Tony, I would recommend that you don't take what is shown in the temple literally, and I wish I could go into more details as to why I am stating that, but it is forbidden. The creation went something like this. All things have celestial progenitors which produce naturally spirit offspring. So, initially spirit worlds were created for these offspring. When it came to produce physical worlds, which our spirits took part in creating, and populating them with plants, animals, and man, it went something like this. Celestial plants were placed upon an earth, and with drawing nourishment from the terrestrial world, they produced terrestrial plants (as opposed to spirit plants). Celestial animals went to the world and took nourishment from the terrestrial plants and produced terrestrial animals(as opposed to spirit animals). Christ headed all the creative operations under the direction of His Heavenly Father. However, when it came time to place man physically upon a world, then Heavenly Father was directly involved. He would bring one of His wives and they would partake of the fruit of that world until Their bodies were charged with it, and then the Heavenly Mother would give birth to a terrestrial man or woman (as opposed to a spirit man or woman). And, like all other life forms, the corresponding and appropriate spirit would enter the man or woman at the appointed time, just as the intelligences would enter Heavenly Mother at the appointed time prior to the spirit birth.

Either you go to a different temple than I did or I was really sleeping through the whole creation part. I certainly don't remember seeing or hearing anything about Heavenly Father bringing one of his wives down to earth and shagging. That would have definitely made the temple experience more interesting for sure.

You have to pay extra to see that.

So, what you have to put quarters in a machine or something like that?

That's why I said that you can't take what you saw in the temple literally. That prophets have taught what I stated. The temple teaches a symbolic cartoon like primary version.

So, when it says that god created adam and eve what it really meant was...that god and goddess apparated down to earth to break a rule they made for themselves so they could become temporarily mortal and have a bunch of babies that could have incest babies together to populate the earth.

God and Goddess brought sin into the world...so that God could send Jesus to be murdered because God brought death into the world and he can't admit anyone into his presence unless Jesus got killed. Jesus getting killed is the only way God can accept the rest of us humans for sinning and being fallen since God brought sin and the fallen state into the world. Cause god is perfect.

Yeah, I can see how that makes perfect, logical sense.

They didn't become temporarily mortal. No one becomes "decelestialized" and "unresurrected." That's how they produced physical tabernacles (as opposed to spirit bodies) for all the first parents of the various worlds, by eating of the "dust," or coarse material of the terrestrial world. That's why the Bible states that Adam was made from the dust of the earth and that he is also a son of God (see Luke 3:38).

WOW! When you say it like that it really does all fit together

gdemetz is firmly in the BY school of thinking. I really don't know many Mormons nowdays that are since he was a racist, bigot, and spouted a ton of non-sense like this. Most Mormons run away from what he had to say as fast as they can.

Personally, I don't see much use for a God that is so primitive he has to procreate like a common animal. I also think it reflects poorly on those that espouse such beliefs.

Everything gdemetz recited was part of the Adam-God doctrine. No, I'm not joking.

Did gdemetz actually describe the temple ritual as "cartoon like"?

What you're describing is Adam-God doctrine.

The doctrine already is that the rib story is figurative. It is not unreasonable to suppose there is more that is figurative.



BY's Adam Sr/Jr hypothesis. Not doctrine.

It might not be current doctrine today but it clearly was in BY's day. It was a lecture at the veil in the temple all the up until his death.

Clearly BY thought it was doctrine. But hey he was just a prophet, seer, and revelator, what the heck does he know?

Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God...It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven... (President Brigham Young, in the Tabernacle, General Conference, October 8, 1861, 10:30 a.m.; Brigham Young Addresses, 1860-1864, Vol. 4, by Elden J. Watson, sheet 134 (in chronological order), Historical Dept. Church, Ms d 1234, Box 49 fd 8)

What I gave was the true doctrine. The part Brigham Young got wrong, as his personal opinion, was the part about God and one of His wives becoming mortal after eating the fruit. President Joseph F. Smith addressed this issue in a letter that was drafted by Wilford Woodruff. Their bodies became "charged" with the fruit, and not changed by it. It is my opinion that Brigham Young misunderstood this revelation which was given to him by Joseph Smith. When their bodies became charged with it, then they produced, according to natural law, physical bodies for Adam and Eve. The cartoon version of Adam popping up from the ground which is accepted by apostate Christendom is false and shows the desperate need for the restitution of all things! It also does nothing to explain how Adam is also the son of God as the Book of Moses and the Book of Luke state!

Sounds very magical.

So, god never commanded himself not to eat the fruit? Is the whole account in Genesis is wrong according to you, gdemetz? Adam didn't "fall?"

It's not as magical as just springing up from the dust. I never stated that Adam didn't fall. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat a certain fruit, and they did which led to their fall. This is all Biblical.

Genesis 1 through 9, the first Book of Moses, (that Moses didn't write) that covers the creation and a list of people who lived 900 years of age, on average, up to and including the flood of Noah is nothing but fictive fairy tales. It has nothing to do with the sequencing of life on this planet.

Neither the order of things created nor the manner of creation as put forth in Genesis has anything to do with reality. There is zero evidence of a creation that accurred some 6000 years ago. The whole idea of a creation is fantasy and therefore impossible to even imagine as being falsifiable.

The theory of evolution is, however, falsifiable. It could easily be proven wrong if someone, anyone, anywhere, found evidence of advanced life, like a rabbit or dog in Cambian layers. Or if anyone found a rabbit or a dog buried, undisturbed and not 'planted',of course, in any layer of the limestones and shale from the top to the bottom of the Grand Canyon.

This would indicate that there was at least a starting event of some sort...

It would also suggest that someone was erroneously giving God the credit for Jesus and Michaels hard work...

Do you have anything that collaborates this from any Prophet from say the last 50 years? I bet that most of church leadership today would say something on the lines of “I don’t know if we teach that…”