“You should have seen it! It will go down as epic in Church ball.”
“I was THERE and it was pedestrian, man.”
“WHAT?! No way. Everyone had the jaw on the ground!”
“You’re full of exaggerations today.”
“If there’s anything that can’t be exaggerated, it’s what happened on the court.”
“Yeah, right. You can exaggerate all the time about your game. But you can’t exaggerate the nature of God.”
“Whoa, big change of subject. You trying to get heavy on me again?”
“Well your head is big right now, it can fit big ideas, can’t it?”
“Hah. Okay, shoot.”
“Well, to exaggerate is to talk it up bigger than it is, right?”
“Yeah.”
“Well, it’s impossible to do that with God. There isn’t anything even imaginably better.”
“You mean better for us, right?”
“No, I mean for anyone, anywhere.”
“Well then why do we care?”
“Because it’s awesome. Listen, what’s better, to have sinned, or to have never sinned at all?”
“To have never sinned.”
“What’s more moral than never having sinned?”
“I don’t know.”
“Mmm hmm. OK, so what’s better, to know everything or to know only something?”
“To know everything.”
“Can you have a greater knowledge than the knowledge of everything?”
“No.”
“Mmm hmm. Ok, better to have all power, or to have only some power?”
“All.”
“Can you have greater power than all power?”
“No. This is stupid, man.”
“That’s my point. It’s obvious that there’s nothing more moral than never having sinned, that there isn’t a greater knowledge than the knowledge of everything, and that there isn’t a greater power than all power.”
“So?”
“So you can’t exaggerate when there’s nothing left to exaggerate with.”
“And… ?”
“Well, the God of the Bible is called the ‘Most High’. If you said there was a higher God than him, he’d have to be Kinda High, not Most High.”
“Are you bashing my religion, man?”
“Maybe. I mean, I can obviously exaggerate your god.”
“What? How?”
“Well, what if I said that your god never sinned?”
“You’d only be speculating.”
“Mmm hmm. And what if I said your god always knew everything?”
“You’d be wrong. He had to learn to become a god just like all the other gods. But that’s deep man. It doesn’t concern my salvation.”
“And what if I said your god always had all power?”
“You’d be right.”
“Really?”
“Sure.”
“Did he create the planet his spirit-grandfather was born on? Wasn’t he in spirit-baby-diapers or something?”
“Oh gosh, you always bring that up. Here we go into bashing mode again.”
“Dude, you know me, I love you bro.”
“Yeah, but I hate it when you disrespect my religion.”
“Well, at least hear me on this. If you tried to disrespect my God by exaggerating him, you couldn’t. You couldn’t even if you tried. And I mean tried hard. It’s not even possible with my God. He is the Un-exaggeratable Most High.”
“Fancy name.”
“But if someone tried to bash your god, they’d have an easy time, because it’s easy to think of a God greater than yours.”
“Dude…”
“OK, I’ll stop now. But just think about it, OK?”
“Whatever. I guess.”
“Think about it next time you exaggerate your game. I AM watching the same game, you know!
“But not really. You have to be on court to get the full effect.”
“Mmm hmm!”
Aaron,
I get the point of this but honestly – we have got to work on the dialogue: “I was THERE and it was pedestrian, man”.
“It was pedestrian, man” is just plain “poppycock” (seriously who talks like that) but I most definitely get your point and it is a legit one. A god that is not powerful enough to protect the Nauvoo Temple from the forces of darkness is not worthy of worship (Perhaps you the quote from a certain GA to which I am referring).
That would be a great conversation, for in it there is much to be explained and even more to research to even begin to make a definitive answer.
Most LDS would struggle mightily with such a conversation, I agree since we are all human and think and speak in our mostly limited human way.
Is it better to have sinned then have never sinned at all?
In context a seemingly easy answer, but as a fallen human being we completely understand the nature of man, and as a LDS member we understand it even better. Given the further knowledge of a preexistence and that we were to be tested, then I suppose our understanding is made easier that the choice to choose is greater then being forced to choose. Satan plan versus Gods plan. Hence man will choose both good and evil, knowledge is gained by understanding both. One can not learn unless he knows the difference. We are born innocent, but are allowed to be tempted and tried.
Since the Gospel has been restored, we also understand the nature of God, and that our Father in Heaven is the only one we need to deal with, if God had a God and that God had a God, it is irrelevant to our salvation since it really is the Most High God, our Father in Heaven who will be our judge. Gods plan shows the equality of His Kingdom, which He is happy to share all with us equally.
I don’t find it a problem to state that God had a Father, which makes our belief in Christ being the literal Son of God make even more sense.
What is Power? it is only given to God as He abides by the laws of the Universe, since he can only create by that same power. Law, Justice, and Mercy are eternal principles, even God abides by these laws or He would cease to be God.
Janet.
Janet,
One of the big problems I see in LDS soteriology is that God is not free to “judge” at least not totally so. He must still obey certain principles when doling out eternal destinations – unless you are of the camp that believes progression is possible after death. Even still, God gives us our place after death based on principles that were around before Him and that came into play as He was advancing towards godhood.
In this sense, the Mormon god saves no one. Indeed, the word “save” implies impending doom, something to be saved from. In Christianity, this is God Himself – His wrath. In Mormonism there is no clear cut dividing line. Everyone, except a handful of the worst-of-the-worst, will attain some level of glory. Being “saved” from a lower level of glory just isn’t as saved as being saved from hell.
The bicycle analogy is often used to help outsiders understand salvation in Mormonism. I would contrast this analogy with another more biblical one – a knife attack on the King of Heaven. A once God-hating individual is pardoned by the king, for attempted murder and treason, and is then welcomed into his court as one of His princes – a son even. Indeed, if we cannot exaggerate God’s greatness the we cannot exaggerate His grace.
David, sorry it looks like the filter misapplied to a legitimate word you tried to use.
And hey dude, stop bashing my lame attempt at fictitious street language 😛
LOVE the knife attack on the King of Heaven analogy!
Janet, the very idea that Jesus had a third option (besides fatalism and agency-unto-inevitable-post-fall-sin) in pre-mortality begs the question of why Jesus did not propose this plan for the rest of his spirit brothers and sisters in the pre-mortal grand council. The Jesus of Mormonism was able to accomplish immortality and eternal life by choosing a sinless path, which is obviously a better path than the one that involves a post-Fall inevitability of sin. So the rest of us got a second-rate plan. It breaks down the pre-mortal grand council theology of Mormonism and it makes God the Father AND Jesus Christ sinners, because it’s always sinful to choose for someone else a path where sin is inevitable when a better plan is available.
Grace and peace in Christ,
Aaron
Wow!! Janet said, “What is Power? it is only given to God as He abides by the laws of the Universe, since he can only create by that same power. Law, Justice, and Mercy are eternal principles, even God abides by these laws or He would cease to be God.”
The possibility of God ceasing to be God if He didn’t abide by laws of the Universe. Amazing how Janet can present such heresy without blinking an eye. This is why there’s Mormon Coffee: to challenge the heretical teachings of Mormonism. It’s hard to believe that I once spoke the same corrupted language as Janet; that I once believed the same heretical teachings. So, there is hope that even a Janet can respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and reject the heresies of the LDS Church.
Janet, man’s nature is NOT divine nature as you have been taught by innocent and caring people who didn’t know any better. Our nature is SIN nature. This is an important truth one needs to grasp in order to understand their spiritual poverty before a Holy God, and to understand the depth of what Jesus Christ did on the cross for us. The biblical God has always existed; there was never a time when He was NOT GOd. The Mormon god is a false god, a god with a beginning and who is subject to laws. The Real God has all things subject to Him. I praise God for saving me. He died to save you, Janet. All you have to do is believe in Him–and it matters what you believe about Him.
Peace…
Let me share with others what we teach and believe. Eternal progression is most important to our way of thinking and ones promise that there is a path to follow to become Gods and Goddesses. We teach that God came from the universe; God did not create that which is eternal and matter is Eternal. Creating or sustaining matter, energy, natural laws, human person-hood, moral principles, the process of salvation or exaltation is all part and parcel of a continuing progression that is eternal in structure and Priesthood. One could say, God is subject to certain truths. With out qualms we can state that there is only one God, God the Father. When used as an adjective it describes — one God of the old testament, one God that we pray to, one God that we worship, and one God that sustains us. God is a jealous God, and desires that we worship He who created us in the beginning, or created our spirits from the many existing intelligences that are eternal.
Seen as a divine family, we then can relate to the oneness of God, and oneness of the Trinity as oneness in spirit, feelings, doctrine, love, and goodness. The Mormon concept of God differs significantly from traditional views, we are totally aware that these differences cannot be proven as false by any means Biblically or scripturally.
Janet.
janet
Is your God Adam, as Brigham Young says he is, or is it the generic ‘Elohim’? Could you clarify, and answer why Brigham Young said he was Adam? If God came from the universe, where did the universe come from, and how do you reconcile in the bible that it says that nothing that was created did not come from God? cf John1:3:
“All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
Take your time with the Adam-god question, you may want to do some reading before you answer.
Janet,
You said, “we are totally aware that these differences cannot be proven as false by any means Biblically or scripturally.” This is a false statement, Janet. The differences have been proven wrong. Hiding your head in the sand doesn’t change that. But, it is your prerogative to do so, as well as worship a false god, which is what you’re doing.
Peace…
Wether the adam god comment is true or not does not affect my salvation and since I wasn’t there when it was stated, I do not even pretend to know the circumstances it was made under. If that is the best one can do to criticize doctrine we actually preach by suggesting something seems fishy because of a snippet, then I suggest your research is limited to finding only that which you feel portrays confusion when in fact you lack weakness in addressing the major issues.
I also already pointed out a important issue between us, the Mormon concept of God differs significantly from traditional views. So at least I admit we don’t completely understand each other, and confusion seems to exist mostly because we are not limited to a single Book. Mormonism is either true or a major fraud of great dimension and affects millions of souls as either the solution that even the Bible speaks of or it comes from the depth of Hell. This I admit with all honesty.
Janet
What I did state was the following, these differences cannot be proven as false by any means Biblically or scripturally. I stand by that and would argue that the concepts and theories of many Evangelicals cannot be proven as true when using the Bible. You and I choose to worship as we best understand knowledge, and only true knowledge can come from God, not some interpretation by man.
Janet.
Janet,
I’m afraid that the Adam-God comment does affect your salvation. If your prophet said it as teaching (which I believe he did since it’s been quoted on here several times by BY that he considered all his sermons scripture) then the LDS have been following a false prophet from at least that time. Getting the nature of God wrong ABSOLUTELY affects your salvation. That’s why we focus so intently on it. If you are wrong about who God is then nothing else in your doctrine matters becuase it is set upon an deity that doesn’t exsist. This is a HUGE deal. Take sometime to study what your prophets have said and judge them by the Bible (instead of judging the Bible by them) I would be surprised if you could remain in Mormonism then. I pray that God shows you the truth! Nothing would please me more then to stand beside you in heaven giving praise to the one true God thru all eternity!
There has been an official statement made on this subject by President Spencer W. Kimball, made in the Priesthood session of October conference 1976. Now can we move on?
“We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our Chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. 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”. (See Ensign, November 1976 p. 77)
Janet.
Some follow up: Elden Watson
May 1998
At the time this statement was made in the 1976 Priesthood conference, I was serving on a priesthood committee under the direction of Elder Mark E. Petersen. We were at that time working with a number of people who believed the Adam-God theory, and our committee wanted to know more precisely what President Kimball meant by his statement, so through Elder Petersen we made an appointment with him and asked him. In a private interview President Kimball made the following clarifications: He said that he did not say that President 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 interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young’s words by present day apostates and fundamentalists – their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false.
http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm
So if someone doesn’t get who God is, it doesn’t effect their salvation? I think I’m hearing echos of that here from the Mormons. It sounds like something out of a twelve step program; you know, “whoever you conceive God to be”. Let it be known that what Mormons believe about the nature of God was not what the ancient Jews or the early Christians believed. But, as is always the case in Mormonism, Mormons can make anything fit the paradigm that Joseph Smith created.
Paul tells us that we are without excuse when it comes to knowing God. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)
Paul goes on to say in Romans 1:21-23 that people know who God is but choose not to acknowledge Him as God. That is what Mormons, especially those who post here, do. They have been continually given information regarding God but they reject Him for “an image in the form of corruptible man.” Further Mormons 1)know who God is and do not honor Him as God, 2) they do not give thanks to Him, 3) they have become foolish in their speculations and finally 4) their foolish heart has been darkened. It can truly be said of Mormons that “professing to be wise they became fools.”
Falcon,
I’m grateful for you and others like Rick and Martin and Jack (and the MC crew too)! You’re knowledgeable and careful with the scriptures and you’re dependable; and I know that when I can’t immediately produce the ‘documentation’ from my brain that you guys are there! And even though I’m positive we differ on some non-essentials I can trust that when you discuss an essential I can whole heartedly agree!
Janet, You said Adam god does not effect your salvation, I say Bull! BY Said that everyone saint and sinner MUST HEAR THIS DOCTRINE. BY your PROPHET and PRESIDENT called it DOCTRINE. BY said your salvation does hang upon you believing this DOCTRINE, So yes your salvation does hang upon it and BY was a PROPHET and President at the time he said it, so He was a mouth piece for God.
Then another LDS prophet/president said
Remember YOUR PROPHET not me said, Your salvation hangs upon this. He said your prophet cannot lead the church astray. So Did BY lead them astray or not? Rick b
I like Janet’s calmness and clarity of expression. I particularly respect the fact that she, unlike a lot Mormons, is not afraid to claim the truth about Mormon doctrine–it’s different than orthodox Christianity. So, I just want to point out a couple of things regarding the Mormon claim to continued revelation. It has a two-fold purpose in the Mormon Church: 1. to introduce new doctrine that clearly contradicts biblical teaching; 2. to subtract previous “prophetic” teachings that are so obviously heretical that it causes embarrassment to the Church. For Spencer Kimball to come out and denounce the teachings of one of his predecessors is a HUGE RED FLAG!!!
Regarding RickB’s contribution with the fundamentals in following the prophet–thanks. How funny that this is proclaimed by the guy who needs such protection. If this isn’t a sign of cultish tactics, then I don’t know what is. The first problem is that our salvation hangs solely on the merits of Jesus Christ. This message by Ezra Taft Benson is clearly anti-Christ. Yes, I said it. It’s a message straight from Satan himself. Who else wants to knock Jesus down from His throne? Who else would utter such heresy? Sorry, JS followers, but your prophet(s) is/are leading your souls straight to hell with idolotrous worship. I have to speak out against such teachings. Trust in Jesus–not in such lies as 14 fundamentals for following the prophet.
Praying for Mormons…
I know many an LDS member will come here and say, Rick I told you the answer to the Adam god question, to which I would say, you told me what you want to believe but no real answers.
Boiled down it’s like this.
BY said ADAM IS GOD, And your salvation hangs upon it. LDS will claim their not really sure what BY meant and they were not their so they really cannot say anything about it.
Then Benson comes along and says, Your salvation hangs upon these 14 IN FOLLOWING THE PROPHET, yet one of them is, the Prophet speaks for the Lord in EVERYTHING. Now lets go back to BY, He said Adam God was doctrine and our salvation hangs upon it. So either he spoke as a prophet and said God told him this or He lied.
LDS will counter, BY did not say, thus saith the Lord. Yet Benson said in the 14 FUNDAMENTALS the prophet does not need to say, Thus saith the Lord. That statement right their is the LDS out for false teaching or teachings they do not agree with. Then according to Benson the prophet cannot lead the Church astray, So either BY did lead them astray by teaching lies, or he did not because he spoke truth.
You cannot claim a cop out excuse by saying, well I was not their so I cannot be sure about what he said. Many people today do not say, well I was not alive when Washington said or did…
Yet we believe he said what he said, or fill in the blanks to real life events, I was not alive when JFK was assassinated, Yet I know things really Happened. I’m Half polish and had family gassed by Hitler, I even saw photos of the death camps where family was killed. Just because I was not their does not mean I cannot speak about it. Rick b
“For Spencer Kimball to come out and denounce the teachings of one of his predecessors is a HUGE RED FLAG”.
Kimball only denounced the theory of fundamentalist and apostates.
“What he did say and what he meant is that the Adam-God theory is false, and the Adam-God theory is that interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young’s words by present day apostates and fundamentalists – their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false”. Quoted from my above post.
lol… once again… it’s OUR fault, not theirs. this kind of blame-shifting is fostered, nurtured, and treated with respect in the lds religion
Since I have already stated that this Adam God theory does not affect my membership, testimony or salvation, it still seem to be a very important point to Evangelicals. I imagine that the real reason behind their concept of this theory is to make Mormons feel uncomfortable with Mormonism. When pointed out correctly that it seems to have been a concept stated by BY but not officially accepted as doctrine, then it would seem not to serve their purpose very well except to make some LDS to feel insecure possibly. With some members I’m sure that they feel uncomfortable even talking about it. What is true bias is the considerable distortion Evangelicals go to when trying to maintain this erroneous position.
Example of Evangelicals theory of Adam/God and some distortion I believe:
“BY said ADAM IS GOD, And your salvation hangs upon it. LDS will claim their not really sure what BY meant and they were not their so they really cannot say anything about it”.
I’m not saying the above quote is not true, but it would help if the source could be provided for my own verification that it was stated correctly.
If so, then I would have to consider re-thinking of why BY might feel so strongly about that, and why my salvation depends upon it.
Janet.
Janet, Read the JoD volume 1 pages 50-51 their is the evidence. Rick b
Janet, I was doing a mormon blog, but have not been keeping up with it since I am in school again and this blog is very active, but I did an article on Adam god with a scanned copy of the JoD volume 1 pg’s 51-52 you can read the quotes for yourself, then you can get back to us and tell us what you think, you can get to the pages with this link. Rick b
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/07/adam-god-doctrine.html
Janet (and all Mormons),
Try to walk in our shoes. Other than polemical value, why do you think we see Adam-God (or any host of wild teachings by past GA’s) as such a big deal?
“Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this pro-found language, as describing the soul of man, “it is an immaterial substance!” 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, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation”.
Thanks Rick, many of the sermons in the Journal of Discourse are interesting, but since I really do not read them and they are not as important to me and most LDS as the standard works are, then I do not build my testimony upon them. I did rethink somewhat the above paragraph, yet in it I do not see where it will jeopardize my salvation. You will have to admit that there is some distortion between, ““BY said ADAM IS GOD, And your salvation hangs upon it”, and the above quoted paragraph. “Will prove their salvation is not the same as “my salvation hangs upon it”.
Perspective is a wonderful trait that each of us is given, some see the forest and others see the trees, a very old adage, yet time and time again it comes into play, especially if one has to prove his or her beliefs.
Interesting also is that BY stated Doctrines, plural!
Janet
Janet said
I believe you when you say you do not read them and they are not important to you. Sadly though BY was a prophet and mouth piece for your god. He taught much stuff that is very false as fact/truth and doctrine.
Many modern LDS have denounced his teachings, that alone says something, they believe he was wrong. Yoy say the standerd works are important to you, yet the Pearl has major flaws, contradicts it’s own self let alone the other three books, And I can give you a link to my blog with my own research showing LDS prophets and presidents claiming a book is more important that a prophet, a prophet claiming revelation is more important that the standard works, etc. Three or four prophets that cannot agree one which is more vital or important.
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/02/lds-prophets-cannot-agree.html
Check that out and see what you think, they clearly cannot agree. Rick b
“But this Doctrine and Covenants contains the word of God to those who dwell here now. It is our book. It belongs to the Latter Day Saints.”
If this is were you find fault, then I believe you do protest to much.
I find no fault with this or find fault with the claim that JS stated that by reading the BOM, one can grow closer to God.
If your whole site is based on little bits of contradictions, then I suggest you are more worried about finding fault with human nature then actually reading the Standard works and praying to find out if they are true.
Janet.
I know I sound like a broken record here but it’s very apparent that when someone has bought into something emotionally, and they want desperately to believe it, no amount of evidence, facts, reasoning and the pointing out of inconsistency and flaws in their belief system will convince them.
There is value in this discussion because the Mormon mind-set is on full display here. For those of us who are Christians (and never been Mormons)we can’t fully appreciate what this type of thinking is like. It’s even difficult to get inside the Mormons’ head and absorb the thought process being exhibited.
I’ve tried to think about this in terms of Catholics who are really dedicated to the Virgin Mary and all of her various “appearances” and the shrines and the rosary praying and the petitions that go out to her asking her to intercede on their behalf to Jesus. Or the dedication to the various saints including St. Jude, the patron saint of hopeless causes. I never really considered praying to St. Jude for Mormons although they would certainly be candidates for his intervention if one were to believe is such a thing.
In the words of the apostle Paul to the Galatians, “…..when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.” Mormons have a form of piety and a dedication to a god that is not God. Until they come to know Him, they will be tasked with trying to defend false prophets and a religious system that provides for a form of spirituality, but doesn’t have the Spirit.
Rick has done a very good job of pointing out what the Adam-god doctrine as promoted by BY is all about and the dilemma that a Mormon faces when confronted by this very strange doctrine.
One thing that a Mormon can do is “deny” that the doctrine exists. Well, as we know, that doesn’t work for very long because even a cursory investigation will unveil the fact that BY did teach it and believe it.
So then the Mormon may be put it a position of having to “dismiss” it. That is say something like, “It happened a long time ago”, “it has no effect on my salvation”, “BY was just speculating, it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously as doctrine.” This way BY still gets to be a prophet and the integrity of progressive revelation remains intact (in the Mormon mind).
But some Mormons actually try to “defend” it. This is primarily done by pulling out the hyper-spiritual card, intimating that the nonMormon really isn’t spiritually “deep” enough to grasp this deep spiritual truth. The Mormon can than evade any real discussion and satisfy their own ego by claiming spiritual superiority.
Finally, and this takes a lot of confidence, the Mormon can “demonize” the teaching. This is not for the faint of heart. Bruce McConkie tried this technique but as we have seen in the above discussion, there is a thin line to walk doing this. With McConkie, we have an attempt to have it both ways and he comes off as being more than a little disingenuous. Speaking out both sides of one’s mouth is obvious and not real flattering.
Mormonism, with it’s track record of zigging and zagging, proclaiming and denial, cover-up and recalculating, is in a world of hurt regarding any type of credibility. That’s why when all else fails, the Mormon has to retreat to the safe world of the personal testimony. The pieces of the Mormon puzzle do not fit together in such a way as to support Mormonism. When the puzzle is correctly assembled, the result is a picture of a religion that needs an emotional buy-in because it crumbles under the weight of real evidence.
Janet,
The list of faithful Mormons who received Pres.
Brigham Young’s teaching on Adam (Adam-God) is
profound.From Apostles under B.Y. to Apostles
after B.Y., to recent BYU professors.These after
looking at all the teachings by Brigham on this
doctrine, have testified that he did teach what
non-LDS have generally said of him.
You have stated that this does’nt involve your
status as a member of the Mormon Church today.
However, you need to come to grips with the fact
that it was through the priesthood authority from
Joseph Smith passed on to Brigham Young and like-
wise down to Thomas Monson, in which you were
baptized.
If Pres. Brigham Young believed in a false concept
of God, a heresey of this level, he then lost his
priesthood authority, since priesthood authority
can only be exercised in righteousness(D&C 121:36-
37).Believing and teaching a false doctrine about
God is UNrighteousness.
In 1979, Chris Vlachos wrote a paper[“Adam is God
???” see Journal of Pastoral Practice, v.3 #2]
He outlined the serious implications for sincere
LDS today:
” The present Dilemma and the true way out.
as time went on, not only did the adam doctrine
cease to be preached, but it began to be denied.
Most LDS General Authorities even denied that
Brigham had ever taught it.Being far removed from
the time in which the second Mormon President
expounded the teaching, these apologists were safe
in dismising his remarks as being misquoted or
mis-interpreted.Those who continue to believe the
Adam-God teaching were soon to be excommunicated
from the Church for believing it….Brigham Young
one of history’s most prominent religious leaders,
did indeed advance a doctrine that was to focus
worship on a strange god…. The implications
certainly are obvious. The claims of the Utah LDS
church utterly collapse when the claim to be the
only true church and sole possessors of God’s
authority.
The Mormon, furthermore, faces the dilemma of
Janet said
Here is a problem, I read all 4 works, I see so many contradictions in them it’s not funny, but LDS will simply say, I am only looking for flaws or I have not read them good enough or make excuse about why I dont see them as truth.
Here is one for you then, show me the love that I claim LDS do not have or show us Christians, Set me straight by using the BoM. I present the Bruce McConkie Challenge to you.
I have never had one LDS be able to take this challange, I posted it on this site before and posted links to my blog, I have even had one LDS poster on this blog tell me he will take it and refute it, He never did. I posted it on my blog 4 times and never had a mormon do it. Read it and show me the truth from the BoM. My challenge is based upon what Bruce M has said is found in the BoM and claims former Prophets and presidents as his authority.
http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com
The post was my last one and since 2006 not one mormon has been able to do it, yet they claim they have so much truth they simply cannot understand why we dont see it, Well show me then. Good luck, You will need it, Rick b
cont.
being unable to be certain that his present prophet is advancing true doctrine. Perhaps the
present teachings of the living prophet will be
tomorrow’s false teachings of a dead prophet.
Perhaps the present revelations which the modern
President claims to have received will be swept
under the carpet as was the revelation concerning
Adam that Brigham Young claimed to have received
from God.
Today’s Mormon cannot hide behind a testimony that
the living prophet is advancing correct doctrine.
His testimony holds no more weight than the strong
testimonies which past members had concerning the
truth of Brigham’s Adam-God teaching.In reality,
no Mormon can rest assured and have confidence
that his prophet is not uttering the imaginations
of his own heart.Even when he speaks as a prophet
and is sustained and defended by his fellow
Apostles, he still cannot be fully trusted.
This frightening dilemma in which the Mormon finds
himself is not peculiar to him or to his people,
but is the snare in which all men find themselves
when they put their trust in men…One’s faith can
only be as firm as the object upon which he places
his trust.To place one’s confidence upon erring
flesh is to lack firm footing and roots:….
Jer.17:5-6.
God invites all men today to place their trust in
Him directly through His Son, Jesus Christ….
Jesus can be fully trusted to lead us to His
Father.”
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that Elohim (God the Father in Mormonism) was once a mortal man and that he was not always God?
It doesn’t and so you won’t find it in the BOM.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that God has a body of flesh and bones?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that God is married in heaven?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that men can become Gods?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that temple participation is necessary to become exalted?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach Jesus and Lucifer are brothers?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach the blood of Christ does not cleanse certain sins?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it say there is more than one God?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it say males must hold either the Aaronic or Melchizedek Priesthood?
Same answer.
Where in the Book of Mormon does it teach that there are “three degrees of glory”?
Same answer.
Here is what McConkie did say.
This work on Mormon Doctrine is designed to help persons seeking salvation to gain that knowledge of God and his laws without which they cannot hope for an inheritance in the celestial city.
None of your proposed questions except for Temple marriage and Endowments are necessary to inherit the Celestial City. Now the Book of Mormon does speak of Temples but does not reveal anything about the Endowment or Temple Marriage, so we have no idea if that was revealed to them yet, much of what we have regarding the Temple ordinances is a fulfillment of The New and Everlasting Covenants that were to be revealed in the last days.
Janet
Considerable distortion or fact? Reading the following is interesting and worthy of some verification so as to make my understanding complete by comparing what the critics are trying to prove with actual quotes and source. I hope that someone would not post
anything they can’t prove.
” The present Dilemma and the true way out.
as time went on, not only did the adam doctrine
cease to be preached, but it began to be denied.
Most LDS General Authorities even denied that
Brigham had ever taught it.Being far removed from
the time in which the second Mormon President
expounded the teaching, these apologists were safe
in dismising his remarks as being misquoted or
mis-interpreted.Those who continue to believe the
Adam-God teaching were soon to be excommunicated
from the Church for believing it….Brigham Young
one of history’s most prominent religious leaders,
did indeed advance a doctrine that was to focus
worship on a strange god…. The implications
certainly are obvious. The claims of the Utah LDS
church utterly collapse when the claim to be the
only true church and sole possessors of God’s
authority”.
If you provide the source of the above I promise to research it and rethink the Adam-God theory.
Janet.
jackg & Lurkers
What I am amazed at is what is being missed here. Spencer Kimball’s exact words are the key, and man, the way that these “prophets” will lie and s-t-r-e-t-c-h the truth is absolutely amazing to me.
This trait of truth stretching, [lying] has been going on since the time of smith, and it is still going on. It reveals the true heart of Mormonism: founded on a LIE and the continuation of the LIE by the so-called ‘prophets’ of the church.
I have studied the Adam-God DOCTRINE, it is not a THEORY by any stretch of the imagination for many years, and:
1. It was taught and believed by Brigham Young.
2. It was believed by many in the Church.
3. Brigham Young and others knew it contradicted their scriptures.
4. Brigham Young said it was a ‘revelation from God’
5. It was incorporated in the Temple Ceremony
6. Later Prophets lied that Young taught it and that is was a revelation.
7. Other GA’s denounced the ‘Doctrine’ as false.
8. Other ‘prophets’ claimed his teachings were not understood and
called what they believed a ‘theory’ and denounced the ‘theory’.
9. A pattern of lying is incorporated deep within the LDS hierarchy, and still
goes on to this day.
10. Young’s teaching of the DOCTRINE proves he was a false prophet.
Read again the ‘follow up’ statement by Janet:
“In a private interview President Kimball made the following clarifications: He said that he did not say that President 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 interpretation which is placed on Brigham Young’s words by present day apostates and fundamentalists – their understanding of what Brigham Young meant is false.”
Here is the way Kimball gets around calling Young a false prophet. What Kimball is saying is that all others except ‘?????’ are too stupid to interpret correctly what Brigham Young said. This is like what Bill Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky. Clever wording to mask the fact that Brigham Young either taught false doctrine or that the doctrine Young taught is still believed but no one but a ‘prophet’ can correctly interpret what he taught. You notice Kimball did not elaborate on exactly WHAT Young DID teach. But the real fact is this, and it is no ‘theory’. Young taught Adam is God the Father, He brought ‘Eve’ one of his wives with him to the Garden of Eden, partook of the substance of this earth, died, & was translated back to Godhood & then had one of his wives ‘Mary’ bear his ‘literal’ son Jesus by having sex with her.
This is HERESY & FALSE DOCTRINE and shows Brigham Young to be a FALSE PROPHET. What is interesting is the LENGTHS these false prophets will go to. Here, they take part of Young’s statements & try to reconcile them. [This is from the site janet provided:
“He [McConkie]said it was a true doctrine that God the Father, Eloheim, a divine resurrected being came down to this earth after its creation, with a wife and produced in the natural way of sexual intercourse, a child who grew up and became known as ADAM. They did the same and brought forth a girl who grew up and became EVE. They had bodies of flesh and bone etc., but were not mortal (not till they fell). They (Adam and Eve) were not resurrected and not translated beings. God really did create their bodies on this earth. They were not transported here (only their spirits).”
This is NOT what Young taught, He taught that it was the god adam who came with his wife and fell again after partaking of the substance of this earth & that Adam was the FATHER OF JESUS IN THE SPIRIT WORLD AND BY MARY. What they are portraying above is a LIE, twisted from the teachings of YOUNG on the subject. This quote above is not widely known by Latter-day-Saints. Here, from the same site is Widstoe IN FULL DENIAL MODE:
“Brigham Young’s much-discussed sermon says that “Jesus was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven. Enemies of the Church, or stupid people, reading also that Adam is “our father and our God.” have heralded far and wide that the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was begotten of Adam. Yet, the rational reading of the whole sermon reveals the falsity of such a doctrine. It is explained that God the Father was in the Garden of Eden, before Adam, that he was the Father of Adam, and that this same personage, God the Father, who was in the Garden of Eden before Adam, was the Father of Jesus Christ, when the Son took upon himself a mortal body. That is, the same personage was the Father of Adam and of Jesus Christ. In the numerous published sermons of Brigham Young, this is the doctrine that appears, none other. The assertion is repeatedly made that Jesus Christ was begotten by God, the Father, distinct by any stretch of imagination from Adam. This is a well established Latter-day Saint doctrine. [John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations pp 56-57; also Improvement Era 46:769]
But this is totally contradicted by those who were there and heard the doctrine preached by Young & I would love to see Widstoe deny these statements:
“Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus and the Only God to us” (Diary of Hosea Stout, April 9, 1852, vol. 2, p.435).
In the official Church Publication, Millennial Star, APOSTLE F.D.Richards said this:
“Concerning the doctrine that Adam is our Father and God…the prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that is the word of the Lord” (Millenial Star, August 26, 1854, vol.16, p.534).
“Prest Young was filled with the spirit of God & revelation & said…Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Savior) who is the heir of the family is Father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world” (Wednesday Feb. 7, 1877, Journal of John Nuttal, vol.1, p.18-21).
“Jesus Christ is Jehovah…Adam is his Father and our God” (Diary of APOSTLE Abraham H. Cannon, June 23, 1889, vol.11, p.39).
The title page of the Millennial Star from Dec 10, 1853 [an official publication of the Church] says this:
“ADAM, THE FATHER AND GOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY”
Do the Mormon leaders still think we are all ‘stupid’? Obviously, because they keep denying it and saying we don’t know how to interpret what their ‘prophets’ reveal as revelation. I guess all the Mormons who heard Young and wrote down what he taught are ‘stupid’ too. Again, judge for yourself Lurkers. Keep believing the LIE, or believe in Jesus and the Bible alone and leave all this heretical baggage behind.
The Chris Vlachos Tract, Adam is God? Can be
gotten here:
http://utlm.org/booklist/titles/adamisgod_ub076.htm
For further Clarification:
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me – namely that Adam is our Father and God…
We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? Is is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim[the grandfather god], “Go ye and make an earth.” What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth. …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 bretheren, brought it into existence. Then he said, “I want MY CHILDREN who are in the spirit world to come and live here… I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and now where is the mystery?” Brigham Young, – Deseret News, June 18, 1873; photocopy in Banister, For Any Latter-day Saint, p. 86
What McConkie & Kimball & others are saying is that Adam is not the god of our spirits, but this is EXACTLY what Young stated. The ‘Eloheim’ the Mormons refer to as the father is really the Grandfather God, the Father of Adam, who is the Father of the Spirits and the Father of the Earthly bodies of his children. This takes no ‘seer stone’ to figure out, it is simple to understand, although they will say it is our ‘theory’ and we are wrong. This is the LIE they want you to believe, and it is very devious and deceitful.
Thanks Grindael.
Janet,
This was Mr.Vlachos’s position on the Adam-god
doctrine as taught by Brigham Young. He used
57 footnotes, all but 4 are from Mormon sources.
You seem open to check this topic out. Thanks.
Have you looked at the Adam-God teaching, under
“Historical Issues”, on the MRM main page?
I hope you have thought about this and how it
does affect you today. It concerns the authority
of your prophet and his reliability to advance
correct doctrine.
Mr. Vlachos quotes Pres. Young:
” It is my duty to see that correct doctrine is
taught and to guard the Church from error,it is
my calling…” [ Misc. minutes, unpublished ms.
B.Y. Collection,Church Archives ]
What you did not address:
1). Those who continue to believe the
Adam-God teaching were soon to be excommunicated
from the Church for believing it
2). Most LDS General Authorities even denied that
Brigham had ever taught it.
I said I would love to research this more if you would please give the source of the two accusations above.
Sincerely, Janet.
“Who was the Savior begotten by?….Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days.” (President Brigham Young, Feb. 19, 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives; ; Brigham Young Addresses, 1850-1854, Vol. 2, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 179 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 48 Fd. 11; also in Adam Is God???, pp. 9-10; Adam-God Maze, p.101)
Contrast the above statement with this:
‘It is very clear from these expressions that President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He taught that Adam died and that Jesus Christ redeemed him.’ [Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, p. 125]
More Clarification:
At the School of the Prophets in June 1871 President Brigham Young taught, “Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam” (Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871, LDS archives). So this would mean:
Elohim = Father of Yahovah
Yahovah = Son of Elohim
Michael = Grandson of Elohim = Adam = God the Father
Jesus would be the only begotten son of Michael/Adam. This may explain the words of President Young made in 1862:
The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather . . .” (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 Jan. 1862).
Thanks to: http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_adamgodtheory.html
Do not confuse Yahovah with Jesus Christ. Early Mormons did not believe that Jesus was this Jehovah.
Final Clarification:
There is an abundance of information that Young taught on Adam-God. The statements by the First Presidency of Joseph F. Smith which deny this are made clear by the diary entry above. This has ever been the modus operandi since the death of Brigham Young. This was NEVER a THEORY, it was ALWAYS DOCTRINE, & there are many statements and sermons in the Church Archives that confirm this. If the ‘prophets’ were honest, they would readily admit this, but they are and have always been liars on this subject.
rvales wrote
rvales,
This kind of positive feedback is really, really uncommon, but its comments like yours that keep me going here.
So, thanks for posting it.
Janet,
The whole “I will research it if you provide the sources” is a canard (it sounds a whole lot like another poster who used to come here). Even still,
grindael did provide sources.
The Adam-God controversy has been around for a long time. The information regarding it is readily available almost anywhere. That BY continually taught AG (not just the initial time at G. Conference) was even recognized by Bruce McConkie who denounce AG.
While the issue of AG is a bit off topic. The “bragability” of God does rest in part on whether He is of the same specie, or not, as us. I see AG just being the natural extension of the idea of Eternal Progression and Eternal Regression. It is possible to exaggerate about the god “Adam”.
What I do find interesting, to the point of irony, is that “Adam” is simply the Hebrew word for “man”. The “Man-God” theory/doctrine does seem to be central to Mormonism and that the god of this world has the title of “man” is what many a Mormon has argued for on this very website.
I hope I did not give the impression that I disagree that what BY said or preached was factual with little doubt or little evidence to say otherwise. There is no doubt in my mind that BY taught the AG Doctrine, to say otherwise would be careless and dishonest.
What I did say and continue to believe is that as a active temple attending LDS, this theory or Doctrine depending on the verbiage, does not affect my testimony in the least. I also realize that it is not taught as authorized doctrine today. Does it make it false to assume that BY got it wrong? of course not. Does it matter? To some it does, and many have left the Church to form their own cults, so that they can continue to preach and follow every word that BY taught. Do I totally discard what BY taught, no I don’t. There are many things that were taught, that are not approved as doctrine, yet I believe them. What I have to be careful of is teaching it as accepted and approved doctrine, so I personally can be of one mind, yet happily teach the Doctrines of the Church which are acceptable. I follow no man, yet have conviction and testimony of that which I have confirmed to me by the HG. AG theory or Doctrine is not something I have sought to pray about or even felt the need to have it verified to me by the HG.
Janet.
Janet said
Janet the sad part about this is, the Bible tells us to test the spirits to know if they are from God or not, and to search the scriptures to know if these things are true.
The Bible tells us that false prophets and false Gospels exist, If you blow these things off as nothing and die and find out BY did teach a false gospel then your whole belief is built upon a false gospel and then you will hear I never knew you from Jesus.
Then you said
This proves you admit it was taught and people believed it, If LDS believed it then we have a problem, People seemed to believe BY taught Adam God as Doctrine and if the LDS teach it was never taught or that the prophet cannot lead people astray, then people clearly were lead astray other wise if they were not lead astray why are they then being excommunicated for believing something that was never taught?
Martain said to rvalves
It great that we have positive feed back, But I keep going on not for a pat on the back but because God called me to do this, and people are dying and going to hell and I want to see that stop as much as possible. No offense to you but I would rather hear from God, well done good and faithful servant, than anything else. Rick b
Clearly I have been misunderstood and need to shine a little light on what is being communicated poorly by others. First it is well documented that during BY’s time as Prophet, the doctrine was believed and even sung about, that is obvious from doing simple research.
What did Brigham Young also add:
“Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species.” (JoD 4:215, Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857)
Nevertheless, in 1854, after a great deal of controversy concerning the doctrine, Young minimized the importance of the doctrine, stating that the “subject … does not immediately concern yours or my welfare… I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know” (October 8, 1854, Historical Department of the Church [HDC]).
I also have problems with other claiming that to believe this doctrine is worthy of Excommunication. What is important to keep the Church united is the principle of only teaching acceptable and approved doctrine. Lets say I agree with the AG doctrine, this in no way jeopardizes my membership, but if I was to teach it as approved doctrine then I’m sure the GA’s would want to talk with me.
Janet.