LDS Freedom Forum

hideki wrote: ↑December 10th, 2023, 4:00 pm This is an automatic translation.

Question: Was the "Adam-God" theory ever taught as part of the temple endowment ceremony as something called "the lecture at the veil"?
Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it.
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... veil%22%3F

On 1 February 1877, when Young's lecture was first given, Woodruff wrote in his journal: "W Woodruff Presided and Officiated as El[ohim].
I dressed in pure white Doe skin from head to foot to officiate in the Priest Office, white pants vest & C[oat?] the first Example in any Temple of the Lord in this last dispensation.
Sister Lucy B Young also dressed in white in officiating as Eve.
Pr[e]sident [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts."
The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence:

We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.
We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc.
Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return."
Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth.
He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.
Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth.
And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.

And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. ...

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.

Brigham Young used the term "Adam" as a title for both Adam Sr. meaning Heavenly Father and Adam Jr. meaning the first man of our earth.
Brigham Young and others have been inconsistent in using the term "Father Adam" to refer to Adam Sr. as Heavenly Father and "Adam" or "Father Adam" to refer to Adam Jr. as Michael, as in "Father Adam. Brigham Young and others have been inconsistent in using the term "Father Adam" to refer to Adam Sr. as Heavenly Father and "Adam" or "Father Adam" to refer to both Adam.

Elohim, Jehovah and Michael

Elohim is Heavenly Father, Jehovah is Jesus Christ, and Michael is Adam.
In other words, the Adam after this statement is Adam Jr. who is Michael.
And the Adam before this sentence is the Elohim, Adam Sr.
And Eve means Heavenly Mother.

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.

This "Father Adam" is the Elohim, Adam Sr.


However, with this interpretation, the following sentence seems to create a problem.

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc.
Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return."
Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth.

It seems to me that this sentence speaks of Adam (Michael).
This Adam could be interpreted as referring to Michael, and the Adam after this sentence could also be interpreted as referring to Michael.
And this Adam (Michael) can be interpreted as being spoken of as a heavenly father.

Elohim, Jehovah and Michael

The question then arises as to who is the Elohim in this sentence.

Latter-day Saints accept that Elohim is God the Father and Yahweh (Jehovah) refers to His Son, Jesus Christ.
However, that understanding has not been consistently so from the beginning, but has been taught accordingly since the official publication of the "A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" in 1916 at the beginning of the 20th century.

Gospel Classics: The Father and the Son
A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Brigham Young may have been using Elohim as a generic term for divine beings.
This would lead to the interpretation that the Adam mentioned by Brigham Young in these texts all refer to Michael.

Brigham Young said:
When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him.
He helped to make and organize this world.
He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.
Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. ...
When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. ...
It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. (April 9, 1852-22nd Annual General Conference Journal of Discourses vol.1 p.50-51)

What does this blue text mean?
Does this sentence describe "Elohim" as one being?
Please tell me because I do not understand English.

I still can't understand the results.

This is an automatic translation.

Brigham Young said in 1852:

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

https://journalofdiscourses.com/1/8


Brigham Young said in 1877:

And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, ...

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/ans ... veil%22%3F

n Joseph Smith's original endowment ceremony, the gods involved in the creation were called "Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael," but unlike in modern Mormon theology, "Jehovah" was not identified as Jesus.
Rather, it was explained by Joseph F. Smith that "Elohim, Jehovah and Michael are Father, Son, and Grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam." (Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871)

Within the council, Jehovah and Michael were subordinate to Elohim and created the Earth, under the direction of Elohim.
Michael was selected by the heads of this council of gods to be the Father of this Earth.

I do not understand English.
How should we interpret these two statements by Brigham Young?

I believe there are three beings, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael.
Is this correct?

Who is Elohim?
Is he Heavenly Father?

Is Jehovah Jesus Christ?

Is Michael Adam?
Is this Adam the same person as Heavenly Father?

blitzinstripes wrote: ↑December 10th, 2023, 7:21 pm Bull crap "doctrines" like this, are why the protestants won't take us seriously.

Boo hoo. Who cares what they think.

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 9th, 2023, 10:30 pm

ransomme wrote: ↑December 9th, 2023, 9:53 pm

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 9th, 2023, 7:56 pm

I'm not going to argue with you again as you have your own views, but I will say that this isn't true and is taking scripture out of context. God acting as god in a celestial setting is not the same as going through experiences to help lower level beings progress. If what you say is true then the same is true for Jesus. According to John Jesus grew from grace-to-grace to fullness but did not have the fullness at first. He learned and grew. If he didn't know all then he could not have lived laws as a child that he never yet knew, and would be in same boat as Adam. Yet we know he was and still is god. Think about your comments on stuff like this in a broader context and you will find and then be able to resolve the apparent discongruities.

I've searched and pondered long on this, about YHWH, and asked.

Jesus being YHWH is illustrated plainly in the scriptures for all who look. In and by the Spirit these things were made manifest. It was shown in text, in pattern, in names, in duties, in mind and in heart.

But to put it more plainly for you, Adam brought death and serves His Lord Jesus the Messiah.
1 Corinthians 15
21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

I accept Jesus is Jehovah.......... my point is he earned it or obtained it grace-for-grace. What you're quoting is not about Jehovah. It is just that Jesus is the first resurrected and BTW it doesn't say Adam was the first to die because he wasn't (Abel died first) it says "by man came death". So, becoming man (earthly man) brings death as sure as taxes. And surely as you say, Jesus' made path for us to be resurrected, earning him the right of Jehovah. but in his life (before corinthians was written) he clearly taught that his father was Jehovah and they were not (yet) to worship him or even call him good as at that time he said only his father was good.

Abel could die because Adam (& Eve) brought death into the world. Who died first is not germane to this. If Adam was God the Father then God would have fallen from grace when Adam fell. God would have ceased being God.

This just scratches the surface. AGT is false and causes unbelief

If Adam was God, what were the conditions that he was entering? A probationary state, subject to the law and justice. He would make Himself Christ's because of His need to be claimed, to repent, to become a son of God.
Alma 42
13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.
14 And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.
15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself {Jesus} atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.
16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.
22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.
23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men {Adam} into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence {whose presence?}, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

Let's look at Adam. Who is speaking here? Who is His Only Begotten? So you think that Adam {the Father God as you say} was baptized in the Son's name? That He required the Atonement that was wrought by the Son? That He was ordained after the order of the Son?
Moses 6
62 And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men {Adam}, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time.
63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.
64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. {Adam was baptized in similitude of the Son's death and resurrection, and took upon himself the Son's name}
65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.
66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father {what, which Father?}, and the Son {who is the Father?}, from henceforth and forever;
67 And {Adam} thou art after the order of him {Jesus, the Son} who was without beginning of days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity.
68 Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen. {we become the same exact type and level, a son of God, as Adam. We are on Adam's level and vice versa}

Adam is all of us, he is man, earthy, flesh, corruptable, etc. Adam and we walk the same path. Adam was redeemed or purchased by Jesus the Christ. Adam requires repentance and mercy via the Atonement. Adam is our father in physically being the first man, but one of many "spiritual" fathers just like Abraham, because Adam was the first to become, "a son of God; and thus may all become my sons".

Pro AG theorists don't seem to understand the religion of ancient Israel, its patterns, its fulfillment, or the law of adoption, amongst other things.

Mark E. Petersen has said:
Elder Charles C. Rich was not present on the day when President Young gave an address that was wrongly reported as saying Adam was our Father in heaven. (See JD 1:51.)
The sermon was delivered April 9, 1852, and Elder Rich returned April 21.
In a copy of the Journal of Discourses Elder Ben E. Rich, son of Elder Charles C. Rich, referred to the misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand corrected the statement to read as follows: "Jesus our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven." In this same statement Ben E. Rich wrote "As corrected above is what Prest.
Young said, as testified to me by my father, C. C. Rich." (This signed statement is in the hands of the Church Historical Department.)

Some of the reporters at the Tabernacle in those days were not so skilled as others, and admittedly made mistakes, such as the misquotation of President Young as above, which was corrected by Brother Rich and which has caused some persons in the Church to go astray.

On the face of it the mistake is obvious. We find in Gen. 2:15-16 and 3:8-9 that God walked and talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden.

That other errors were made by reporters who recorded sermons of the brethren of that day is well attested.
As one case in point, we provide the following statement made on October 7, 1903, by President Joseph F. Smith
"I want to call your attention to an important matter. There is being printed in circular form now by unauthorized persons a sermon delivered years ago by President Brigham Young on the question of High Priests and Seventies, that is not correct.
When I was presiding over the British Mission some years ago, this sermon was printed in the Deseret News and when it came to Liverpool, Charles W. Nibley and Henry W. Naisbitt were laboring with me there assisting me in publishing the Millennial Star.
They had the form set up ready to print and brought me the copy and I said, `That discourse cannot be printed in the Star.' `But,' said Brother Nibley, `is it not the sermon of President Brigham Young?' `Perhaps it is,' said I, `but it can not go in the Star.'
Then these brethren took up a labor with me to convince me that I had no business to interfere with President's discourses. I said, `It makes no difference, that discourse is not true as it is before you, it does not state the truth, it is not true, it is contrary to the word of the Lord and it can not be put in the Star.'

Next morning I heard a rap at the door and when I asked what was the matter, this was long before daylight, and when I went to see, lo and behold it was a cablegram from President Brigham Young, commanding me not to publish that discourse in the Millennial Star, and it never was printed, by the authority of President Brigham Young." (Quoted in Daily Journal of John M. Whitaker, p. 95, in files of Church Historical Department.)"

Note: The Millennial Star was first published by Joseph F. Smith on Monday, June 4, 1877 - Albert Carrington, in his last issue quoted from the May 1 issue of the Deseret News. From April 1 to the demise of President Brigham Young, there were in the Deseret News eight discourses of Brigham Young that were not printed in the Millennial Star. (Mark E. Petersen Adam: Who is he? p.16)

John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p.68-71
Those who peddle the well-worn Adam-God myth, usually charge the Latter-day Saints with believing that:
(1) Our Father in heaven, the Supreme God to whom we pray, is Adam, the first man; and (2) Adam was the father of Jesus Christ.
A long series of absurd and false deductions are made from these propositions.

Those who spread this untruth about the Latter-day Saints go back for authority to a sermon delivered by President Brigham Young "in the tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9th, 1852." (Journal of Discourses, 150)
Certain statements there made are confusing if read superficially, but very clear if read with their context.
Enemies of President Brigham Young and of the Church have taken advantage of the opportunity and have used these statements repeatedly and widely to do injury to the reputation of President Young and the Mormon people.
An honest reading of this sermon and of other reported discourses of President Brigham Young proves that the great second President of the Church held no such views as have been put into his mouth in the form of the Adam-God myth.
In the discourse, upon which hangs the Adam-God myth, President Brig ham Young discussed the earthly origin of Jesus Christ.
He denied that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus Christ; and affirmed that the Savior was begotten by God the Father. He explained that "Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were or ever will be upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world.
Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man."
That is, every human being is in direct descent from God the Father.

In the course of his remarks President Young was led to discuss the high place of Adam among the generations of men, for Adam "helped to make and organize this world," and as first man, the father of us all, Adam stands at the head of the human race, and will ever be the representative of his children before our Father in heaven, the Father of our spirits.
It was in connection with this thought that the oft-quoted statement was made about Adam, that "he is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

He spoke of Adam as the great patriarch of the human race, a personage who had been privileged and able to assist in the creation of the earth, who would continue his efforts in behalf of the human family, and through whom many of our needs would be met.
All this was in contradiction to the common doctrine the world over that Adam was a great sinner, and not to be held in affectionate remembrance.
Nowhere is it suggested that Adam is God, the Father whose child Adam himself was.
On the contrary, in the sermon of April 9th, 1852, itself there is a clear distinction made between Adam and God the Father, in the following words: "The earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael" -- the last previously defined as Adam.

There can be no confusion in this passage of the separate personalities of these three great beings.
A discourse delivered August 8, 1852, within four months of the discourse in controversy (Journal of Discourses, 3:94) contains the following: "The Lord sent forth His gospel to the people: He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methusaleh received it; and Noah received it from Methusaleh; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." Clearly, President Young here distinguishes between God, the Father, and Adam, the first man.
The sermon of April 9, 1852, also makes the statement that, "Jesus, our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven."
The dishonest inference has been drawn and advertised widely that President Young meant that Adam was the earthly father of Jesus Christ.
This deduction cannot be made fairly, in view of the context or of his other published utterances on the subject. Adam and Eve were not the only persons in the Garden of Eden, for "they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day." (Gen. 3:8).

President Young undoubtedly had this personage in mind, for he did not say Adam, but "our Father in heaven."
In many discourses, President Young refers to Jesus as the Only Begotten of the Father, which would not have been true had Adam been the earthly father of Jesus.
At one time he declared (Journal of Discourses, 1:238), "I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Savior of the World; for He is the Only Begotten of the Father which could not have been if the Father did not actually beget him in person."
On another occasion (Journal of Discourses, 2:42) he said, "And what shall we say of our Heavenly Father? He is also a man in perfection, and the Father of the man Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits."
It seems unnecessary to offer more evidence that Brigham Young held the accepted doctrine of the Church, that God, the Father, and not Adam is the earthly Father of Jesus.

On the Thursday 16 Dec 1897 meeting of the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, Joseph F. Smith) and a majority of the Twelve (Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Brigham Young, Jr., John Henry Smith, George Teasdale, Heber J. Grant, Anthon H. Lund), Brigham Young, Jr. indicated that it was accepted and agreed that “Adam is our father and God, and no use to discuss it with Josephites [RLDS] or anyone else” (Brigham Young Jr. journals and papers, 1862-1902: Volume 29, 1897 April-1899 February, p. 107).

In an 18 Dec 1897 letter from Franklin D. Richards wrote, “Dear Brother [Mission President E. H. Nye]—The Council of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. . . . felt that it is best to avoid bringing it up [Adam being our Father and God], and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us. . . . This, like many other points of more advanced doctrine, is too precious a pearl to be cast before swine. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can” (Richards family collection, 1837-1961: Volume 5, 1896 February-1898 October, pp. 783, 786).


All other, contrary statements might be considered between opinion and "damage control." And exactly what is meant by these teachings, and whether such is true, remains up to the individual to discern.

They claim all Adam(s) are born from a woman in the great lineage of God's

But when you cut into their doctrine,something doesn't fit.

If all things are spiritual first , then you still come to the chicken & egg problem

If a physical body comes after.......................then there needs to be a first born of mud

For the Adam-God crowd, It's a linear progression of Godhood until it's not convenient lol lol

nightlight wrote: ↑December 9th, 2023, 6:44 pm From the same source that this came from lol

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 219

“Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant.”

The same source indeed. Anyone who thinks the Savior's blood can't save us from certain sins, but our own blood can, is a very poor student of scripture.

I believe the Adam/God doctrine is false, but when you speak of God falling or not being able to fall, could we simply be referring to a willful condescension? Meaning, God did not sin he willfully entered a fallen world. I know we have grown up being taught that the fall was transgression and not sin, but is it possible that it was simply Adam agreeing to enter a fallen world of his own accord?

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 10:33 am

nightlight wrote: ↑December 9th, 2023, 6:44 pm From the same source that this came from lol

Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 4, p. 219

“Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant.”

The same source indeed. Anyone who thinks the Savior's blood can't save us from certain sins, but our own blood can, is a very poor student of scripture.

I believe the Adam/God doctrine is false, but when you speak of God falling or not being able to fall, could we simply be referring to a willful condescension? Meaning, God did not sin he willfully entered a fallen world. I know we have grown up being taught that the fall was transgression and not sin, but is it possible that it was simply Adam agreeing to enter a fallen world of his own accord?

God did condescend among us, but He did not change to mirror those He descended among.

If God did sin, we would not be

nightlight wrote: ↑December 11th, 2023, 11:02 am God did condescend among us, but He did not change to mirror those He descended among.

If God did sin, we would not be

I already said he didn't sin. Thanks for not reading what I wrote.

Examples of Church Leaders Denouncing the Adam-God Theory

January 9, 1897

Joseph F. Smith
In a letter to Alfred Saxey, Joseph F. Smith wrote that Brigham "no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject" adding that "What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord."

Joseph F. Smith, in response to a query by Alfred Saxey concerning Adam-God, wrote that The Doctrine was never submitted to the Councils of the Priesthood, nor to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church.
It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof, except perhaps only so far as some may have confidence in President Young, believing that he had light on the subject which was not given in connection with his public mention thereof.
It is thought, even if there is truth in it, that the bare mention made by Prest.
Young without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth, was unfortunate to say the least.
Joseph F. Smith, in a letter to Alfred Saxey, states Adam-God may represent Brigham's personal opinion but the teaching is not revealed doctrine and is not binding on Church members.

Joseph F. Smith was present in Church leadership meetings when Brigham Young taught Adam-God theory. In his journal for October 15, 1870, he recorded:
Prest. Young spoke on the subject of Adam and God.
"Whom to know is life eternal."
Who knows him? it is certainly important to know him.
he wanted the brethren to meditate on the subject, pray about it and keep it to themselves.
On July 17, 1871, Smith recorded Brigham teaching that "Eloheim, Yahova + Michael were father, son and grandson. They made this Earth + michael became Adam."

The minutes for the June 8, 1873 meeting of the Salt Lake School of the Prophets records Joseph F. Smith affirming belief in Adam-God with Brigham present:

The principle doctrine was approved or endorsed by Henry Grow, D B. Huntingdon, & Joseph F. Smith.
The latter read a portion of a revelation given to the Church affirming that Michael or Adam is the Father of all—the Prince of all, and stated that the enunciation of that doctrine, gave him great joy.
Brigham teaches eternal life is knowing Adam and who he is.
Brigham teaches Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael are Father, Son, and Grandson, respectively; after the earth was made, Michael became Adam.
SLC School of the Prophets says Adam-God is true doctrine, but should be discussed carefully by the Church.


February 27, 1902
Joseph F. Smith
"The full truth concerning [Adam-God doctrine] has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative thereto, are out of place and improper.
We disapprove of them and especially the public expression of such views."

In February 1902, Edward Bunker, who was serving as a mission president, wrote to Joseph F. Smith asking for clarification as to the doctrinal status of Adam-God. Later that month, Joseph F. Smith responded, noting that

What is called the Adam God doctrine may properly be classed among the mysteries. The full truth concerning it has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative thereto, are out of place and improper. We disapprove of them and especially the public expression of such views.
Joseph F. Smith still affirmed that Adam was an exalted being and in that sense, a "God":
...Adam stands at the head of the human family, presides over them spiritually and temporally, and will come in due time as the Ancient of Days to call his children together, according to the scriptures, both ancient and modern. He will preside over them for ever, and be their God eternally; This, of course, after the Millennial reign of Christ. Christ is not Adam, nor is Adam Christ, but both are eternal Gods, and it may even be said Fathers, since they are the parents of eternal or spiritual children.
Edward Bunker writes to Joseph F. Smith to ask for clarification as to doctrinal status of Adam-God.

Joseph F. Smith writes to Edward Bunker informing him that Adam-God is one of the "mysteries" and until more is revealed, we only have "wild speculations."


July 16, 1902
Joseph F. Smith
Joseph F. Smith, in a letter to Lille Golsan, denied that Adam was the "God we worship throughout eternity."

When Lillie Golsan questioned Joseph F. Smith in 1902 concerning the status of Adam in Latter-day Saint theology, he responded:
First—"Which is the God we worship throughout eternity, Father, Son or Adam?" We are to worship the Father in the name of the Son.
Second—"Did Adam live a mortal being twice?" There is nothing in the records names that so states, and it is not a true doctrine.

Joseph F. Smith would also state that, for Latter-day Saints, the authoritative sources of doctrine are inspired utterances of its prophet, seer and revelator, four standards of doctrine, namely the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, containing the revelations of God given in times part and present for the guidance, salvation and exaltation of his people.
These books have been accepted by the church, in general conference assembled, as its doctrinal standards, and nothing outside of them, whether true or false, has any practical bearing or significance, so far as the conduct of the Church is concerned.
Joseph F. Smith denies that Adam is the "God we worship throughout eternity."


November 1909
First Presidency
In their doctrinal exposition entitled "The Origin of Man," the First Presidency stated that "Adam, our great progenitor, 'the first man,' was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a 'living soul.'"

The relevant portion of the 1909 First Presidency statement reads:
Adam, our great progenitor, "the first man," was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ, he took upon him an appropriate body of a man, and so became a "living soul."
The doctrine of the pre-existence,—revealed so plainly, particularly in the latter days, pours a wonderful flood of light upon the otherwise mysterious problem of man's origin.
It shows that man, as a spirit, was begotten and born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the Father, prior to coming upon the earth in a temporal body to undergo an experience in mortality.
It teaches that all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh, and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.
First Presidency, in statement on man's origins, distinguishes Adam from the God and Father of our spirits.


June 30, 1916
First Presidency
In their doctrinal exposition entitled "The Father and the Son," the First Presidency stated that "Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh ... Jehovah ... is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim."

In the 1916 First Presidency Statement, we read that Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior.
First Presidency teaches "God" and "Father" can be used as titles for people other than God the Father, including Jesus.


April 1922
Charles W. Penrose
During the April 1922 General Conference, Charles W. Penrose argued against Adam-God theory, saying that Adam could not be God as Adam "prayed to the Eternal Father as we do."

During the April 1922 General Conference, Charles W. Penrose also said that The Lord said he was Michael, the archangel, and He, the Father, set him here at the head of His race to which we belong.
He is "our father, Adam," and as Adam's body was of the dust of the earth, this earth on which we live, it had to return to dust because of his transgression.
Charles W. Penrose says that Adam-God speculation is going beyond what has been revealed; Adam cannot be God as he worshiped the Father.


February 1931
Heber J. Grant
"Since Adam had not passed through the resurrection his spirit and body were not inseparably connected, hence it was possible for him to become mortal by partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

In the February 1931 statement "Adam's status in the Garden of Eden," President Grant taught that Adam was not a resurrected being when he entered Eden.
Elsewhere, he taught that Adam benefited from the atonement of Jesus:
Adam, like all of his posterity, became a benefactor through the mission of Jesus Christ.
Through the atonement made by our Lord, Adam was redeemed from his transgression and received the resurrection.
Heber J. Grant writes that Adam was not resurrected when he entered the Garden.


April 1942
Joseph Fielding Smith
During the April 1942 General Conference, Joseph Fielding Smith taught that Adam is subordinate to Jesus: "while Adam will preside over his posterity as Michael, the prince, and as he will hold the keys of salvation, as he does, all' of that will be under the direction of Jesus Christ, the Holy One of Israel, for Christ is greater than Adam."

In this same talk, Joseph Fielding Smith would also reiterate the doctrine of exaltation:
That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.
Joseph Fielding Smith notes that, while Adam holds the keys, he does so under the authority of Jesus, who is greater than Adam.


March 20, 1949
Milton R. Hunter
"The idea that Adam is the God of this world or that he was transplanted here from another planet is false and misleading" and that Latter-day Saint "scriptures prove [proponents of Adam-God] false and the theory of Adam's being transplanted would involve a belief in reincarnation, which the church condemns as being untrue."

Milton R. Hunter was quoted as teaching this in a stake conference held on March 20, 1949.
Provo Daily Herald reports that Milton R. Hunter calling the Adam-God teaching or that Adam was transplanted from another world as "false and misleading."


1958
Bruce R. McConkie
In an entry on Adam-God theory in his book Mormon Doctrine, McConkie referred to people who taught it as "Cultists and other enemies of the restored faith."

McConkie taught that, while Adam is not the God, members are to "view Adam in his proper high place as the pre-existent Michael, the first man and presiding high priest (under Christ) over all the earth for all time" and that of all the persons God has exalted "Adam is the chief, presiding (under Christ and the Father) in the patriarchal order over all the rest."

Bruce R. McConkie calls Adam-God a "theory"; teaches Adam is subordinate to both Jesus and His Father.


April 1965
Joseph Fielding Smith
"We learn by virtue of the law of primogeniture, that all who are saved in the kingdom of God will be subject to Adam, for by divine appointment he holds these keys under the direction of Jesus Christ. "

During the April 1965 General Conference, Joseph Fielding Smith would argue that Brigham Young has been "unjustly condemned for a statement he made to the effect that Adam is our God and the only one with whom we have to do," saying that we learn by virtue of the law of primogeniture, that all who are saved in the kingdom of God will be subject to Adam, for by divine appointment he holds these keys under the direction of Jesus Christ.
Joseph Fielding Smith, in general conference, said Brigham Young has been misunderstood and he meant Adam had keys.


May 11, 1966
LeGrand Richards
"We look upon Adam as the great patriarch of the race, the Ancient of Days referred to by Daniel in the 7th chapter of Daniel... he was with Elohim the Father, and Jehovah, (Jesus) in the creation of the earth...
But we all lived in the spirit world before we were born, and Adam is not our God.
We do not pray to him. We pray to the father through His Son, Jesus Christ."

In a May 11, 1966 letter to Morris L. Reynolds, LeGrand Richards, responded "no" to the question "Is the Adam God Doctrine, as taught in the Journal of Discourses, true?"
He added that The First Presidency of the Church have answered this several times in the Deseret News and otherwise.
We look upon Adam as the great patriarch of the race, the Ancient of Days referred to by Daniel in the 7th chapter of Daniel, to whom Jesus will come when He comes in the clouds of heaven.
And he was with Elohim the Father, and Jehovah, (Jesus) in the creation of the earth, and hence is the father of us all speaking literally and physically.
But we all lived in the spirit world before we were born, and Adam is not our God.
We do not pray to him. We pray to the father through His Son, Jesus Christ.
LeGrand Richards informs Morris L. Reynolds that the Adam-God doctrine isn't true.


May 13, 1966
Hugh B. Brown
"The Adam-God doctrine is not the doctrine of the Church."

In a letter to Morris L. Reynolds dated May 13, 1966, Hugh B. Brown wrote that "The Adam-God doctrine is not the doctrine of the Church" and that "The godhead consists of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost."

Hugh B. Brown said to Morris L. Reynolds that Adam-God is not a doctrine of the Church and the sermons in the Journal of Discourses are not accurate.


April 1975
Vaughn J. Featherstone
Vaughn J. Featherstone called Adam-God a "theory" and that those who believed it "don’t have time to study faith and repentance. Maybe they ought to get back to basics."

In his April 1975 speech "A Self-Inflicted Purging," Vaughn J. Featherstone called Adam-God teachings a "theory" and that supporters of the teaching don’t have time to study faith and repentance.
Maybe they ought to get back to basics.
And when they understand everything about faith, then they can move on to the next principle.
Vaughn J. Featherstone calls "Adam-God" a "theory" and those who profess belief in it as ignorant of the basics of the Gospel.


1976
Mark E. Petersen
Mark E. Petersen wrote that Adam-God is "ridiculous" and "is contrary to the word of the Lord" and that "To say that Adam is God is, of course, opposed utterly and completely to the scriptures as well as to our Articles of Faith."

In his 1976 book, Adam: Who Is He?, Mark E. Petersen wrote that Adam-God theory is "ridiculous" and "is contrary to the word of the Lord" and that to say that Adam is God is, of course, opposed utterly and completely to the scriptures as well as to our Articles of Faith, in which we say: "We believe in God, the Eternal Father [meaning Elohim], and in His Son, Jesus Christ [meaning Jehovah], and in the Holy Ghost."
Adam is not so much as mentioned in that statement on the Godhead, not even by his primeval name Michael.
Mark E. Petersen said the Adam-God doctrine as "ridiculous," and that Brigham was misquoted.


October 1976
Spencer W. Kimball
"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations.
Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory.
We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

Spencer W. Kimball taught this in an October 1976 general conference address.
Spencer W. Kimball refers to the Adam-God teaching as a "theory," denounces it, and says it is not "according to the scriptures."
Notably, President Kimball did not say that Brigham Young was misquoted or taught false doctrine.

As a member of a committee working with Adam-God theory supporters, Elden Watson reported that they were provided with a clarification of President Kimball's views in a private interview:
He said that he did not say that Brigham Young did not make the statements which are attributed to him, nor did he claim that they were falsely reported.
Neither did he say that Brigham Young taught false doctrine.
What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God theory is false, and the Adam-God theory is that intepretation which is placed on Brigham Young's words by present day apostates and fundamentalists--their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false.
Elden Watson argues Brigham used "Adam" as a name/title for both "Adam" and "God the Father," resulting in his being misunderstood.
Brigham Young believed that one of the names of God, our Heavenly Father is Adam, and in many of President Young's discourses he referred to God the Father using that name.
There are therefore two Adams, and although President Young did not use the designation, it will be simpler for us in the following discussion to distinguish between the two individuals by referring to them as Adam Sr. (When referring to God, our Heavenly Father) and Adam Jr. (When referring to the embodied archangel, Michael, who partook of the forbidden fruit, fell, and became the father of Cain, Able and Seth etc.).


1980
Mark E. Petersen
"Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior.
But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel."

Mark E. Petersen stated this in his October 1980 conference talk "Adam the Archangel."
Mark E. Petersen teaches Adam is not the Father of our spirits; instead, he is an angel.


June 1, 1980
Bruce R. McConkie
"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, ...
It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it."

In a June 1, 1980 address to BYU students called "The Seven Deadly Heresies," McConkie referred to Adam-God as a "heresy" kept alive by those who wish to obtain "converts to cultism":

Heresy six: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship...
It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it.
Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day.
Bruce R. McConkie lists Adam-God as a "deadly heresy."


February 19, 1981
Bruce R. McConkie
McConkie wrote that Brigham Young did teach that "Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him" but that those teachings are "not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel."

Bruce R. McConkie stated this opposition to Adam-God theory in a February 19, 1981 letter to Eugene England.
Bruce R. McConkie said in a letter Brigham taught Adam is the Father of our Spirits and it's a false doctrine.

It's possible that McConkie softened his position that Brigham taught Adam-God theory.
Elden Watson reported that he met in private with Elder Bruce R. McConkie as part of a group to discuss a statement McConkie made that Brigham's teachings about Adam were "not true."

After discussing his view that the confusion about Brigham Young's teachings was due to Brigham's sometimes referring to God the Father as "Adam," Watson said he was told by Elder McConkie to keep teaching what we had been teaching, because it was he that was wrong.
He said if he had known of our views, he never would have said what he did in his letter to Eugene England, and we had his permission to tell anyone we wanted that Elder McConkie had said he was wrong in saying that Brigham Young had taught that Adam was God.
Elden Watson argues Brigham used "Adam" as a name/title for both "Adam" and "God the Father," resulting in his being misunderstood.


c. 1980s
Bruce R. McConkie
"Among several small, quarrelling, cultist groups there are many similar heretical views.
A number of different organizations worship Adam as God."

In his article "How to Start a Cult," McConkie condemned members of groups who believed in Adam-God, stating that "THERE IS NO LIGHT IN THEM" Among several small, quarrelling, cultist groups there are many similar heretical views.
A number of different organizations worship Adam as God, ... the accepted cultist practice of: ... Worshiping Adam as God ...
Bruce R. McConkie said the doctrine of Adam-God "heretical" and a "cultic practice."


January 2002
Gordon B. Hinckley
"We don't speculate on that a lot.
Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve.
I don't know what he meant by that."

President Hinckley's response to non-LDS reporter Lawrence Wright's question about Adam-God theory was that he was "not going to worry about what [Brigham Young] said about those things."
Lawrence Wright said Gordon B. Hinckley said he did not know what Brigham Young meant in some of his Adam-God teachings.

Explanations from Church leaders about Brigham Young and the Adam-God Theory

Joseph F. Smith
Brigham Young was expressing his personal opinion.


Joseph Fielding Smith
Brigham Young never taught that Adam was God.

Joseph Fielding Smith explained that Brigham clearly taught that Adam was not God, and that people that who say otherwise misrepresent Brigham.
... Brigham Young did not confuse Adam with Jesus Christ or the Father whom he worshipped.
There is a volume published containing the saying of President Brigham Young in which his doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, and Adam's relationship to them is clearly declared in many pages.
But when men desire to malign and misrepresent such things count for nothing.
Joseph Fielding Smith writes that Brigham Young did not teach the Adam-God theory.


Mark E. Petersen
Brigham Young was misquoted.


Bruce R. McConkie
Brigham Young did teach Adam-God theory but was in error.


Elden Watson
Brigham Young used "Adam" as another name for God the Father. The Adam we're familiar with was a separate person.


Hugh W. Nibley
The relationship between Adam and God and the related theology is misunderstood.

In his article "Teachings of Brigham Young" in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (1992), Hugh W. Nibley wrote that Brigham Young recognized that many people were not prepared to understand the mysteries of God and godhood. "
I could tell you much more about this," he said, speaking of the role of ADAM, but checked himself, recognizing that the world would probably misinterpret his teaching (JD 1:51).
In his essay "Before Adam," Nibley taught that "one of our biggest stumbling blocks is not knowing how Adam relates to other beings, earthly and heavenly. That is the root of the Adam-God misunderstanding."

During a private car ride with Dan Peterson in the 1990s, Hugh Nibley is said to have affirmed his belief in Adam-God but would not answer any questions about it, stating only “I made a covenant with the Lord, that I wouldn't talk about it.”

Boyd J. Petersen reported a similar interaction with Nibley on an episode of the Mormon Matters podcast in 2013:
I asked him, ... "Why haven't you talked about that? The anti-Mormons get us on that all the time? And he said, ... "I don't talk about that." And so the implication to me ... that he probably believed in it.
He never confessed it, but he also said in several of his Brigham Young writings that he felt like Brigham Young was a better theologian than he's been given credit for.
So... my gut feeling is that he had very strong sympathies for that theology.
Daniel C. Peterson summarizes his perspectives on Adam-God theory and remembers an experience with Hugh W. Nibley.
Boyd J. Petersen reports his belief that Hugh Nibley had strong sympathies for the Adam-God theory, but said he wouldn't talk about it.


Gordon B. Hinckley
We do not know what Brigham Young meant.
Not going to worry about what [Brigham Young] said about those things.


Matthew B. Brown
Brigham Young did teach Adam-God theory but was in error.
The Adam–God Theory was being advocated there was never any consensus about it among the top two Priesthood quorums of the Church instead, after the death of Brigham in 1877 a consensus had finally been reached among those who presided over and administered the kingdom. And the consensus was against the Adam–God Theory.
Matthew B. Brown argues in article on FAIR Website that Brigham Young did teach Adam-God but was not dogmatic about it as he himself struggled with many aspects of it.


Brian C. Hales
The relationship between Adam and God and the related theology may not be fully understood.
Brian C. Hales noted in 2006:
It may be that the puzzle pieces given to us by President Brigham Young indeed fit the puzzle in some unobvious way.
Maybe the picture is three-dimensional and we just don’t know it yet.
Perhaps, the puzzle pieces are inadequately cut, suffering from inadequate detailing by the President himself. In the Doctrine and Covenants we are promised that “the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God, being quickened in him and by him” (D&C 88:49) and that at a future time “nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth” (D&C 121:28-29).

What are y’all gonna do when you find out he was taught this by Joseph?

It’s a true doctrine and wasn’t only taught by Brigham but many of his contemporaries as well. It’s scattered all over the Bible, apocryphal texts, and Pearl of Great Price.

mikewoodings wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 12:24 pm What are y’all gonna do when you find out he was taught this by Joseph?

It’s a true doctrine and wasn’t only taught by Brigham but many of his contemporaries as well. It’s scattered all over the Bible, apocryphal texts, and Pearl of Great Price.

That's the problem, it originated with Joseph in Nauvoo, same source as all other false doctrines.

Citing other apostate sources doesn't help your cause, the most correct book still condemns the believe and teaches an entirely different doctrine. Believe the Book of Mormon.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 12:41 pm

mikewoodings wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 12:24 pm What are y’all gonna do when you find out he was taught this by Joseph?

It’s a true doctrine and wasn’t only taught by Brigham but many of his contemporaries as well. It’s scattered all over the Bible, apocryphal texts, and Pearl of Great Price.

That's the problem, it originated with Joseph in Nauvoo, same source as all other false doctrines.

Citing other apostate sources doesn't help your cause, the most correct book still condemns the believe and teaches an entirely different doctrine. Believe the Book of Mormon.

Is there a specific part you think refutes it?

mikewoodings wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 9:30 pm

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 12:41 pm

mikewoodings wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 12:24 pm What are y’all gonna do when you find out he was taught this by Joseph?

It’s a true doctrine and wasn’t only taught by Brigham but many of his contemporaries as well. It’s scattered all over the Bible, apocryphal texts, and Pearl of Great Price.

That's the problem, it originated with Joseph in Nauvoo, same source as all other false doctrines.

Citing other apostate sources doesn't help your cause, the most correct book still condemns the believe and teaches an entirely different doctrine. Believe the Book of Mormon.

Is there a specific part you think refutes it?

A specific part of the BoM? Yes. The BoM throughout is clear that God was God from all eternity, meaning he started out as God. Sometimes I struggle to envision how that works, but nonetheless, that's what it says. It also teaches that Jesus is "the very Eternal Father", capital E and F, which is something we have disregarded.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 12th, 2023, 12:41 pm That's the problem, it originated with Joseph in Nauvoo, same source as all other false doctrines. ... Believe the Book of Mormon.

I don't take issue with Joseph Smith striving to make sense of Eternity. It is a worthy pursuit. At the same time, the Gospel we have and are commanded to live has rather specific expectations for mortality. I do not think the King Follett doctrine replaces the Plan of Salvation and we would err if we assumed it did. I personally find the simple Doctrine of Salvation taught in the Book of Mormon to be sufficient to give me Faith and Confidence in God. The King Follett and related discourses do not do this. They entertain. They tickle the mind. But if I cannot learn to keep the commandments God has given me for certain in this life to follow, and to receive the gifts God so generously provides in this life, what use are the dreams of Eternity?

Imagine being claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and the main facilitator of the Book of Mormon to the WORLD....and then claiming that Michael is the ONLY God we have anything to do with





Prophet Brigham Young (1801-1877):

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken – He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later!"
+++++++++

ADAM-GOD BELIEVERS.....

Imagine God talking to Satan like this:

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

Jesus = King

Revelation 12:7-9 - And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, (Read More...)

Jude 1:9 - Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Daniel 12:1 - And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

Revelation 12:7 - And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Daniel 10:21 - But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince

nightlight wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 3:59 pm Imagine God talking to Satan like this:

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

Nightlight, I love you mate… but for the last time…

This literally is what God said to Satan:

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

nightlight wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 3:59 pm Imagine being claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and the main facilitator of the Book of Mormon to the WORLD....and then claiming that Michael is the ONLY God we have anything to do with

Brigham was just quoting this:

Hebrews 4
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

Shawn Henry wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 1:45 pm
The BoM throughout is clear that God was God from all eternity, meaning he started out as God.

Please show a link to these verses that are so clear. I mean they didn't even discuss premortal life for humans or anything before creation, let along from "ALL ETERNITY". would be interesting to see these verses, I guess I have an older version?

nightlight wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 3:59 pm Imagine being claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and the main facilitator of the Book of Mormon to the WORLD....and then claiming that Michael is the ONLY God we have anything to do with

I have imagined it every day since June 28th, this year! Yet it is truth. But, as mentioned above, it doesn't matter to most people because they choose a more abstract and fluid understanding of "the Father".

And Joseph didn't say it was the ONLY god. He is our god, but he did mention the importance of the Elohim and the necessity to comprehend their are other gods, without such knowledge, you can hardly comprehend our god....... and to know god is, after all, eternal life according to Jesus.

Luke wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 4:25 pm

nightlight wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 3:59 pm Imagine God talking to Satan like this:

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

Nightlight, I love you mate… but for the last time…

This literally is what God said to Satan:

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

My dude

This is the part I'm referring to:

"when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, DURST NOT BRING AGAINST HIM a railing accusation,"

Not God talking to Satan like that . Not God talking

And it's the angel of the Lord speaking on behalf of the Lord

3 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.

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

3 Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel.

4 And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

5 And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord stood by.

6 And the angel of the Lord protested unto Joshua, saying,

7 Thus saith the Lord of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by.

8 Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the Branch.

9 For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua; upon one stone shall be seven eyes: behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

10 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall ye call every man his neighbour under the vine and under the fig tree.

TheDuke wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 6:08 pm

nightlight wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 3:59 pm Imagine being claiming to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, and the main facilitator of the Book of Mormon to the WORLD....and then claiming that Michael is the ONLY God we have anything to do with

I have imagined it every day since June 28th, this year! Yet it is truth. But, as mentioned above, it doesn't matter to most people because they choose a more abstract and fluid understanding of "the Father".

And Joseph didn't say it was the ONLY god. He is our god, but he did mention the importance of the Elohim and the necessity to comprehend their are other gods, without such knowledge, you can hardly comprehend our god....... and to know god is, after all, eternal life according to Jesus.

If Jesus isn't your God, you've nothing to do with the Father

nightlight wrote: ↑December 14th, 2023, 7:00 pm If Jesus isn't your God, you've nothing to do with the Father

Where did you get that from? Can you not follow a logic trail but jump in to throw stones?

The comment on Jesus being worshipped as god, goes back to a discussion of Jesus being "worshipped as god" in OT times. he was not. Jehovah was worshipped and Jesus said that was his father and not to worship him or even call him "good". I clearly stated that after the atonement Jesus said we should worship him and he became a Jehovah as well. It has nothing to do with not worshipping Jesus today.

Perhaps a more meticulous rereading (or first reading) of the original posts would help you catch up.

It is offensive for you to claim I said I didn't worship Jesus. I mean I have clearly talked of worshipping the father, the son, and the Holy Ghost. The questions which are being discussed are for several if they are all one being, as several have posited here. Also, if Jesus was Jehovah or not in OT times. Also, if the Father is the same being as Adam or Michael. The discussion of worshipping Jesus as Jehovah was the topic referencing comments in the BoM text from before his visitation.

Are you keeping up now sir?

The discussion focus is on Adam/Michael/the Father/Elohim as names, titles and personalities. In OT times there was only one god being worshipped (as the most high anyway) and that was Jehovah. There was only the concept of father and son because a messiah was to be born of a virgin by the Father and he was to be the son. There was no concept of premortal anything in those days, or in the BoM even after Jesus visits. So, the concepts of eternal father and son are new as the concept of eternal is new, for all but Jehovah who always existed. Until Joseph translated Abraham there was no concept of humans have premortal spirits, in Christianity that is. Keeping up?

So, if you wish to now chime in on the worshipping of Jesus, it is as a pre-mortal being before his ministry. And it isn't there unless you make the leap Jesus is Jehovah. then you have to discount his own words in Jerusalem! And all words about him before that in OT and in BoM do not claim to worship him. Bro J shows he existed, but he wasn't being worshipped, he showed up, like an angel would have but never claimed to be Jehovah. BTW we don't know who worshipped who before Moses as Abraham's god was unnamed and by the time we get the 1800's translation of the BoM, we have the names of Jesus, Mary and the title of Christ, etc... all being used but being English terms with Greek monikers.