Are Adam and Eve really that hated by some Christians?

[stormcloak]

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.

Hmmm, I wonder what Heavenly Father is, if not the Father of Mankind?

[Reluctant Watchman]

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.

You were being arrogant with your final statement. Deal with it or blow me off, I don’t care.

[Reluctant Watchman]

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.

Hmmm, I wonder what Heavenly Father is, if not the Father of Mankind?

You honestly can’t make the distinction between the father of our spirits and Adam’s posterity? Really?

[stormcloak]

You honestly can’t make the distinction between the father of our spirits and Adam’s posterity? Really?

Joseph Smith didn't: "Adam is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men [...]" (TPJS 157)

I wonder in what capacity He presides over us, if not as a Father?

[LDS 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.

I did an extensive study on what Joseph Smith taught on the subject and in my opinion it's very clear that he taught Adam-God. I have my research on my Google drive. I'll try and post it later.

But just like with his teachings on blacks, or tithing, or other subjects I get the feeling that you really don't care if Joseph taught it or not. I suspect you'll reject it either way.

But you won't pluck him out no matter what.

[Reluctant Watchman]

You honestly can’t make the distinction between the father of our spirits and Adam’s posterity? Really?

Joseph Smith didn't: "Adam is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men [...]" (TPJS 157)

I wonder in what capacity He presides over us, if not as a Father?

That’s how you justify Adam/God theory? Obviously you can’t see the distinction between the father of our spirits and the father of mankind, as in Adam’s posterity.

[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.

I did an extensive study on what Joseph Smith taught on the subject and in my opinion it's very clear that he taught Adam-God. I have my research on my Google drive. I'll try and post it later.

But just like with his teachings on blacks, or tithing, or other subjects I get the feeling that you really don't care if Joseph taught it or not. I suspect you'll reject it either way.

But you won't pluck him out no matter what.

I have no interest in the subject. The scriptures are plain to me. I know you have a particular interest in this subject, since you did a whole series of essays on your website.

[stormcloak]

That’s how you justify Adam/God theory? Obviously you can’t see the distinction between the father of our spirits and the father of mankind, as in Adam’s posterity.

There are numerous other quotes I've used to justify it as well, such as in this thread here: viewtopic.php?p=1259460#p1259460

But, I'm sure you won't care and will still think it's "weird." I'm just using some basic arguments in this thread. There's plenty of other supporting contextual quotes from Joseph Smith and the scriptures which demonstrates that this was not an isolated statement from the Prophet.

[Reluctant Watchman]

That’s how you justify Adam/God theory? Obviously you can’t see the distinction between the father of our spirits and the father of mankind, as in Adam’s posterity.

There are numerous other quotes I've used to justify it as well, such as in this thread here: viewtopic.php?p=1259460#p1259460

But, I'm sure you won't care and will still think it's "weird." I'm just using some basic arguments in this thread. There's plenty of other supporting contextual quotes from Joseph Smith and the scriptures which demonstrates that this was not an isolated statement from the Prophet.

But the one you used should have been your strongest argument, and it was a nothingburger for me. It actually proves the opposite of Adam/God theory.

[stormcloak]

But the one you used should have been your strongest argument, and it was a nothingburger for me.

That's fine—I'm grateful that I can say with the Savior:

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

(Matthew 11:25)

Who are babes? As Joseph Smith once said:

Some have tasted a little of these things, many of which are to be poured down from heaven upon the heads of babes; yea, upon the weak, obscure and despised ones of the earth.

(TPJS 137)

[Reluctant Watchman]

But the one you used should have been your strongest argument, and it was a nothingburger for me.

That's fine—I'm grateful that I can say with the Savior:

I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

(Matthew 11:25)

Who are babes? As Joseph Smith once said:

Some have tasted a little of these things, many of which are to be poured down from heaven upon the heads of babes; yea, upon the weak, obscure and despised ones of the earth.

(TPJS 137)

*eye roll*

[stormcloak]

*eye roll*

"Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness."

(Ether 12:26)

[LDS Watchman]

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.

I did an extensive study on what Joseph Smith taught on the subject and in my opinion it's very clear that he taught Adam-God. I have my research on my Google drive. I'll try and post it later.

But just like with his teachings on blacks, or tithing, or other subjects I get the feeling that you really don't care if Joseph taught it or not. I suspect you'll reject it either way.

But you won't pluck him out no matter what.

I have no interest in the subject. The scriptures are plain to me. I know you have a particular interest in this subject, since you did a whole series of essays on your website.

The truth about the nature and character of God as well as the nature of eternal progression matters to me.

As far as the essays on my blog are concerened, they are just different chapters from Ogden Kraut's book Michael/Adam, which I think is a really good breakdown of the doctrine.

And if were to write my own essays they would pretty much be the same as his. The only difference would be that I would add more information supporting it that Ogden Kraut was probably not aware of.

[Reluctant Watchman]

*eye roll*

"Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness."

(Ether 12:26)

dude, just think about your response. “I’m glad that God has smile down upon me because… XYZ, but you are too PDQ.”

[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 did an extensive study on what Joseph Smith taught on the subject and in my opinion it's very clear that he taught Adam-God. I have my research on my Google drive. I'll try and post it later.

But just like with his teachings on blacks, or tithing, or other subjects I get the feeling that you really don't care if Joseph taught it or not. I suspect you'll reject it either way.

But you won't pluck him out no matter what.

I have no interest in the subject. The scriptures are plain to me. I know you have a particular interest in this subject, since you did a whole series of essays on your website.

The truth about the nature and character of God as well as the nature of eternal progression matters to me.

As far as the essays on my blog are concerened, they are just different chapters from Ogden Kraut's book Michael/Adam, which I think is a really good breakdown of the doctrine.

And if were to write my own essays they would pretty much be the same as his. The only difference would be that I would add more information supporting it that Ogden Kraut was probably not aware of.

I guess I should rephrase that. These strange paths have no interest to me.

[stormcloak]

dude, just think about your response. “I’m glad that God has smile down upon me because… XYZ, but you are too PDQ.”

Not sure what those nonsense letters mean, but I really am grateful that Heavenly Father has been kind and generous enough to me to share knowledge about His identity. I feel sorry for those who are too stubborn and blinkered by tradition to understand the truth. All I did was quote the words of the Savior and the Prophet Joseph Smith. You're the one that seems to feel a need to get snarky about it.

[CuriousThinker]

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.

It may have been possible. They never asked God.

[Reluctant Watchman]

dude, just think about your response. “I’m glad that God has smile down upon me because… XYZ, but you are too PDQ.”

Not sure what those nonsense letters mean, but I really am grateful that Heavenly Father has been kind and generous enough to me to share knowledge about His identity. I feel sorry for those who are too stubborn and blinkered by tradition to understand the truth. All I did was quote the words of the Savior and the Prophet Joseph Smith. You're the one that seems to feel a need to get snarky about it.

It just sounded a bit Zoramitish to me.

[LDS Watchman]

I did an extensive study on what Joseph Smith taught on the subject and in my opinion it's very clear that he taught Adam-God. I have my research on my Google drive. I'll try and post it later.

But just like with his teachings on blacks, or tithing, or other subjects I get the feeling that you really don't care if Joseph taught it or not. I suspect you'll reject it either way.

But you won't pluck him out no matter what.

I have no interest in the subject. The scriptures are plain to me. I know you have a particular interest in this subject, since you did a whole series of essays on your website.

The truth about the nature and character of God as well as the nature of eternal progression matters to me.

As far as the essays on my blog are concerened, they are just different chapters from Ogden Kraut's book Michael/Adam, which I think is a really good breakdown of the doctrine.

And if were to write my own essays they would pretty much be the same as his. The only difference would be that I would add more information supporting it that Ogden Kraut was probably not aware of.

I guess I should rephrase that. These strange paths have no interest to me.

So you don't care if Joseph Smith taught it or the scriptures support it? You'll reject it as a "strange path" either way?

[Reluctant Watchman]

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.

It may have been possible. They never asked God.

Maybe… maybe…

[stormcloak]

It just sounded a bit Zoramitish to me.

I guess Christ's words in Matthew 11:25 must have sounded a bit "Zoramitish" then

[Reluctant Watchman]

It just sounded a bit Zoramitish to me.

I guess Christ's words in Matthew 11:25 must have sounded a bit "Zoramitish" then

I doubt Matthew presented his message by disagreeing with someone, and then stating that he’s grateful the Lord made him more humble as a babe and called those who disagreed with him as an errant “wise and prudent” person. Whatever. We disagree. That’s cool with me.

[abijah]

[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.

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.

I have always seen Adam and Eve partly as a metaphor for childhood. When we are very small we don't know what we are doing, we're happy to run around naked (without thinking about it!) and most things seem idyllic. But at some point a child will do bad things, and even tell a lie or two. This is obviously the point at which a child develops. This doesn't make the child bad as such, but it makes them capable of choosing wrong. Life becomes harder after that and is full of thorns and tribulations.

So I think what happened with this is that Heavenly Father's relationship with Adam & Eve shifted, and he did banish them from the Garden, but he also allowed them a way to make up for it as a loving parent would. As I've said elsewhere I think Adam and Eve were among the greatest people who ever lived. You are right about Eve too - sometimes she has come in for specific criticism, but again, like Adam, she was tricked, and there isn't an indication that Eve was ever some horribly evil woman (unlike some other females in the scriptures).

I'm trying to think of any groups which have some Adam & Eve doctrine as described. The only one that springs to mind is the Moonies, who have some doctrine about Rev. Moon and his wife being a new couple for mankind (which once you start digging into it doctrinally becomes progressively more weird)... and they're a fringe group who are even more isolated from mainstream churches than the LDS are. Oh and some Christian nudist groups like the Doukhobors who wanted to revert to the Edenic state, but again they're hardly representative.

[Reluctant Watchman]

So I think what happened with this is that Heavenly Father's relationship with Adam & Eve shifted, and he did banish them from the Garden, but he also allowed them a way to make up for it as a loving parent would. As I've said elsewhere I think Adam and Eve were among the greatest people who ever lived. You are right about Eve too - sometimes she has come in for specific criticism, but again, like Adam, she was tricked, and there isn't an indication that Eve was ever some horribly evil woman (unlike some other females in the scriptures).

I actually think Eve had far more awareness as to what her future mission was to be. Being the Mother of all Living, she most likely had spiritual gifts given specifically to her to accomplish that mission/calling.