Coats of Skin

Yet another interesting difference between Mormonism and evangelical Christianity has caught my attention recently. The July 2009 issue of the Ensign magazine includes an article about modesty written by Silvia Allred, First Counselor in the Relief Society General Presidency. As Ms. Allred discusses the principle of, and blessings associated with modesty, she also explains the doctrine behind the principle. She writes,

“From the beginning, the Lord has asked His children to cover their bodies. After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, their eyes were opened and they became aware that they were naked. Adam and Eve tried to cover themselves with simple aprons made of fig leaves. But the aprons were not enough, so the Lord made them more modest coats of skins. (See Genesis 3:7, 21)

“God had a higher standard then, just as He does now” (Modesty, A Timeless Principle for All, Ensign, 7/09, page 29).

I don’t disagree that God has a higher standard than His creatures, and I don’t dispute the virtue of modesty. But I can’t help feeling a bit stunned over Ms. Allred’s portrayal of God’s provision (coats of skin) for Adam and Eve as a more modest replacement for their immodest clothing.

I suppose this is a logical outcome from the position Mormonism takes regarding Adam and Eve’s disobedience in the Garden. Because the LDS doctrine is that Adam and Eve did not sin when they ate the forbidden fruit but instead made the right choice between two conflicting commandments (see Joseph F. Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:114-115), why else then, other than for modesty’s sake, would they feel compelled to cover their nakedness?

In Christianity, however, Adam and Eve did sin when they ate the forbidden fruit. Their sin resulted in fear and great shame. Matthew Henry wrote:

“…the eyes of their consciences were opened, their hearts smote them for what they had done. Now, when it was too late, they saw the folly of eating the forbidden fruit. They saw the happiness they had fallen from, and the misery they had fallen into. They saw a loving God provoked, his grace and favor forfeited…they were shamed, for ever shamed, before God and angels. They saw themselves disrobed of all their ornaments and ensigns of honor, degraded from their dignity and disgraced in the highest degree… Fear seized them immediately… They hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God” (Matthew Henry, A Commentary of the Whole Bible, Genesis 3:6-8).

Where before eating the forbidden fruit Adam and Eve delighted in the presence of God, now they hid in fear and shame. They tried to cover their nakedness — their sin — by making themselves clothing. John Piper explains,

“The essence of the Fall and the essence of our depraved heart and of all its sins is the desire not to be dependent on God. And the other side of the same coin is simply the desire to substitute ourselves for God and to get the flickering glory and the puny sense of power that comes from self-reliance, self-confidence, and self-determination…

“‘The eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together’ (Genesis 3:7). Rebellion against God in the human heart is so contrary to the way man is designed to be, that he must constantly put on airs, clothes, make-up, poses to try to convince himself that he is not really a naked, helpless child…” (John Piper, The Emergence of Sin and Misery).

Adam’s and Eve’s fig leaf clothing was indeed inadequate, but not because it was too skimpy. They had become covenant breakers. Their effort to cover their sin was ineffective because they were trying to hide it rather than confess it and seek God’s solution to their shame. But God is merciful.

“…he clothed Adam and Eve with animal skins. This was not only a witness to the glory we lost and a confession that we are not what we should be, but it is also a testimony that God himself would one day make us what we should be. God rejected their own self-clothing. Then he did it himself. He showed mercy with superior clothing.

“Together with the other hopeful signs in the context (like the defeat of the serpent in Genesis 3:15), God’s mercy points to the day when he will solve the problem of our shame decisively and permanently. He will do it with the blood of his own Son (as there apparently was blood shed in the killing of the animals of the skins). And he will do it with the clothing of righteousness and the radiance of his glory (Galatians 3:27; Philippians 3:21)” (John Piper, The Rebellion of Nudity and the Meaning of Clothing).

God demonstrated His own love toward Adam and Eve, and to all of humanity. While they (we) were yet sinners, a sacrifice was made for them (us) to reconcile us to God (Romans 5:8-10).

What a rich passage of scripture God has provided in Genesis 3! It’s not about God’s desire for us to dress modestly; it’s about His awesome mercy and grace. In the Garden of Eden God extended loving grace to the undeserving. He continues evermore to show grace that is love for the guilty.

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Christianity, The Fall and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Coats of Skin

  1. Glad to have your posts back, Sharon. I’m afraid I turn MC into a tempest by myself. 🙂

    Comments closed for the weekend. Moderators are taking a few days off. And plus, everyone needs to cool down after a provocative and heated week.

  2. Comments are back open, for now just for this thread. Keep them relevant and civil.

  3. gundeck says:

    Irenaeus comments on Genesis 3:8

    “Now the commandment was given to man by the Word. For Adam, it is said, “heard the voice of the Lord God.” Rightly then does His Word say to man, “Thy sins are forgiven thee”; He, the same against whom we had sinned in the beginning, grants forgiveness of sins in the end.”

  4. falcon says:

    From my perspective, what we are dealing with here is the doctrine of salvation. As always, I must remind our readers that when having a discussion like this with Mormons, we are talking to folks who have a religion that isn’t even a distant cousin to Christianity. In fact, we my as well be talking to Hindus. As far as Mormonisms claim to be real first century Christianity, we know that this is a fantasy that has no foundation in fact. It can’t be supported by either the Bible or the historical record. In Mormonism we are dealing with a program of “continuous revelation” that can render past revelations null and void and conveniently ignore embarrassing past revelations and practices.
    Salvation in Mormonism is a multitiered program where by basic salvation is universal and no one gets left out. The concept of imputed sin or guilt based on the actions of Adam and Eve is therefore not a part of the Mormon program. However the Bible tells us in First Corinthians 15:22 “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” Paul is not talking about physical death here but spiritual death. Also in Romans 5:12 we read, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” Again in Romans 5:18 “Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life”.
    Augustine was one of the greatest of the early church fathers. He taught that, because of the unity of the human race in Adam, his sin therefore is imputed to his posterity. Thus, corrupted nature begets corrupted nature. This view is the only position which is amply supported by the Scriptures.

  5. HankSaint says:

    Good to see you keeping up to date by reading Ensign. Eventually you might find the light and switch over to the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Having the Pearl of Great Price revealed to us now brings clarity to the plan of Salvation as we once knew it in the Preexistence. You remember where we were all brother and sisters and Jesus Christ being our oldest Brother. Lucifer was there also until he rebelled and was cast out. Then there was Michael, (ADAM) the first to be chosen to come down to this beautiful earth and choose as his wife EVE, the Mother of all creation. A plan where agency was introduced into the world as ADAM and EVE’s eyes were opened when they chose to eat of the fruit of Knowledge. Thanks to them, we now have the blessing of the fulness of the Gospel that was first introduced to us in our spiritual state, or preexistence.

    Regards, Richard.

  6. falcon says:

    It’s a funny deal but in searching through the Bible I can’t find any reference to Michael being Adam. Here is another fun fact our readers should be aware of; in Mormonism scriptural references aren’t all that important. It’s all about revelation. Brigham Young had it revealed to him that Adam was really God (see the Mormon doctrine of Adam-God). This is one of those embarrassing inconvenient revelations by a Mormon prophet that Mormons would like to hide under a rock.
    Mormonism is a religion that makes it up as it goes along and calls it revelation, so what we will get on this thread is unending speculation from Mormons that has no basis in reality. The Bible is a real problem for Mormons since Mormonism can’t be found in it and that would include the Mormon teachings on salvation.
    “Discourse by Pres. BY Oct 8th 1854” I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and Priesthood; and obeyed his Master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal Life. …Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve. …I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.
    In June 1916 an official statement on The Father and the Son which was accepted by the First Presidency and the Twelve as the position of the church on the Godhead. In essence Adam/Michael as God, the Father of our spirits and Father of Jesus Christ as taught by BY was replaced by Elohim as God and Father. So part of BY teaching expressed in his April 1852 discourse to priesthood members is rejected and part is accepted. At the time when BY preached he was considered inspired. The conference minutes stated that the Holy Ghost rested upon BY at the time.
    Ya gotta love it!

  7. shematwater says:

    As to the whole original Article, I have to say that alot of what is said (especially what is given in the quoted sections) is not spoken of in the Bible, but is, as many people accuse the LDS, read into the Text and not Out of the Text.

    I will agree that Adam and Eve felt sorrow over their actions as first, but this is not the reason they hid. After all, when God called to Adam he willingly presented himself. No, they hid for the reason he says, that they knew they were naked and did not want God to see them so immodest.

    But, let us look at a few other scriptures, like the ones Falcon brings up.
    1 Corinthians 15: 22 This is talkiong about physical death. The entire chapter is discussing the resurrection of the Dead, and in verse 21 he says “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.” Thus, by Adam all men will suffer the Physical Death, and by Christ all men will receive the Resurrection of the Dead.
    As to Romans 5, I would simply point out that nowhere does it say that eating the Fruit was a sin in this chapter. It simply says that the result of Adam’s actions was that sin entered the world, not that his action was a sin.

  8. shematwater says:

    Now, a brief word in Adam’s defense. In 1 Timothy 2: 14 we read that Adam was not deceived, and thus the blame of eating the fruit rested on Eve.
    What does this tell us? Adam did eat of the fruit, but he was not deceived. Thus, he knew what he was doing. Now, I know people wil accuse me of reading into the text, but this is truly how I see things.
    Adam Loved Eve, loved her with all his heart. He also loved God, and simply would not disobey him. He was given two commands, to be fruitful, and to not eat of the forbidden fruit, and he would do his best to obey both.
    Then, one day Eve comes and tells him that she has eaten of the fruit. What is he going to do? He knows that she cannot remain in the Garden, for God has told them this. So he is faced with a dilema.
    Does he obey the command not to eat of the fruit? If he does he will be separated from Eve forever, and then how could he obey the first command to be fruitful (not to mention the loneliness of being without the woman he loves). His other option is to eat of the fruit, be banished with Eve, and thus have the opportunity to fulfill the first command.

    Well, we know which one he chose, and when he saw his nakedness he was ashamed and he and Eve attempted to be modest, hiding their nakedness from God. But, when God came calling Adam did not hesitate to step forward and take the responsibility for his actions. (While it is not in the Text, I think he was in a way trying to plead for Eve before she came out to face God.)

    When we take into account all the references made concerning Adam and Eve, and consider the circumstances surrounding the Fall, whether you think if a good thing or not, this is the personality of Adam that is presented.

  9. HankSaint says:

    “Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the Spirit of God”.
    Joseph Smith

    Regards, Richard.

  10. shematwater says:


    The discourse you speak of on October 8, 1854, is not found in the Journal of Discourses.

    Please provide the reference as to where you found the quote so that it can be verified.

    As to what is found in the Journal of Discourses, not once did Brigham Young refer to Adam as being any other than the Father of the human race on this Earth, and in eternities the God over this under, under Christ. He was never refered to as the Father of Spirits.

    As to what is found in the Bible, this is not proof that it is not true, as the Bible is far form containing all truth, which is stated by John in the End of his Gospel, and the main reason that we accept other scriptures.

  11. gundeck says:


    Adam hid because he was “afraid”. Calvin points out “Also, that not his nakedness, but the turpitude of the vice by which he had defiled himself, was the cause of fear; and certainly he was guilty of intolerable impiety against God in seeking the origin of evil in nature. Not that he would accuse God in express terms; but deploring his own misery, and dissembling the fact that he was himself the author of it, he malignantly transfers to God the charge which he ought to have brought against himself.”

    No Adam does not “step forward and take the responsibility for his actions” he tries to shift the blame to Eve for giving him the fruit. He lays to blame at God for giving Eve to him in the first place (Gen 3:12).

  12. Rick B says:

    Hank Said

    Then there was Michael, (ADAM) the first to be chosen to come down to this beautiful earth and choose as his wife EVE, the Mother of all creation.

    This is no where in the Bible. The Bible says God created Adam from the dust of the earth, not Adam choose earth. Then the Bible teaches Eve was created from Man, she was the Only women, not Adam Choose her from among many.

    Shem said

    and when he saw his nakedness he was ashamed and he and Eve attempted to be modest, hiding their nakedness from God. But, when God came calling Adam did not hesitate to step forward and take the responsibility for his actions.

    At least your honest in saying this is not in the text, But still God created them naked and saw them that way until and after the fall, so they were not hiding in hopes of being modest.

    Then Adam did not step forward and take responsibility for his actions. Go back and read Again, Adam blamed Eve, Eve blamed Satan, How is blaming Eve taking full responsibility for his actions? Rick b

  13. Kevin says:

    Interesting topic, the issue of modesty, at least thats the potion I would like to address. I remember during a few lessons, talks, or side conversations, the issue of modesty arising. I always thought it was interesting how the Mormon culture puts the responsiblity square on the shoulders of the women to “be modest”. The converstaions revolved around what women should and shouldn’t wear, how women should act, makeup, earrings, ect. Never once did I hear a man talk about his responisblity in controlling his raging hormones. Really, if an LDS man cannot bare the sight of a womans shoulder unclothed without having impure thoughts, well that man has some serious issues.

    I like it when I hear a man say, “When I see a women who is dressed immodesty, I sing my favorite hymn in my head”. Supposedly to drown out the impure thoughts running through his sexually repressed head.

    I found the Mormon men to be way more immodest then the women, only in a different context. The men like to show off their spiritual prowess anytime they have a chance to quote scripture (just to contradict), the stake president brags about how he pressures his employees into going to Mormon services. Also just look at the value of the LDS presidents “Humble” living quarters, in 1998 it was valued at $2 million, very modest indeed.

  14. Kevin says:

    Shematwater, I am a little confused, where exactly does Falcon state that the quote in question is from Journal of Discourse?

    Falcon said,
    “Discourse by Pres. BY Oct 8th 1854″

    I beleive he quoted the source correctly. I’ll add some more information so you can read the text for yourself.
    This “Discourse by Pres. Brigham Young Oct 8th 1854” (in LDS archives) has been published in an edited version. A copy is in The Essential Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 86-103 Page 96 specifically.

  15. setfree says:

    If you:

    1- Don’t understand that the Bible works together as a whole unit, to describe for us our Creator and His plan if redemption for us,

    2- Go to the Bible expecting to get yet another commandment from it


    3- Take the Bible piecewise (an extention of #1),

    then you could come up with something like Ms. Allred and many Mormons do.

    If #2 weren’t true, you may come up with the idea that the Garden of Eden was a cold place, and Adam and Eve just needed Warmer clothes. Or, that Adam and Eve were worried about killing animals, or didn’t like to, so God had to do it.

    But there is a red thread that goes all the way from the Beginning, to Revelation. A red thread of Jesus, and His atonement for our sins.

    By the way, Shem, God commanded them to be fruitful and multiply before they “transgressed”. They could, oh yes, they definitely could have, had sex in the Garden.

    And the naked thing? God created us that way. I don’t suspect we’ll worry about clothes in heaven. 😉

  16. shematwater says:

    To all those commenting, I have read the story in Genesis, and find it to mean exactly what I have said. Let us read it again.
    Genesis Chapter 3
    verses 7-8: “And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.”
    Now, where does it say they hid themselves for shame of eating the fruit? It doesn’t. It says they saw they were naked, tried to make themselves modest, and thus hid from the Lord. I have added nothing that is not there in the text. The claim other motives for their action that that which is stated is adding to the text, for there is no proof of it.

  17. shematwater says:


    Verses 9-12 “And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.”
    Again, Adam confirms his motives to be one of modesty. He was afraid, not because he had eaten the fruit, but because he was naked.
    As to him coming without hesitation, it seems that there was little time between the Father calling and him responding. It does not mention that he tried to avoid God once he was called forth. He may have hid hoping God would not want to see him, but when God called he came forth.
    As to passing the Blame, I do not see it in these verse. He is asked if he ate the fruit, and he answers honestly, giving his reason for eating the fruit. This is in perfect harmony with what I said before. In this verse he is simply explaining the God that he made the choice to eat because Eve gave him to eat. He is not passing the blame, but explaining the circumstances.

    This taken with the reference in 1 Timothy I gave above shows what I have said. He was not deceived, meaning that he understood what he was doing. When God called to him he came forward, and we have no indication from the Bible that it was done hesitantly. When asked what happened he explained the circumstances, fully confessing what he had done.

    The text fully supports what I said concerning the acts and motivations of Adam, and I really don’t care how many Earthly scholars disagree.

  18. Regarding the quote provided by Falcon, I was able to find it in The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Volume 3, 1852-1854 compiled by Fred C. Collier. The General Conference discourse begins on page 343 of Collier’s book. The portions quoted above are found on pages 357, 360 and 363. Falcon’s quote was missing an ellipsis; I have edited his comment above to include it.

  19. shematwater says:

    Lastly, Adam and Eve were created naked, and all children come into this world naked. However, if that is how we were supposed to live God would not have given Adam and Eve coats of skins.

    In heaven we will wear clothing. It will not be of the same style and form that we wear now, but we will have it. Adam and Eve were not in sin being naked for the same reason they did not sin in eating the fruit. They had no understanding taht being naked was wrong. Once they understand Good from Evil their first thought was to be modest, which is a testiment that modisty is of God and will be part of Eternity.

    Now, as to Setfree’s statement that Adam and Eve could have sex in the Garden, I never denied this, neither has any leader of the the Church. However, just because they could ahve sex does not guaruntee that they could have children.
    Besides this, in my previous posts on this thread I never once mentioned the ability to have children came after the Fall, only that if Eve was kicked out and Adam wasn’t than neither could have children for they would have been separated from each other. Now, you can believe that God would have created a new wife for Adam, but there is no actual Biblical support for that, thus what I said still holds by the Biblical text.

    (Oh, and one question: If Adam didn’t eat of the Fruit and had children while in the Garden, how long do you think it would have been until one of them ate of it?)

  20. falcon says:

    Bruce McConkie, the guy that the big boys used to go to when they wanted Mormon doctrine explained to them, said in a letter to BYU professor Eugene England:
    In (a)….”devotional speech I said, ‘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,’ I, of course, indicated the utter absurdity of this doctrine and said it was totally false.”
    Continuing to do the Mormon hoop jump and pretzel twist: “Since then I have received violent reactions from Ogden Draut and other cultists in which the have expounded upon the views of BY and others of the early Brethren relative to Adam. They have plain and clear quotations saying all of the things about Adam which I say are false. The quotations are in our literature and form the basis of a worship system followed by many of the cultists who have been excommunicated from the Church. I also received, of course, your material in which you quote from BY and others of the early Brethren saying that God is progressing in knowledge.”
    Bruce continues:
    “….People who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: BY erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but BY also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions” Whoa double back flip with a round off for old Bruce.
    “And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.”
    You say what Bruce? If current Mormons teach this stuff they are lost, damned for eternity but BY gets a pass for something he taught and he’s exalted. I love Mormon logic. Anything can work.

  21. liv4jc says:

    Shem, how can you say that Adam did not sin just because he was not deceived? As recorded in the Bible it is exactly because he was not deceived that he sinned. In Genesis 2:16-17

    ”And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”

    So we see that Adam was given this commandment directly by God. The next verse begins the creation of Eve from Adam. We know from Genesis 3:2-3 that Eve is aware of the commandment.

    Beginning in chapter 3 we find the serpent deceiving Eve. What is the enticement? Satan proposes that God has lied to Adam and Eve by telling them that if they eat of the fruit they will die. Satan’s proposal is that they will not die, but that God is deceiving them so that they will not become like Him, knowing good from evil. In Genesis 3:6 we read

    “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

    We read further that because their eyes are opened they hide from God as He is walking in the garden. God knows that Adam and Eve have eaten of the tree because they had realized that they were naked. Now, is being naked before your wife a sin? No, because they were naked before the fall when they were sinless. Is modesty (they hid their nakedness from God) a sin? No. They hid from God because they were afraid (Genesis 3:10) because they had sinned by eating of the tree.

    Was Adam lying by saying that hid because he was naked? Possibly. We know that he immediately blames his wife for giving him the fruit to eat even though he knew better. Why not blame his hiding on his nakedness, instead of his fear of God?

  22. falcon says:

    To finish up with cousin Brucie:
    “Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, BY also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that BY contradicted BY, and the issue becomes one of which BY we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.”
    Ladies and gentlemen and all of you who are questioning Mormonism, do you get it? Who would trust this bunch to tell you who God is? It is bizarre beyond belief. Who you going to trust BY or Cousin Brucie. BY was a prophet, right? Oh I keep forgetting, in Mormonism we have a rotating Lazy Susan of doctrinal beliefs. Just hold on to your testimony and understand there’s just so much we don’t know and it will all be proven correct in the end. Problem is, what do you do with the contradicting prophetic proclamations on basic doctrines? I guess you can do a Scarlett O’Hara and keep thinking happy thoughts because tomorrow’s another day.

  23. liv4jc says:

    Now Shem, as to your assertion that it was never taught that Adam was the father of our spirits, this is not true. I have done a lot of reading over the weekend and like I told you on another thread, it is very clearly stated that Adam is the father of our spirits. He is also the father of Jesus Christ. Due to limited posting space I will only post the pertinent passages. The JoD is available online so you can read the passages in context yourself. In JoD volume 1 Pages 50-51 from April 9, 1852 we have BY preaching a sermon about who it was who had sex with the Virgin Mary. I assure you that BY did not believe that person to be Elohim, but none other than our Father in Heaven, Adam:

    The question has been, and is often asked who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary… I will tell you how it is. 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. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal. 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 the 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 know it sooner or later…(talks about how Adam formed the earth, and how their bodies became mortal from eating the fruit, therefore they had mortal offspring)…When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father?

  24. liv4jc says:

    (cont)…He is the first of the human family;and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in Heaven…(describes how the educated world is ignorant of these things)…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….What a learned idea! 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. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, and treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”

    I have much more, and many supporting documents that prove that the early LDS church believed that Adam is our God, the father of our spirits, and the father of the spirit Jehovah, and the human(Jesus Christ).

    What I have noticed from reading the JoD, Millenial Star, Conference Reports, etc. is that LDS preachers don’t use scripture. They allude to scripture, hardly ever giving citations. They claim to rely on the Holy Ghost to speak through them and what we end up with is nothing more than the imaginations of man, and severely contradictory theology.

    BY first says that Adam is Michael, the Ancient of Days, and is our god, our Father in Heaven, the one who begat all of the spirits that ever were (including Jehovah). Later he says that Eloheim, Yahova, and Michael represent the deity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So is Michael (Adam) god, or is he the Holy Ghost? And if he is the Holy Ghost, then the Holy Ghost truly is the one who impregnated Mary. But then again that can’t be true because BY said it was not the Holy Ghost. Where does Eloheim fit in? Is he the father of the spirit being Michael, who was exalted on another planet before becoming the first Adam on our earth?

  25. gundeck says:


    I don’t want to pile on you but there are some things to think about when we are looking at 1 Tim 2:14. First if Adam was not deceived at all then his sin of eating the forbidden fruit was a willful act of rebellion against God. If he understood completely that Eve had sinned against God and then participated in this rebellion he is all the more accountable.

    Second 1 Tim 2:13, 14 in context is the biblical explanation of the instructions of 1 Tim 2:11, 12 concerning woman exercising authority in the Church. Some commentators suggest that while Eve was deceives by the serpent Adam was deceived by Eve explaining the instructions in 1 Tim 2:11, 12.

    Third I understand your assumption that if Adam had not eaten the fruit he would have been separated from Eve and would have failed to “Be fruitful and multiply…” but this is nowhere taught in Scripture. This also assumes that God would not have rewarded Adam for his righteousness had he refused to participate in sin with Eve and runs counter to the story of creation where God ensures that all was prepared before he creates Adam. Are we to believe that God would not have made a way for Adam if he had followed the command of God? Are we to assume the same position as Mormons have created for Adam and pick and choose what commandments to follow trusting our judgment as to what is best and ignoring God?

    God did not create a catch 22 situation for Adam, the prophet Hosea says that Adam dealt faithlessly with God (Hosea 6:7) not the other way around.

  26. setfree says:

    I reread what HankSaint/Richard said above, just to make sure.

    It sounds to me like he is glad to have Joseph Smith, so that he doesn’t have to worry about the whole Bible being about Jesus and the Atonement.

    Would I be re-phrasing that correctly, Richard?

    I mean, after all, it’s your founding prophet that took the salvation message that Sharon wrote about, right OUT of the garden of Eve story, and put IN a story where Lucifer is the good guy, for tempting Eve in such a way as that now people can progress to godhood.

    If you haven’t considered that this is what you believe, at least now consider that this is what it sounds like you believe, to an observer.

  27. falcon says:

    setfree and all others,
    Let me reiterate what I said earlier and that is that Mormonism is not Christianity. It’s not even an off-shoot of Christianity. So in regards to what any of our Mormon posters believe, it’s irrelevant to the Bible or the basic tenants of the Christian faith. These folks can believe anything because they prayed about it, got a positive feeling which in their minds means that God confirmed it and that’s the end of the story. The doctrine can change fifty times a day and it makes no difference to the truly hardcore believers because they get confirming feelings that all is well.
    One very positive outcome of this discussion however, is that those who are questioning Mormonism and come here for answers will, in the writings of the Mormon posters, find a confusion of grand proportion. When we have a guy like BY, the megaMormon prophet who led the Mormon church post JS, making doctrine that Adam was really the Mormon god and is later repudiated by the Mormon church, it sets ones mind to thinking “is any of this true?”. Add to that that polygamy was once necessary for minigod exaltation, then it wasn’t, and that blacks couldn’t be in the priesthood, then they could, that the sacred temple rituals, unchangeable and truly wonderful as practiced by early Mormons were significantly changed in 1991 and that the BoM has been changed countless times including significant doctrine and it all adds up pretty quickly that this is a sham of major proportions.
    Somewhat instructive is that there are Mormon sects that don’t have to spend their time defending any of this because they more accurately reflect early Mormon thought before JS went nuts. For the Mormon questioners go checkout the websites (google search will do it) of the Community of Christ and the Church of Christ Temple Lot. It might give you a little different perspective from the SLC LDS and their kissing cousins the FLDS.

  28. setfree says:

    Romans 5 sure doesn’t make what Adam (& Eve) did look like a good thing.

    Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

    Adam brought death and sin on all of us.

    Romans 5:13,14 For until the law, sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who (Adam) is the figure of him (Jesus) that was to come.

    What Adam did in the Garden set the stage for what Christ would come to do.

    Romans 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one (Adam), many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

    Adam offended. Christ brought the grace.

    Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s (Adam’s) b>disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one (Jesus)shall many be made righteous.

    (I’m skipping through the chapter to save space, but YOU shouldn’t. It’s great reading).

    Is any credit being give to Adam here? Only negative “credit”.

    Christ came to fix the problem of man’s separation from God. Adam broke the program, Christ fixed it.

    How can you get “to godhood” from the Romans 5 explanation????

    You can’t.

    We know that God instituted the spotless animal sacrifice when He put together the priest/temple program in Moses/Aaron’s day. Why? To show Jesus.

    He had Abraham sacrifice Isaac (though He didn’t let Him go through with it). Why? To show Jesus.

    It’s easy to come to the conclusion that the animal sacrifice in the Garden was for the same reason, especially since it came RIGHT AFTER Adam and Eve sinned.

    But it’s quite hard to get ‘modesty’ out of all of those verses. “Modesty” is just not the point. Jesus… IS!

  29. bfwjr says:

    Attention all TBM’s
    One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.
    Joseph Smith, Jr.

    Hmmmmm… as usual,setfree,falcon,liv4jc,Kevin and others are dishing out a lot of truth.

  30. SteveRedinger says:

    My garments are now the Blood of Jesus Christ.

    The skins given to Adam and Eve were a similitude being cut from the skins of a living creature, sacrificed as our coverings.

    Mormons are not the only sect to wear ‘garments’.

    I have heard of certain African sects who dress their newly baptized in new garments.

    As long as they are not meant to replace the Atonement of Christ they are OK. But as I recall one has to be proved worthy by good works in order to be allowed to initially wear LDS temple garments. But it has been so long since I was a Mormon, I do not think even holding on to the memory of it is worth while.

  31. Mike R says:


    From my perspective, LDS don’t seem to have a
    clear concept of Adam and Eve’s sin.It seems to
    be toned down.It’s like today when someone says
    of adultery that it’s a “fling” etc
    Pres.Marion G. Romney once said,

    ” I do not look upon Adam’s action as a sin….
    He chose to do that which had to be done to
    further the purposes of God.” [ Search These
    Commandments,lesson 33,p.239 ]

    We read in the Bible a clear statement that
    appears to contradict Pres. Romney:

    “Therefore, as by one man SIN entered the world,
    and death by SIN….” [Rom 5:12 ]

    Also, as concerning the person of Adam, and LDS
    refering to him as a god, and more specifically
    how Brigham Young refered to him as “our” God.
    In my study of the so-called “Adam-god” doctrine
    of Brigham Young, I find that by calling Adam his
    God, Pres. Young righly placed himself into the
    category of false teacher.
    It’s important to note that Brigham at times did
    state what could be called LDS orthodox teaching
    concerning Adam and Elhoim. Yet, at other times
    he said things quite differently.Apostle Mckonkie
    mentioned this conundrum.There are instances
    where Brigham even seemed frustrated that all
    the saints didn’t receive his “truth”,telling
    them to put this teaching aside until they could
    understand it etc. All said, it is clear that
    he taught that Jesus was not begotten by the
    Holy Ghost;and that Adam’s body was not created
    from the dust of THIS earth.And yes, he did teach
    that Adam begot our spirits.

    What does the Bible(and Book of Mormon?) say
    about those who would teach thus? See 2Peter

  32. Kevin says:

    bfwjr, thanks for the nod.

    In response I would like to quote Mr. Boyd K. Packard, “not all that is true is useful”

    Which is contridictory to the premise of “the one true church” So I would submit, that there is no usefulness to the LDS organization.

    “(Oh, and one question: If Adam didn’t eat of the Fruit and had children while in the Garden, how long do you think it would have been until one of them ate of it?)”

    What is the point of this question? I don’t see the relevance of a woulda, coulda, shoulda, type situation.

  33. Ralph says:

    Many things in the Bible have more than one meaning, or can be read differently to different people. Because of this, is there any reason why both views presented here be correct?

    You know the Ev view so I will focus on the LDS view presented above about modesty. We have Adam and Eve who were innocent like children here before partaking of the fruit. Up until this point in time they were naked in front of each other and God. After partaking of the fruit they realized they were naked and ashamed and tried to clothe themselves. When God came they hid because they were naked.

    One question asked was why use their being naked as an excuse to hide from God when they used to walk around in front of Him like that. Those of you who have children will see an answer to this question. Children have no shame and will walk around naked in front of their parents and siblings quite easily. When they start reaching a certain age and notice changes in their body they usually become a little more embarrassed and start covering up. Even in front of their same sex siblings. This is the point that Adam and Eve were at. They became self conscious about their bodies.

    Now I agree with some comments made about there being nothing wrong with being naked. Even the Bible teaches as much indirectly. It’s what goes through ones’ mind that is wrong.


    Your comments about the LDS church focusing on women and their modesty is not true from my experience. In my ward we teach that men need to wear modest clothing (especially no budgie smugglers) and not to go round without a shirt on. Also the church in general teaches that we need to cover our garments. Now if you remember what they are like, this means that men need to wear sleeved shirts as well as knee length shorts. I also remember being taught and teaching about controlling our thoughts and actions in regards to young women in the young mens’ programme. So its not just the women that are focused on.

  34. setfree says:

    this: “It’s what goes through ones’ mind that is wrong.”
    is absolutely Jesus-Biblical. Nice job!

  35. Kevin says:

    Ralph, I have come to understand that when an Post Mormon makes a cultural observation you are quick to say, “thats not my experience” and how can we object your experiences, after all you are in another country; is it Australia?

    Ralph, you would have a rude awakening if you were it visit SLC, or a U.S. Ward. I had the opportunity to visit some 30 wards in 4 stakes across 4 states, and it was all the same regarding modesty.

    Take Gordan for instance, in 2001 (Shortly after the WTC attacks) during General Conference, he wanted to makes sure woman understood how many earrings that they could wear, wow, how important to salvation is that?.

    I would agree with you if you are suggesting that the leadership, on occasion, talk about modesty in a general sense. So there is a big disconnect between rank and file members and leadership.

    But wait, theres more. Packard said(Lesson 19: Teaching Modesty and Virtue in the Home,” Duties and Blessings of the Priesthood: Basic Manual for Priesthood Holders, Part A, 139) ““One contributing factor to immodesty and a breakdown of moral values is the modern dress. I am sure that the immodest clothes that are worn by some of our young women, and their mothers, contribute directly and indirectly to the immorality of this age. Even fathers sometimes encourage it. I wonder if our young sisters realize the temptation they are flaunting before young men when they leave their bodies partly uncovered. … ”

    WTF, it’s all the womens fault, LDS men have no responsibility for controlling their own “urges”? How sexually repressed do you have to be before a naked shoulder or thigh gets your turned on? What message is that sending to the girls? It’s not wonder women in the LDS church have a higher eating disorder rate; they are bombarded with physical appearance issues.

  36. Kevin says:

    Quote, “Children have no shame and will walk around naked in front of their parents and siblings quite easily. When they start reaching a certain age and notice changes in their body they usually become a little more embarrassed and start covering up. Even in front of their same sex siblings”

    What a classic logical fallacy (LF), actually two, Since, “they usually become a little more embarrassed and start covering up” What is the basis for this rationalization?

    LF #1 -Questionable Cause,
    A and B are associated on a regular basis.
    Therefore A is the cause of B.
    The general idea behind this fallacy is that it is an error in reasoning to conclude that one thing causes another simply because the two are associated on a regular basis. More formally, this fallacy is committed when it is concluded that A is the cause of B simply because they are associated on a regular basis. The error being made is that a causal conclusion is being drawn from inadequate evidence.

    LF #2 False Dilemma,
    A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of “reasoning”:

    Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false).
    Claim Y is false.
    Therefore claim X is true.
    This line of “reasoning” is fallacious because if both claims could be false (instinctual or inherent behavior), then it cannot be inferred that one is true because the other is false.

    When actually the behaviour of “covering up”, is not inherent or instinctual but a soically learned behaviour perpetuated by the parent(s) and multimedia outlets. Take European beaches for instance. Often time you will see people of all ages running around in the nude, with no shame at all.

  37. Ralph says:


    You asked why I always say “thats not my experience”. Most times I say this when someone makes a general statement to make it look like it’s the whole church that does it. For instance your original comment was ” I always thought it was interesting how the Mormon culture puts the responsiblity square on the shoulders of the women to “be modest””. This is stating quite plainly ‘the Mormon culture’, indicating that you are pointing to the whole church. I am merely pointing out that this is not true. It may be true for the Utah Saints, or the American Saints, but not the whole church. For instance here in Australia mens’ magazines are on the shelf in plain sight in the newsagents. While on my mission in Finland, I noticed it was the same set-up. I also noticed that my American comps always looked the opposite direction as we walked past these racks. While I did not look at the magazines intently, I skimmed the shelves to see what other magazines were next to them, like Donald Duck and SciAm, etc. Most of the beaches where I live women are allowed to be topless. Over in Finland people sunbake in their backyards in various stages of undress. I had no problems with this but my American comps did. The LDS ‘culture’, as you put it, is different in each country, so don’t make general comments.

    Now about your comment on women wearing one pair of earrings and how that is ‘singling-out’ women, the same talk says no earrings for men (if I remember correctly) and no tattoos. But if we look at Isaiah 3:16-24, doesn’t this give a similar statement to that talk about earrings, etc? This scripture is very pointedly singling out women and is quite damning towards them. And from your belief it is from God.

    Maybe part of the reason it seems that women are focused on is that most men wear shorts/jeans which are modest compared to skimpy skirts/dresses. But we were never allowed to go topless at youth activities as young men unless we were swimming.

  38. falcon says:

    You made me think back to my days taking statistics and the concept of “correlation”. We used to call something statistically significant. So if everyone who dies ate carrots sometime in the days leading up to their death, that’s a correlation right. The carrots must have caused their death. I recall a term like “confidence level” or something regarding research. YIKES I don’t have to deal with this stuff anymore. What are you doing to me? So you just finished up a Masters program. This should all be fresh in your mind. I can remember having to relearn it every time it came up because I never used it on a regular basis.
    When we get to the BY Adam/god doctrine, I’m struck by what I see as a guy who would go into full overdrive mode with his imaginative revelations. It was the same with Joseph Smith. He soon figured out he didn’t need his magic rock. He could just say stuff with confidence and people would believe him.
    JS attracted people, especially men, by telling them that they could get personal revelation from “god”. This empowered these guys and they were hooked on JS brand of religion. That’s why you get all this nonsense from BY and others because there’s no system of checks and balances. Unfortunately for him, BY had guys following him around writing down everything he said. He was so full of pride and ego. That’s why we get these priesthood holders that think their really into something when it’s nothing more than a hook to stroke their egos and keep them in the cult.
    Aren’t you glad you figured the whole game out and bolted the program before you invested your life in it?

  39. Ralph says:


    I learned a few things in Finland, including that nudity was not wrong. But I disagree with your statement about it being learned behaviour. To one extent it is learned behaviour but this is an observation I made in Finland while talking to the members and friends.

    Families go to sauna together when the children are young, and when they are older. It is considered rude to go with any type of clothing on or a towel wrapped around, you have to be totally naked. One of my Finnish comps was 21 (they have to do military service in Finland so they leave later for missions) and he said he still went to sauna with his parents and sister who is 2 years older than him. The church allows this which is how I decided that there is nothing wrong with nudity. However, there is a time when the children don’t want to go as a family and want to be either with their own sex only or usually by themselves. This is at the beginning of puberty when their body changes and they start becoming self conscious of these changes. That is not learned behavior. After a few months or years they become less self conscious and start going with the family again. This is in both LDS and non-LDS families. The running around on a nudist beach is a learned behaviour as well as instinctive, but so too is being shy/self concious of the changes in body.

    Yes Adam and Eve were adults and were fully developed, but to begin with they were innocents like children. When they knew that they were naked, when they became aware of their bodies, they became self conscious/shy and wanted to hide it. There is nothing in the Bible saying they decided that nudity was wrong, but they became aware of their bodies and were ashamed at being naked. Its a typical phase most people go through.

  40. Kevin says:

    Ralph, your right, instead of using the word culture, I should have said “leadership” and the quote I used from Packard exemplifies my point; even your statement, “Maybe part of the reason it seems that women are focused on is…”

    I don’t think the word seems is accurate, indeed the leadership and members follow this tradition.

    I have a question to you Ralph, since I have no real contact with the LDS org outside of the states. Do you use church material, such as primary lesson manuals, priesthood leadership manuals, and relief society manuals? Or do you have your own material?

    It’s great your comfortable with nudity, not the point of discussion, but non the less, Is your comfort level due to church lessons and culture or your social integration. I would tend to believe that the LDS population in Australia is low in comparison. Therefore is it reasonable for me to conclude that you have friends who are not LDS? If that is true, I would think that some of your social behavior is influenced by where you are, who you hang out with, and the distance from SLC’s influence.

    Think about this, if you are not acting the same way as SLC Mormon’s (in the form of lessons and administration of the lessons), and that is where the Leadership is, and presumably where the leadership has the most influence over the members and leads as an example of how the community should behave, would you not want to act in a way that is 100% in accordance with how the SLC members conduct themselves, teach lessons, and handle their affairs? Or is the Australian division of the church just a spin off from the main stream? How different does a sect have to be before it is labeled a sect?

  41. setfree says:

    do you see the ‘red thread’ of atonement starting right here in the first bit of Genesis?

    you know, Shem talked about wearing clothes in heaven, but I just don’t think so. For one, our bodies will be different. We see white robes on the saints in Revelation, but it looks symbolic to me. I mean, we’re clothed in Jesus’ righteousness. We’re “covered” by His blood/atonement.

    I have to wonder, what on earth would we need clothes for? are we going to go through puberty again?

  42. Kevin says:

    Ralph, your cognitive dissonance is flooding the forum tonight please turn the values down to low but simmering. Take the aborigines for example, or the older tribes in Africa where women run around topless all the time. They have no shame until they are taught but intrusive outsiders that it is wrong to run around topless. Therefor it is a logical fallacy to conclude that age and puberty has anything to do with a social event that has been labeled as bad.

    But I will ask you Ralph, where is your Data to suggest that age or puberty has anything to do with embarrassment or shame of their bodies?

    falcon, I love those statistical models. Confidences levels need to be higher then 95% and in a lot of cases 99% to be considered reliable sources of data for a correlation. Personally I like the chi squared tests. Yes I am very happy that God witnessed onto me, through the Holy Ghost, that the LDS church is an abomination in his sight. Now I am truly saved through the atonement of Jesus Christ.

  43. Ralph says:


    Yes we use the same manuals etc for teaching. And yes I agree, our society here has something to do with how we think and act. We are taught that we must act 100% in accordance with what God wants us to do. This is reflected in the messages that our church leaders give. But that is where it ends. The culture that grows up around an area is not the same as what the church teaches. I heard many things about the Utah area when I was in the Provo MTC from the other missionaries that grew up there. The culture there is an American culture with the LDS teachings infused, while we live here in an Australian culture with the LDS teachings infused. There are good points and bad points about both cultures (ie American and Aussie) but living the Gospel properly does not interfere with living the good points of ones’ culture. Thus there are differences between the American LDS, Australian LDS and other countries’ LDS member cultures. But we all teach and believe in the same things when it comes to our salvation, culture is just a way of life outside of the church and does not affect our salvation.


    Interesting thing I learned in the MTC. Go to verse 31 in JS History in the PoGP and read the description of Moroni’s clothing. It states that he wore only a robe and nothing else. And JS knew he wore nothing else because “I could discover that he had no other clothing on but this robe, as it was open, so that I could see into his bosom.” So its also in the LDS teachings somewhat.

  44. setfree says:

    I’m sure you understand that as far as I see things, Moroni is either demonic or a figment of JS’s imagination. I mean, I’ve read an account that it was a Spanish pirate with his throat cut who was showing JS treasure in the mountain. I don’t believe Moroni can be representative of our discussion. YOu know?

    Let me ask you something Ralph, and please give an answer (I know you’ll be honest if you do)

    Do you know ANYONE who is totally and 100% “living the Gospel properly”??

    Are you?

    Your “gospel”, like it or not, does not have room for “good enough”. Only for “perfect”. I know many LDS disagree, but that is where the LDS culture meets the LDS doctrine… culturally you all slack and let each other slack and think it’s okay. Doctrinally, you’re not correct to not be perfect, and think everything will end up ok anyway.

  45. shematwater says:

    To all the ignorant fools posting on this thread I must say a few things, but this will be the last day I post on this particular thread.

    I never once said that Adam didn’t sin because he wasn’t deceived. I said he didn’t sin because he had no understanding of what sin was. Without the knowledge of Good and Evil no one can sin. Sin is in knowing good from evil, and then willingly choosing evil. Adam and Eve knew neither good nore evil, thus in making their choice they could not knowing choose one over the other, thus this was not a sin.

    As to the often used scriptures in Romans 5, let us look at it all very carefully.
    Romans 5: 12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned”
    Let us look at the grammatical structure of this verse and see what is actually being said.
    You claim this states that Adam sinned, and the verse never uses a possessive form. It is not by one man’s sin that sin came into the world. What is actually stated is that by one man sin came into the world, or by ones man’s action. It does not classify this action as sin, it only says that the result of the action was that sin entered the world. Thus, since sin did not exist before this time, but was a result of the action, than the action itself is not sin, but the thing which caused sin to come upon men.
    Thus, even in Romans Paul does not in truth call it a sin, only what caused sin. By applying the rules of the English language we see the text to be in harmony with what I and the lds have said.

  46. shematwater says:

    Now, as to the quote given by LIV4JC, I give here those parts used to support the theory of the Adam God doctrine, and explain what is truly meant by these passages, to hopefully clear up the ignorance that is found so abundantly here.

    “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.”
    This one really needs no explanation, but it is used with others, so I have to give it here.

    “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.”
    Now, because Adam is called our Father it is assumed that this is in Reference to the first section I gave. However, notice that he is not refered to as our Father in Heaven, but our Father. (more in a moment)

    “He is the first of the human family”
    Here we get the true meaning behind the words calling Adam our Father. He was the first man on this Earth, and thus all people are his descendants, making him their Father (Or our Father).

  47. shematwater says:


    “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.”
    Now this is the one that is really used to support the idea of Adam being God. After all, it was Adam who was in the garden of Eden, thus it must be Adam whom Brigham Young was referencing.
    But this is where the ignorance of people shows. Yes, Adam was in the Garden, but even in Genesis we know that God the Father walked in the Garden of Eden with Adam. Before the Fall Adam and the Father walked as good friends in the Garden and conversed. Adam enjoyed the very personal and close relation with God. After the Fall Adam was driven from the Garden, and if you accept the Book of Moses (which Brigham Young did, and the rest of the LDS) than the Father continued to speak to Adam from the Garden (Moses 5:4).

    Thus, Adam was not the only Character in the garden of Eden, and in truth, the Father was in the Garden after Adam left. So, the Character that was in the Garden of Eden was the Father and not Adam. Thus, Adam is not the Father of our spirits, but of our bodies.

    (Now, the quote given by Falcon I have not read, and I will not comment on it until I can find it.)

    As to him being our God, it was taught by Joseph Smith that Adam would rule over this Earth under the direction of Christ (who will rule over all the creations of his Father). In a way similar to churchs here on earth, we will have direct contact with our local leaders (Adam) and occassional contact with the president (Christ and the Father). Thus, Adam is our God, and the only God with which we have to do.

  48. liv4jc says:

    Shem, I knew if I gave you enough rope you would hang yourself. I knew the arguments that you would make, because in trying to figure out what in the “h”,”e”, double toothpicks BY was speaking about, I went over those same arguments. From what I can figure out, Eloheim is the one who was referred to as “Lord”, but Adam is most definitely our Father in Heaven. How do I know this? Because the personal journal writings of the people who attended the conferences where this doctrine was taught reveal that they most certainly understood it just as I explained it. Doctrinal works from the time period also clearly teach this as truth. Also, you ignore the evidence given by setfree who quotes Bruce McConkie refuting the same claims that I made about BY’s teaching, not based upon your reasoning, but upon the fact that BY taught false doctrine. McConkie most definitely understood the doctrine just as I laid out also.

    Read this from a British missionary given in an editorial from the Millenial Star volume 15, page 801 from 1853, speaking of the saints in Britain:

    They are lacking faith on one principle-the last “cat” that was let out of the bag.” Polygamy has been got over pretty well, that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and our God. This is a very intelligent person investigating our principles, and who has been a great help to the Saints; he has all the works, and can get along very well with everything else but the last “cat,” and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a Mormon. I instructed him to write to Liverpool upon it.

    How bad is your doctrine Shem when people receive it with revulsion knowing that it is an abomination? First polygamy had to be “gotten over”, then Adam, instead of the first man who by his sin brought about the ruin of the human race, becomes our God.

  49. liv4jc says:

    Do you need more clarification? How about BY in Deseret News Page 308 from June 18, 1837:

    We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, “Go ye and make an earth.”…(talks about the earth being formed, but in chaos) Adam came here and got it up in shape that would suit him to commence business. What is the great mystery about it? None, that I have seen. The mystery in this, as with miracles, or anything else, is only to those who are ignorant. Father Adam came here , and then they brought his wife. ”Well” says one, “Why was Adam called Adam”? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, ”I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, ..

    So, it was very clearly taught and understood that Adam was the father of our spirits, as well as that of Jesus Christ. From The Women of Mormondom by Edward Tullidge, page 179 from 1877:

    ”Adam is our Father and God. He is the God “of the earth.” So says Brigham Young. Adam is the great archangel of this creation. His is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ-the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of our spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of men. Adam!

    I will not hide this info source from you because I want you to learn, repent, and be saved, Shem. Otherwise all of this arguing means nothing: “Where Does it Say That?” by Bob Witte.

  50. liv4jc says:

    What does this all mean? Even by McConkie’s standards (if he had an honest bone in his body) he would have to denounce BY as a false prophet based upon Deuteronomy 13: he’s calling you to follow a false god. And if BY got this same doctrine first from JS, as he claims, then JS was also a false prophet based upon those standards.

    How can you trust a prophet whose words have been proven to be false? How can you trust any prophet whose revelations completely contradict the nature of God as revealed in the Bible? My God does not change.

    The answer is, “You can’t.”, but undoubtedly you will. You see the truth posted here as an attack against you. It isn’t. It is an attack against an organization and men who by their own willful pride and ignorance have lead millions to hell. It is a defense of the One True God who saves. Adam sinned in the Garden. You inherited that sin nature. Christ paid for your sins. You can be forgiven for your idolotry if you repent and trust in Christ and Christ alone. Look at your life in the mirror of God’s Law. You have already broken the 2nd Commandment. How many lies have you told? Have you stolen? Looked with lust? Disobeyed your parents? You will stand accountable for every one of those crimes Shem unless you cry out for mercy and ask that the blood of Christ be credited to your acccount.

Comments are closed.