yet this is the kind of nonsense that gets taught and is believed. The error in LDS teaching is that Adam and Eve needed to succumb to the devil in order to complete God's plan. It isn't that your friend hates Adam/Eve. It's that she hates this nonsensical doctrine that reveres sin and makes the plans of God rendered moot if Adam/Eve choose to be obedient to him.

I personally think that it's the rejection of the Adam-God doctrine that now has the church so confused about the role of Adam and Eve and the nature of the fall.

[LDS Watchman]

@Stormcloak,

I am in agreement that the name Jehovah in the Old Testament and as used by Joseph Smith and Brigham Young primarily refers to the Father, not Jesus. I reached this conclusion in my studies some time ago.

You'll find few LDS who agree with this, even though it's true and can easily be proven from the scriptures and teachings of JS and BY.

[stormcloak]

Would you be willing to PM the link to the exposes? I started a side by side study of the different endowment accounts several years ago and would like to add this. I've been trying to document as many changes as possible. I would remove the signs and tokens and other sensitive information.

I'll try to PM you some links if/when I get some time later this weekend. I'm concurrently trying to do some needed work while I'm writing on this thread.

I think Joseph Fielding Smith got that one wrong. In my opinion he has it backwards. According to the accounts of Moses and Abraham the 6 days of creation and the day of rest are all referring to the spiritual creation, not the physical one. We are only given a very brief, much less detailed account of the physical creation following the 7th day of rest.

Well, yes, that's kind of my point. The spiritual creation almost exactly paralleled the physical creation, except that the arrangement of Gods involved was slightly different. Part of my understanding of this is based on personal revelation, but it's also based on the scriptures which indicate that Christ was the "Lord of Hosts."

On a side not, I have also concluded that Adam naming the animals in the garden is part of that physical creation as is the 4 rivers that go out of the garden of Eden. If you read that accounts in Moses and Abraham carefully you'll notice that Adam is created or placed on the earth before anything else. He was here before the plants and the animals, before there was any rain or mist upon the earth, which would have been required to sustain life.

That may be the case. I don't really have a problem with that idea. As another sidenote, I believe that when Brigham Young exercised the gift of tongues to help move a couple of cows that stubbornly refused to move during the trip back to Nauvoo, he utilized their Adamic names which caused them to respond to his request:

The Twelve continued their journey through the day and night by stage[coach]. While upon the journey they overtook a company of Norwegians who were traveling with ox teams, and heavily loaded wagons one of which was stuck fast in the mud, blocking up the road, while several of them were whipping the oxen and bawling to them in the Norwegian language, which seemed to frighten the oxen, but they were unable to move the wagons on. After sitting and looking at them a moment President Brigham Young got out of the coach and stepped up and took the whip out of the hands of one of the Norwegians, telling them all to stand out of the way. He then talked to the oxen in a tongue which was not understood by Norwegians or English, and touching them lightly with the whip, they instantly pulled the wagon out of the mud and continued the journey, much to the astonishment of the Norwegians, and the surprise and amusement of the passengers on the stage.

(source: https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper ... t-1844/300, DHC 7:224)

[TheDuke]

I want to make a couple of points. First, I am neither for nor against Adam-God theory principles, apparently in my search the Lord has not felt it necessary to weigh in on this for me. However, I do believe in eternal progression and as such there is a race of gods of many levels of progression. In the race of gods (celestial beings) some are babies or children and are innocent yet, these area spirit children, some are in transition or working out their salvation (telestial, terrestrial). When salvation is earned they return to CK as adults, then as Joseph says they work on exaltation (vs. salvation), one step at a time. So, to me all of the great and noble ones were already adult celestial beings, having already earned salvation, this includes: Adam, Jehovah, Father, Michael, Moses, Abraham, JS, etc..... perhaps millions on this earth in supporting cast. BTW Jesus referred to these as "those given him of his father" of which "he lost not one" those that are "elect from before this earth", etc....

Having said that, we now come to the complications. First, Elohim has different meanings in the OT or should I say in the Hebrew texts and Greek translations (first god, plurality of gods, offspring of a god, etc... look it up if you don't believe me). El is the god always and Elohim either the parents or the son. So, it means multiple things in different places in antiquity. For LDS from JS it is a name or title given The Father, that is the father of Jesus and the Father of this creation. Elohim is the one that Jesus is begotten of" and we are "begotten to". He is the one directing Jesus as Jesus does only what the father tells him.

Beyond that, we are mixing titles and much truth is stated in the links above, but stated succinctly which is incorrect as the teachings of titles, mixed with names, mixed with ancient meanings varies. I personally believe that we on this earth have different eternal parents, literally (begotten of) but are in this creation under the fatherhood of Jesus' Father, or The Father, that JS titled or named "Elohim"

So, if we want to talk lds terminology we can all be clear who Elohim is in this dispensation. If you want to try and reach back to previous dispensations, then the water is muddied and no value is gained.

Now, as far as Adam and Eve and transgression, it seems pretty clear. This world is a duopoly, a test, a balance of good-and-evil. Elohim gave Adam conflicting direction (never really termed commandments, not as Moses would later reuse the word). Adam had to choose. His choice brought consequences. there isn't right or wrong in this, just consequences. Hence we (JS) termed it transgression, not sin. The consequences from Adam's choice is that we live in a balanced world where Satan abounds and God is hard to find, and that we need a Savior to get home. Elohim provided his "begotten" son as the Savior. Adam didn't sin, he obeyed Elohim... Not quite as fast as Eve did, but none-the-less.

As far as other titles go, surely Adam is Our Father as he is the father of the entire human race. He isn't Jesus' celestial father nor is Jesus' his celestial or earthly son. Is he the god of this world? Yes. Is Satan the god of this world as he claims in the temple? Yes. Is Jesus the god of this world as he created it? Yes. Is The Father the god of this world as he is the principle of all this creation? Yes.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand? For LDS anyway. At least anyone who reads JS. BTW one last point is that JS did NOT understand this in 1820, or 1829, or 1830, or likely in 1835. He did by 1840 and taught it by 1842. He learned (or at least taught publicly) line upon line. Read KFD to see how carefully he had to tread even in 1843 with the truths of the multiplicity of gods. He felt he might be stoned in the conference talk, read it, read the context around the meeting.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So nobody has clearly and succinctly stated a response to my question. Did Brigham teach that God, the Father of our spirits, inhabited the mortal/physical body of Adam?

[stormcloak]

So nobody has clearly and succinctly stated a response to my question. Did Brigham teach that God, the Father of our spirits, inhabited the mortal/physical body of Adam?

You never asked that question in those specific terms in any prior posts. The short answer is yes. So did Joseph Smith.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So nobody has clearly and succinctly stated a response to my question. Did Brigham teach that God, the Father of our spirits, inhabited the mortal/physical body of Adam?

You never asked that question in those specific terms in any prior posts. The short answer is yes. So did Joseph Smith.

Yes, I did. I do not believe this philosophy. This is a slippery slope just like the Trinitarian view of the godhead. I’d have to read what Joseph and Brigham said on the topic, but I honestly have little interest in it.

[stormcloak]

Yes, I did. I do not believe this philosophy. This is a slippery slope just like the Trinitarian view of the godhead. I’d have to read what Joseph and Brigham said on the topic, but I honestly have little interest in it.

Please post a link to where specifically you asked this question in those same terms, and where you were ignored. I seem to recall responding to each of your posts with the specific information that you had mentioned in each respective post. I do not recall you asking that particular question, phrased in that way, in any of your prior posts.

I've already delineated that this doctrine is not at all like the trinitarian view of the Godhead, but you're free to believe in whatever (mis)interpretation of the doctrine suits your fancy. The concept of a plurality of Gods is fundamental to the Adam-God doctrine and it resolves the issues you pointed out wherein you previously mentioned concerns over similarities to trinitarianism. Moreover, the plurality of Gods is a complete break from traditional Christianity which subscribes to the Nicene Creed, so I honestly cannot understand how you can view the Adam-God doctrine as trinitarian, but whatever floats your boat.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Yes, I did. I do not believe this philosophy. This is a slippery slope just like the Trinitarian view of the godhead. I’d have to read what Joseph and Brigham said on the topic, but I honestly have little interest in it.

Please post a link to where specifically you asked this question in those same terms, and where you were ignored. I seem to recall responding to each of your posts with the specific information that you had mentioned in each respective post. I do not recall you asking that particular question, phrased in that way, in any of your prior posts.

I've already delineated that this doctrine is not at all like the trinitarian view of the Godhead, but you're free to believe in whatever (mis)interpretation of the doctrine suits your fancy. The concept of a plurality of Gods is fundamental to the Adam-God doctrine and it resolves the issues you pointed out wherein you previously mentioned concerns over similarities to trinitarianism. Moreover, the plurality of Gods is a complete break from traditional Christianity which subscribes to the Nicene Creed, so I honestly cannot understand how you can view the Adam-God doctrine as trinitarian, but whatever floats your boat.

God spoke to and commanded his own self in the garden. According to this theology you’ve presented. How is that not a split personality god?

[TheDuke]

So nobody has clearly and succinctly stated a response to my question. Did Brigham teach that God, the Father of our spirits, inhabited the mortal/physical body of Adam?

I clearly answered my understanding of what JS and BY taught. But, you ignore the concept that "begotten of" and "begotten to" mean the same thing when you say above "he father of our spirits". Also, this is a meaningless statement. JS and D&C make it clear that our spirits are co-eternal with god (pick your god). So you must be asking if you are talking about the "figurative father of our spirits" not literal? or are you talking about the father of our "celestial bodies" or "celestial souls". If that confuses you, reread the late (just heard that) John P. Pratt descriptions. I don't buy is analysis but his "definitions" are very good.

Also, however, I did say I don't study Adam-God theory completely, only enough to see that BY assumed eternal progression and MMP. All god's growing in "all" dimensions (not just greater family as some teach now). BTW, if you need deeper, you will not likely get it as BY's actual teachings have been covered up, changed, cleansed and reinterpreted by both sides (pro and con), just like polygamy discussion. It really is he-said, she-said. Hence, my lack of getting personally deeper.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So nobody has clearly and succinctly stated a response to my question. Did Brigham teach that God, the Father of our spirits, inhabited the mortal/physical body of Adam?

I clearly answered my understanding of what JS and BY taught. But, you ignore the concept that "begotten of" and "begotten to" mean the same thing when you say above "he father of our spirits". Also, this is a meaningless statement. JS and D&C make it clear that our spirits are co-eternal with god (pick your god). So you must be asking if you are talking about the "figurative father of our spirits" not literal? or are you talking about the father of our "celestial bodies" or "celestial souls". If that confuses you, reread the late (just heard that) John P. Pratt descriptions. I don't buy is analysis but his "definitions" are very good.

Also, however, I did say I don't study Adam-God theory completely, only enough to see that BY assumed eternal progression and MMP. All god's growing in "all" dimensions (not just greater family as some teach now). BTW, if you need deeper, you will not likely get it as BY's actual teachings have been covered up, changed, cleansed and reinterpreted by both sides (pro and con), just like polygamy discussion. It really is he-said, she-said. Hence, my lack of getting personally deeper.

A yes or no would have sufficed. Just the fact that we have to get all weird into “this god, of that god, who was this gods god of that god, but not created of that god, but spiritually, not physically………..”, kind of puts a few red flags up for me. But thanks for the response anyway.

[stormcloak]

God spoke to and commanded his own self in the garden. According to this theology you’ve presented. How is that not a split personality god?

I already explained this, and the whole subsequent conversation was influenced by it. You must have either entirely ignored my post, or entirely misunderstood it: viewtopic.php?p=1313964#p1313964

[Reluctant Watchman]

God spoke to and commanded his own self in the garden. According to this theology you’ve presented. How is that not a split personality god?

I already explained this, and the whole subsequent conversation was influenced by it. You must have either entirely ignored my post, or entirely misunderstood it: viewtopic.php?p=1313964#p1313964

So you don’t agree with some of the other posters here.

[stormcloak]

So you don’t agree with some of the other posters here.

Ummm... I guess it depends on which one(s) you're specifically referring to?

[Reluctant Watchman]

So you don’t agree with some of the other posters here.

Ummm... I guess it depends on which one(s) you're specifically referring to?

You don’t believe that God, the father of our spirits, became Adam in the flesh.

[TheDuke]

Reluctant: your comment reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from My Cousin Vinny. The DA asks Marisa about the correct timing of a specific car and engine. She responds that she cannot answer. The judge (you) ask simply for the answer (not yes or no but a numerical value). She has to explain why the question is "bogus" and "no one can answer". But at least there the judge and DA accept her answer and why the question is bogus. I asked for clarification of you question, which to me (probably accidentally) you phrased incorrectly so their is never a true answer. IMO. I asked for clarification, you gave none. But assuming you meant you question as this "Is the current understanding of A-G theory that The Father (who begets Jesus) came down to earth as Adam?" My limited understanding like StormCloak is "yes". And I personally don't comprehend it, but given MMP it opens many doors that may make it true. But you cannot understand them if you're view is limited to one, two, or three gods and limited on eternal progression and all the inane but technically true (in timeless eternities) of Jesus being god of worlds without number, etc...

Was it too da......ed hard for you to restate your question technically correct? NO need to respond the question is rhetorical. Always same with current and former High Counsellors. Always.

[stormcloak]

You don’t believe that God, the father of our spirits, was Adam in the flesh.

Yes, I do, as I've made abundantly clear. The God that spoke to Him in the Garden of Eden was a separate, distinct being.

[Reluctant Watchman]

Reluctant: your comment reminds me of one of my favorite scenes from My Cousin Vinny. The DA asks Marisa about the correct timing of a specific car and engine. She responds that she cannot answer. The judge (you) ask simply for the answer (not yes or no but a numerical value). She has to explain why the question is "bogus" and "no one can answer". But at least there the judge and DA accept her answer and why the question is bogus. I asked for clarification of you question, which to me (probably accidentally) you phrased incorrectly so their is never a true answer. IMO. I asked for clarification, you gave none. But assuming you meant you question as this "Is the current understanding of A-G theory that The Father (who begets Jesus) came down to earth as Adam?" My limited understanding like StormCloak is "yes". And I personally don't comprehend it, but given MMP it opens many doors that may make it true. But you cannot understand them if you're view is limited to one, two, or three gods and limited on eternal progression and all the inane but technically true (in timeless eternities) of Jesus being god of worlds without number, etc...

Was it too da......ed hard for you to restate your question technically correct? NO need to respond the question is rhetorical. Always same with current and former High Counsellors. Always.

You always find a way to remind me why I rarely read your posts. That last line was all I needed for a reminder. A bit arrogant if I don’t say so myself. Thanks.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You don’t believe that God, the father of our spirits, was Adam in the flesh.

Yes, I do, as I've made abundantly clear. The God that spoke to Him in the Garden of Eden was a separate, distinct being.

So weird. You guys can have this doctrine you believe. Adam was not the father of our spirits. I read the quote from Joseph and would never come to that conclusion.

[stormcloak]

So weird. You guys can have this doctrine you believe. Adam was not the father of our spirits. I read the quote from Joseph and would never come to that conclusion.

I think the quote is self-explanatory, and I find all the rebuttals "weird," frankly—if we're going to resort to petty disparagements. I find it interesting that you started this thread to complain about how another Christian didn't like your doctrinal beliefs, and yet you somehow feel entitled to mock mine.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So weird. You guys can have this doctrine you believe. Adam was not the father of our spirits. I read the quote from Joseph and would never come to that conclusion.

I think the quote is self-explanatory, and I find all the rebuttals "weird," frankly—if we're going to resort to petty disparagements. I find it interesting that you started this thread to complain about how another Christian didn't like your doctrinal beliefs, and yet you somehow feel entitled to mock mine.

No, I just don’t see how you guys can get that God, who created Adam, out of that quote from Joseph. Being the father of mankind does not make him our God, the father of our spirits.

And to be honest, I’m far more interested in the OP and not Adam/God theory.

[TheDuke]

exactly my point. You're being arrogant and don't see the issue with your (repeated) question. Sure you can ask that question in LDS SS, for those wanting to discuss Plan of Salvation 101... But you are asking those who think about A-G theory and other deeper meanings of progression questions that are not applicable, or the question may be ok but in a manner this is based on LDS PoS 101. Don't talk about arrogance to me please. I tried to rephrase your leading question for you. Your assumption of the make up of the gods. Sorry but to me it is like the Sadducees asking about resurrection and whos wife is she... Not sure if it was your intent to do this or lack of clarity by being in a hurry. So, I tried to be polite. But as usual when you cannot get it right, just attack the person.