Once upon a time I was a member of the Mormon Church. I was converted at age 14 and ardently followed the teachings and lifestyle of Mormonism. I went to Church every Sunday, read the Book of Mormon, and had an active and productive Mormon lifestyle.
In High School, I went to Seminary, and when I turned 19 I could not wait to go on a mission. Unfortunately for me, a few months after my 19th birthday I got in a very bad motorcycle accident; which delayed my mission for two years. But I still went, even though I had serious problems with one of my legs that had gotten smashed by a car.
When I got back, I worked for awhile and then went where many good, active Mormons went: to BYU. I worked full time and had a full college schedule to deal with, along with my callings in the local Ward I went to in Provo. My area of expertise was Church History, and I had made up my mind that when I graduated from BYU I was going to be a Church Historian.
I was so devout that on one occasion I turned down a date with a very beautiful girl that wanted me to take her to a movie called 48 Hours, starring Eddie Murphy. I declined because it was rated ‘R’. So what happened?
My insatiable appetite for knowledge about Church History caught up with me.
When I first moved to Provo and started going to the “Y”, I got an apartment. The first thing that I did was hit the local lumberyard to buy some wood to make shelves. I bought eight-foot pine boards, 1/2 an inch thick, and made myself a set of shelves to hold all of my books. It was eight feet wide and six feet high. I had a lot of books. I collected them, and I filled those bookshelves.
On weekends, I would drive all over Utah hitting bookstores to find interesting out-of-print books on Mormon History. One weekend I found myself in southern Utah in the St. George area, and walked into a bookstore that was owned by a Fundamentalist Mormon. He gave me a book by Ogden Kraut called “Michael—Adam,” written in 1938. I had a long talk with the man about the Church and remember thinking, as I left the store, that he was crazy. When I got home I filed the book away and forgot about it.
A few months later I was preparing for a Sunday School lesson about D&C Section 27 (and the priesthood), and I spied that book about Michael. I read it with fascination, and then disbelief. I thought, “This guy is twisting these references; they don’t say what he says they do.” Yet most of them were in the Journal of Discourses, which I myself had referenced many times over the years.
You see, I was familiar with some of the quotes Kraut used, but didn’t understand them in context. I now had the context, and I fought it tooth and nail. I spent the next few months tracking down and verifying every quote that I could from that book. The more I searched, the more I knew that Ogden Kraut had quoted Brigham Young in proper context. For example, consider this poem by Eliza R. Snow:
Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been
Subject to sorrow in a world of sin;
Through long gradation he arose to be
Cloth’d with the Godhead’s might and majesty.
And what to him in his probative sphere,
Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?
Whate’er his offices and callings were,
He magnified them with assiduous care;By his obedience he obtain’d the place
Of God and Father of this human race.
Life’s ultimatum, unto those that live
As saints of God, and all my pow’rs receive;
Is still the onward, upward course to tread–
To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head
Of an inheritance, a new-form’d earth,
And to their spirit-race, give mortal birth–Give them experience in a world like this;
Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss.
Crown’d with salvation and eternal joy
Where full perfection dwells, without alloy.
(Eliza R. Snow, An Immortal, 188-89)
This places Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam in perfect context. According to Brigham Young, this was Mormonism’s Plan of Salvation. To me, it was inconceivable.
I remember how excited I was by this aspect of Mormonism (The Plan of Salvation) when I was converted, and how much my Mormon friends and I drank in things like the book “Life After Life” by Raymond Moody (it was very popular around that time), and going to Mormon productions like “Saturday’s Warriors.”
What I couldn’t wrap my mind around was what I now found Brigham Young actually teaching: that Adam… was God, the Father of our spirits, and the literal Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. For all those who say that it doesn’t make sense, well it didn’t to me back then either. But then, I wasn’t as familiar with all of Young’s teachings back then. For example, he taught,
“But the fact exists that the Father, the Divine Father, whom we serve, the God of the Universe, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits, provided this sacrifice and sent his Son to die for us; and it is also a great fact that the Son came to do the will of the Father, and he has paid the debt, in fulfillment of the scripture which says, ‘He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world!’ Is it so on any other earth? On every earth!” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71)
Yes, I thought, Jesus’ Atonement covers them all. But you have to keep reading. He then says,
“How many earths are there? I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would only be a beginning to the number of the creations of God; and they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through.”
That’s fine. I agreed with that. But then Young teaches,
“Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let us know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71-72. Bold emphasis added.)
Jesus was unique only to this world! Every world has its Jesus. Every world has its Satan. And every world has its Adam & Eve, each Adam the god of that world, who falls with one of his wives and become mortal again and again, so that they might start the process to redeem the spirit children assigned to each world by giving them mortal bodies.
How does all this work? Well, Brigham Young answered it. We all become Adams. The rest of it (as I found out), Brigham Young did indeed teach as doctrine and called it a revelation from God.
This did not sit well with me and so I started asking around. I went to my Bishop which was a colossal waste of time. I went to my Stake President. Same thing. I went on Campus and received a lot more answers, but was told to keep them to myself. But I didn’t. I went back to my Stake President and demanded answers. He eventually wrote to Church Headquarters and they told him to have me read Mark E. Peterson’s book, Adam, Who Is He?
I read the book and saw that Peterson had been very deceptive in many places. For example, Peterson wrote,
“We do not know what part Michael played in the creation of this earth. President Young did not make it clear.” (Adam, Who is He?, 83)
But Brigham Young made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion. Take this example from a sermon given at General Conference, October 8, 1854 (Wilford Woodruff called this the “greatest sermon ever given to the Latter-day Saints as a people”):
“Elohim looked around upon the eternity of matter, and said to his associates, and those that he was pleased to call upon at that time for his counselors, with regard to the elements, worlds, planets, kingdoms and thrones; said he, ‘Yahovah[,] Michael, see that eternal matter on all sides, this way and that way; we have already created worlds upon worlds, shall we create another world? Yes, go and organize the elements yonder in space;’ not empty space, for there is no such thing, once in a while, [the] earth quakes, and the extensive destruction of combustible matter by fire will come nigh, making empty space for perhaps the millionth part of a second. ‘Yahovah[,] Michael, go and create a world, make it, organize it, form it; and then put upon it every thing in all the variety that you have seen, that you have been in the habit of being associated with in other worlds, of beasts, birds, fowl, fish, and every insect, and creeping thing,”– and finally, the whole eternity of element is full of life, bring it together and make of it living creatures.’
“Yahovah [and] Michael, goes and does as they are told. What I am now going to tell you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you. When Yahovah [and] Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when he had filled the earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael, or Adam, goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Essential Brigham Young, 94)
That, along with other things that happened, made me realize that Brigham Young (as well as every other Mormon “prophet”) wasn’t worth following. Many years later, I realized how much at odds the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were compared to the Bible.
Take this statement, also written by Eliza R. Snow,
“Man is the offspring of the Gods. This is the supreme conception which gives to religion its very soul. Unless man’s divinity comes in somewhere, religion is the wretchedest humbug that ever deluded mortals. But the sublime and most primitive conception of Mormonism is that man in his essential being is divine, that he is the offspring of God–that God is indeed his Father.” (Women of Mormondom, 192)
According to the Bible, this is demonstrably false. We are only divine if and when we take on the divine nature, and become sons through adoption. (See, John 1:12-13, Colossians 1:16, John 3:10, Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5, Galatians 3:26.)
Brigham Young taught that Adam was the Father of the spirits of Mankind. I challenge any Mormon to prove that he didn’t teach it, and that it can’t be clearly understood in the light of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal progression. Here is some ammo for you all to use. I guarantee that I can rebut everything that Brian Hales tries to argue here. Good luck, if any of you dare to take the challenge.
@old man
Thanks for the Lucifer info. I will definitely look that up.
Also, I left you a comment in the other thread on the temple square video. Don’t think for a minute that your efforts on sites like these are in vain.
Here is what FAIR wrote about it,
Actually, they didn’t “reject” the Adam God “teachings”. They invented something called a “theory” which they then “rejected”. Notice Penrose’ wording. The “Church” has never formulated any “theory” or adopted Young’s teachings. Well, duh. Of course they didn’t. But the Hierarchy under Young did. This is how they get around this. Obfuscate the issue. Then Kimball ingenuously uses the same kind of rhetoric to deny what he then calls a “theory”. Notice he says “not according to the scriptures” which is fine.
If Kimball would have just stuck with that, it would have been fine, that is what Woodruff did when he said “don’t teach the mysteries”. But Kimball then goes too far and has to lie to do it. He says “alleged to have been taught”. Well, there is no “alleged”. Young taught it. Knowing he would be caught in a lie, Kimball then tacks “theory” on the end of Adam-God. What “theory” is this? Kimball never says, he just denounces it. Others have tried to explain what the “theory” is, but have never come close. Matthew Brown of FAIR tried to do this in 2010, and never even quoted Young to any extent to do so. He never once quoted Young’s 1873 Address for example. Just totally ignored it. Brian C. Hales in his treatment only mentions the June 8, 1873 sermon in a footnote but never quotes from it. He also says,
This is untrue. They all “openly” supported it, because they sustained Young as a “prophet” every year for over 30 years. In a quorum meeting in 1860 every single church authority sided with Young (and Adam-God) against Orson Pratt. Every single one in that room, except three (Amasa Lyman & George A. Smith & Daniel H. Wells, who were sick). Woodruff said so. He said,
Who was present? Woodruff writes,
In that meeting, Young said,
This is Adam-God, and he begat “children who were mortal, who died”. He also said the KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES, which they did. Hales even gives this quote,
Yet in that same meeting in 1860 Woodruff writes,
Like with polygamy, they must jump through hoops in order to make a case against Adam God. They will never quote extensively, and they will always try and obfuscate the evidence.
What error? In disagreeing with Young’s doctrines. Here is Taylor supporting Young and Adam God.
grindael, great job . When I first read about this doctrine many years ago I was stunned that
the alleged leader of Jesus’ church could publically teach it to his flock repeatedly . Then I
observed that those officers under him gave testimony to it’s validity . Then after seeing all
their inner witness bolstering this new doctrine , to see how Mormon authorities after Young
dealt with it was equally bad . They usually resorted to denying that he ever taught such a thing ,
another inner witness . But it seems after the research in the last 20 years or so it looks like now
the weight of evidence is enough to cause some knowledgeable Mormons to admit that Young
did in fact believe and teach it BUT it does’nt matter to them because it does’nt affect their
salvation , etc. This rationale may appease some for a while . It’s a good diversion .
In these latter days prophets/apostles who mimic the claims of Jesus’ true apostles in hopes of
convincing people to follow them , and thus accept their new truths about God , are not a
surprising problem because Jesus for- warned of such counterfeit prophets [ Mk 13:22-23 ] .
Mormon prophets are such prophets , and Brigham Young is a classic example of why sincere
people who desire to follow Jesus need to avoid him and those who have succeeded him .
The Mormon people deserve better .
Did I ask this before?
Where does the Egyptian Fertility god Min fit into all of this Adam-God doctrine. I mean the Min-ster was featured prominently in that all time great spiritual revelation the BoA. After all Joseph Smith did represent his latest flavor of the month god in this manner.
You know, once an LDS person gets knowledge of the things “revealed” on this blog, aren’t they obligated to leave the “one true church”. They have to assume some responsibility at the point they get the knowledge/information, don’t they?
……………….and I’m waiting for my graphic representation of the Adam-God doctrine to make its way here. Can anyone really visually display this mess?
Mike,
They didn’t just deny it publicly. They denied that he taught a “Theory”. Here is what Franklin D. Richards and Jos. F. Smith said about Adam-God [The context of this is that they were being hammered by the Reorganized Church Missionaries over Adam-god],
Brigham Young Jr. Journal,
Franklin D. Richards Diary,
Here is the letter to Nye that they sent, (APPROVED BY THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND Q12], Now think of the implications of that. And how no Mormon Apologists EVER address these things,
Note: Parts of Richard’s Diaries are still restricted by the Church. (as per D. Michael Quinn).
They had all decided this in 1897. By 1903 they used Charles Penrose the Newspaperman to draft up what he called “The Adam God Theory”. It was something they called Young’s teachings but never explained what they meant by it. This way, they could get out of condemning the “too precious to cast before swine” doctrine that Young taught, and denounce the fictional “theory” they invented.
Kind of makes you sick, doesn’t it?
I believe this is what is known as “spin”.
It’s been said that people cross the line separating reality and fantasy when they start believing their own spin. The LDS church crossed that line a long time ago. The members who are loyal to their leaders swallow the spin without question because to question the leadership is to question the Mormon god himself.
We wonder why the Mormon posters who show-up here give us explanations that even a five year old wouldn’t believe. That’s the effect of having given one’s self over completely to a belief that can’t be substantiated in any meaningful way and in fact can be taken apart without a whole lot of effort.
I don’t know if we should pity these folks or not. I’ve never “thought” Mormon and never been in what could be described as a mind-control cult so it’s difficult to relate to the mind-set.
It really is a case of spiritual bondage.
“I challenge any Mormon to prove that he didn’t teach it”
I would like to point out that this challenge is impossible to answer; not because it is proven that Brigham Young did teach this, but because it is impossible to prove he didn’t regardless. In this you are using a Negative Proof. This is just a brief explanation of what a Negative proof is.
“A negative proof is a logical fallacy which takes the structure of: X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
If the only evidence for something’s existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof…is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence…
One important element to remember in regards to negative proof is that once positive evidence has been presented the burden shifts to the skeptic to refute the evidence presented.”
So, to be an honest challenge you would first present the evidence that he did teach this, and than make a challenge of refuting that evidence. This is, by the way, what my methods have been from the beginning. I wait for you to offer proof, and than I refute it.
In regards to what you have written on this thread, only two quotes are given that even speak to the challenge. The first is a poem by Eliza Snow. While you make the claim that this proves Brigham Young taught this, these are not his words, nor are they the words of anyone holding any authority to teach doctrine. The other I have refuted in other threads as in that discourse he clearly tells us he is giving his opinions and not giving doctrine.
I feel like some of you have way to much time on your hands. maybe get a hobby, hey it is football season! join a fantasy team. Juts joking y’all!
For real though why do you spend so much time worrying about a religon that you are not a member of?
I have provided evidence that he did teach it Shem. You, of course ignore it and are trying to create a lame way of getting out of proving that he didn’t teach it. Nice try, but you have spit all over your face.
Jarron21, you said , ” For real though why do you spend so much time worrying about a
religion that you are not a member of ? ”
No one here is ” worrying” , but we are concerned for you . Jesus warned us all to be alert for
false prophets arising in the latter days . So we are reminding people not to be misled by the
latter days prophets of Mormonism .
But more than that is the fact that this religion as you call it sends missionaries to my door
to tell me that many of my beliefs are false and that my church is part of what constitutes the
church of the Devil in these latter days . I have to defend my faith against these accusations .
Is that clear enough ?
Come on Jarron , please wake up .
Grindeal
As I pointed out, in this particular thread you gave only two quotes that in any way deal with the challenge you made. The first, as it doesn’t even reference Brigham Young, is hardly proof of anything. It may be called an indicator, but not proof.
As to the second, in this discourse he stated at least 7 times that he was speaking his opinion and at least once that we shouldn’t bother ourselves at all regarding it. So, all you have proven is that Brigham Young had some opinions that were a bit out their, but you have failed to prove that he ever tought tham as doctrine.
As to my point on your challenge, while you did provide some minor evidence, your challenge was not for anyone to refute that evidence. Your challenge was clearly for others to present evidence of a negative statement; and you even said you would refute the evidence they provided.
So, what I said regarding your challenge still stands. Your challenge, as it is stated, cannot be answered because you are demanding proof that something didn’t happen, which is impossible.
Jarron
Personally I have often wondered the same thing. I know I am here primarily because I enjoy it, despite how annoying some people can be. In a way this is my hobby. I also think that information that is presented regarding any faith should be as accurate as possible, and so I correct any errors I find.
I already answered this, and you never responded, remember? So do so now, respond to every one of these points… Here is my already made reply…
Wow Shem, you must be desperate. That is all you have? I’m enjoying getting you all worked up because it only shows how much of a fool you are. We know who the liar is here. Let’s PROVE IT AGAIN, as I have done so many times before. Let’s examine why Young used those terms. He did so, because it was his vernacular. But first, Brigham published this in the Deseret News in 1873, a few years before he died, which blows your pet “theory” out of the water. Ready?
Young explicitly states that Adam God is a REVELATION. He also said,
Young is calling you and everyone who doesn’t believe this was a revelation a dumb as*. If the shoe fits, Shem. 🙂 There is nothing that you can say to deny this. So shut up. You are a fool. As for Young vernacular,
Brigham Young often referred to himself as a “Yankee guesser” and on one rare occasion when he was waxing prophetic about being prepared for future calamity said,
Young could almost be called a reluctant prophet since he was very leery of being compared with his mentor and idol, Joseph Smith in this regard. In 1857 Young spoke of the church as being the Kingdom that Daniel spoke of, and said that “I am not going to interpret dreams; for I don’t profess to be such a Prophet as were Joseph Smith and Daniel; but I am a Yankee guesser.” JOD Vol. 5, July 26, 1857, page 77.
Yet in the same discourse he said,
When the cornerstones of the Salt Lake Temple were laid in April, 1853 Brigham Young told the gathered “saints”:
Even though Young called himself a Yankee guesser, he viewed himself as far more than that. In the same discourse he said,
He said he guessed about the Temple, but actually said he saw it in vision. Young may not have been prone to prophecy, but he was well aware of his calling to teach correct doctrine:
As for doctrine, Young also said that a person could be a real disciple without having visions [..] but that person could not be a “special witness’ to the doctrine he believes in as Brigham Young was. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p.208, February 16, 1856) Now, about that word reckon. Matthew Brown from FAIR tried the same argument as you. You forgot to mention some things that Young said in that discourse, which leads me to believe you never read the whole thing or you are being purposefully deceptive. Well, Brown lied in his presentation about Adam God too, and he is simply wrong like you are.
For those that don’t know, Matthew Brown is a Mormon author and historian whose emphasis is on the history and doctrine of Joseph Smith and his successors through Brigham Young. He acted as the compiler and editor of the journal for the The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) which they claim “is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS (Mormon) doctrine, belief and practice” from January to September 2010. He worked for FAIR.
What Mr. Brown did not do, (OR SHEM) is reveal what Young said close to the opening of this address, where he stated:
He also said:
Though Young did not deem the items of Doctrine that he was discussing that afternoon necessary for the people to know right then, and that they should not trouble themselves about them ” immediately”, that still did not mean that Young was implying that the items were NOT true, or that they were NOT revealed from God. He is simply implying that some were not ready to receive them, and he knew it, but that he was going to indulge them anyway. One recalls here, that Joseph Smith did the same thing with polygamy, and only revealed the principle to a chosen few, and NEVER had it ratified by the Church in his lifetime. It did not make the principle any less true for Smith, or any less a revelation claimed by him to come from God.
This is the key to understanding Young’s entire discourse. This is what many modern Latter-day Saints fail to understand about Joseph Smith and Young in particular, that the Mormons in Smith and Young’s time, truly believed that when they spoke, they spoke with the authority of apostles and prophets and that their words were scripture. A revelation being scripture, is a far cry from having it ratified and made binding upon the entire Church. Because it is not, does not make it any less a revelation, as Young claimed that Adam-god was. Young has said this on more than one occasion, but never as clear as the above, where he tells the congregation that he is going to MAKE a little scripture. Then, he proceeds to lay out the case for Adam-god. Whatever ‘rhetoric’ he used….it doesn’t really matter if he says, I guess this, or I reckon that. He already said he was going to ‘make a little scripture’ and that should be enough for ALL to realize Young was telling his audience to take these words very seriously.
And Young, before he even gets to the deep part of the discourse, says this: “Now to know the only wise God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent, will put the man, the woman, congregation, or nation in possession of eternal life.”
Back to Matthew Brown:
But is this exactly true? One must read the discourse to know. And what else did Young ‘reckon’? He reckoned this also (which Brown (AND SHEM) failed to mention):
These four points, which Young also said ‘he reckoned’ about, are well taught and part of revealed doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, and contained in Mormon Scripture. Interesting, that Brown (or SHEM) does not mention them at all.
Point 1: All things were first made spiritual preparatory to being made temporally. Taught by Smith and written in a letter by him in 1842, and canonized in section 128 of the Doctrine and Covenants:
Young here uses the word ‘reckon’ in front of this teaching, which is confirmed in scripture. Was he ‘guessing’ this too? Of course he wasn’t. Shem’s argument comes from total lack of knowledge about Brigham Young and Mormon Doctrine. Bubble Denial for sure.
Point 2: The Father has been through this. Read Smith’s King Follett Discourse, which is recognized as a DOCTRINE of the Church. Was Young ‘guessing’ this too?
Point 3. Then, the Children of Adam married each other. Right out of Genesis. Was Young ‘guessing’ here too?
Point 4. The doctrine of the pre-existence, and how men come here to take bodies to get ‘exaltation’. Was Young ‘guessing’ this important doctrine also? No. It was established. So why did he use that exact expression? It was the way he spoke.
Young did say that these matters he was relating were not immediately necessary for the Saints to worry about in that setting. There were gentiles there. There were unbelievers there. But Young also emphasized that it was ‘eternal life’ to KNOW WHO GOD WAS. That is necessary, according to the scriptures themselves and proclaimed by Smith in his Follett Sermon.
This sermon was couched in this kind of language because Young was being cautious with doctrine he thought ‘too precious’ to be “cast before swine.” In one instance, Young remarked:
This concept of Young’s that some ‘were not worthy’ of some doctrines is crucial in understanding Adam-god, and why Young only taught it selectively, and sometimes in public, taught about God in the general terms that are used by Mormons today. Nevertheless, this doctrine was accepted and affirmed by all the authorities of the Church except Orson Pratt (who eventually came around with the threat of excommunication) and possibly Amasa Lyman (who didn’t think that Christ was divine).
And Young is ON RECORD, published to the world in 1873 that Adam God was a “REVELATION” direct from God. Thanks for admitting he taught this, now you know it was a revelation. Who looks foolish now, Shem?
And you have provided NONE that he did NOT teach it AS A REVELATION FROM GOD, which is the point. You can whine all you want, but if you do not show that Young DID NOT teach it, then we will assume he did, because you CANNOT prove he did not. So all your blather about “negative statements” is just that, blather. Why don’t you start with what I just provided (which you never addressed) and we will go from there.
But I bet you can’t, won’t, and will have no satisfactory answers except your own “opinions” which are truly worthless.
You have shown no such thing, only that you don’t know how to spell my name. As a matter of fact, I’ve proven you totally wrong, but you have ignored it and not responded to it, AGAIN. All that you do is repeat the same old lines over and over again that mean nothing. So really, Shem, go crawl back into your bubble, and stop wasting our time with your lame opinions, they really show how little you know about Mormonism. And while you are at it, think on this discourse by Brigham Young, who taught in it that Adam was indeed God and said it was a REVELATION from God to him: (so whether you or anyone else accept it or not makes no difference at all):
There are no “I reckon’s” or anything else that can be construed by the ignorant as opinion in this discourse. He also had it published to the world.
grindael, thanks for posting that . This doctrine is an excellent example of why those who are
investigating the Mormon church should look into . This doctrine is absolutely terrible . But it
is’nt all that surprising when one considers some of the other things that Mormon leaders have
taught about God . They have truly drifted from their original creed concerning God , and have
drifted into apostasy .
Brigham Young was one Mormon official that believed that Adam was the father of the spirits
of mankind was truth and so he taught it accross the pulpit . I have no doubt that current
Mormon leadership believe in Adam God but feel the time is not yet right to take it off of the
shelf of ” advanced doctrines ” produced by their past colleagues and finish what they
started to teach the flock . But this could happen soon .
The Mormon people deserve better . May they come to see that their leaders are some of the
very ones that Jesus warned everyone about would come in the latter days —-Matt 24: 11.
Where is Shem’s detailed response to Adam-God? I’m sure it went right over his head, but the OP was never intended as a comprehensive essay on Young’s “revelation” about Adam. That is what the discussion part of this is all about, so we see that Shem’s argument falls apart from another angle. But since I have provided what he asked for, where is he?
I’m sure he will have direct and succinct answers for all of us, won’t you Shem? You will, won’t you Shem? Shem?
Anyone in the Mormon Community? Anyone?
Thought not.