Adam-God Theory

[Uncle Ed]

God has never been Consiglieri.


Trust me on this.

And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...

[grindael]

I thought that Buerger had given the Expositor quote, and he did. I missed it, since I have a digital data base and the notes are in pop ups. Here is what Buerger wrote,

First and foremost in the quote above,

On the other hand, the Nauvoo period also marked the first major synthesis of the Mormon perception of the nature of God, and all of Smith's later teachings are not necessarily known.

He then says, (the rest of the quote above) then,

While stopping well short of an "Adam-God doctrine," such ideas clearly were necessary precursors to the notions advanced by Brigham. The one fragment of evidence that Smith may have carried this at least a step further is found in a poem by apostate Mormon William Law, recently of the First Presidency, published in the Warsaw Message in February 1844. Entitled "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," this poem satirically spoke of the "greater" glory a man could have in the hereafter if he had plural wives; "Creating worlds so fair; At least a world for ever wife That you take with you there."48 (Emphasis in original.) While this notion does presage yet another aspect of Brigham Young's teachings, it obviously still falls well short of a positive link between the Adam-God doctrine and Joseph Smith.

48 Warsaw Message, February 4, 1844. One additional source is occasionally cited as further evidence of Joseph teaching Adam-God: this is a brief passage in the "anti-Mormon" Nauvoo Expositor (vol. I [June 7, 1844], no. 1, p. 2) where it mentions God's "liability to fall with all his creations", the assumption is that this is an allusion to Brigham's belief that Adam "decelestialized" himself upon coming to this earth. The context of this passage, however, clearly shows that God will "fall" if he "varies from the law unto which he is subjected," a Mormon belief which has nothing to do with the Adam-God doctrine.

Buerger does not ascribe this to Adam god, but I disagree with his interpretation, as do many others. But there is that other quote by Law that Buerger gives... How it "falls short" of a positive link between Joseph and Adam God is really not proven by Buerger. The entire passage reads,

Resolved 2nd, Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty inclumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humbility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood, by a perversion of their priestly authority and thereby forfeiting the holy priesthood,

according to the word of Jesus; "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." St. John, xv.6. "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son; if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that abideth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds;" we therefore are constrained to denounce them as apostates from the pure and holy doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Law's quotation from the Bible is not just applied to the teaching of "falling with all of his creations" it was applied to ALL of the teachings mentioned, including polygamy, therefore Buerger applying it to only that portion of Joseph's teaching doesn't work as an adequate rebuttal. Law here is not rebutting directly the line "his ability to fall with all of his creations", but he is saying that ALL these doctrines are not the doctrine of Christ and he who does not abide in them (the established doctrines of Christ) has not the Father and the Son. The doctrine that God will "fall" if he "varies from the law unto which he is subjected," cannot be what is spoken of here, for the very sentence after it refutes it, because it says that Joseph taught also "the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life", so how could God or any future gods "fall" when he was "unconditionally sealed up to eternal life unless it were voluntarily?

[consiglieri]

God has never been Consiglieri.


Trust me on this.

And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...

Just personal experience, my friend.

[Uncle Ed]

Trust me on this.

And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...

Just personal experience, my friend.

I am always interested in others' personal experiences. Such a conclusion as you make here is inconceivable to me. (I do know what that word means.) Never at any time have I been able to wrap my mind around existence and explain it with anything other than "God". So how could you possibly be anything else but "God manifesting"?...

[Fence Sitter]

Just personal experience, my friend.

I am always interested in others' personal experiences. Such a conclusion as you make here is inconceivable to me. (I do know what that word means.) Never at any time have I been able to wrap my mind around existence and explain it with anything other than "God". So how could you possibly be anything else but "God manifesting"?...

I am always interested in other people's non sequiturs. Maybe you could help me by explaining why what Consiglieri thinks has anything to do with your inabilities?

[caaron]

Eternal Marriage Student Manual, (2003), 167–83
The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. Mortal=blood, immortal=spiritual substance
Elder Melvin J. Ballard
“What do we mean by endless or eternal increase? We mean that through the righteousness and faithfulness of men and women who keep the commandments of God they will come forth with celestial bodies, fitted and prepared to enter into their great, high and eternal glory in the celestial kingdom of God; and unto them through their preparation, there will come spirit children. I don’t think that is very difficult to comprehend. The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. When blood flows in the veins of the being the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone; but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children. By that I mean they will be in the image of the parents. They will have a spirit body and have a spark of the eternal or divine that always did exist in them” (Melvin J. Ballard—Crusader for Righteousness, 211).
Elder Bruce R. McConkie
“Mortal persons who overcome all things and gain an ultimate exaltation will live eternally in the family unit and have spirit children, thus becoming Eternal Fathers and Eternal Mothers. (D&C 132:19–32.) Indeed, the formal pronouncement of the Church, issued by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, states: ‘So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring.’ (Man: His Origin and Destiny, p. 129.)” (Mormon Doctrine, 517).
1. Difference between sin and transgression--
If what B.Y. says is true, Adam came down to earth as an immortal (resurrected) being and he brought one of his wives Eve with him. They had immortal (spiritual) substance flowing in their veins. When he ate the fruit of the tree in the G. of E. it was ‘mortal’ food and caused blood to flow through his veins, as says Melvin J. Ballard. Thus he fell from an immortal status of a heavenly being to the status of a mortal being. This FALL then was a fall from immortality to mortality. I look at the mandate (?) to not partake of the fruit of the tree of K of G&E not as: “I command you to NOT partake of this fruit” but as is listed: the consequence for doing so: If you partake of this fruit you will surely die (bring mortal death into the world where there was none before). (For in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.) This death didn’t mean an instantaneous death, but death at the end of life on this earth (One day = 1,000 years with the Lord). Adam being immortal couldn’t die again. So the words of the Bible are as many scriptures…to teach the effects or consequences of their decision to those of us who followed later on. Just as in the B. of M. the writers many times wrote in the present but the commandments and counsel were mainly for us, to be read hundreds even thousands of years later.

To sin is to knowingly disobey one of the Lord’s commandments. If what I said is true concerning the consequences of partaking of the fruit being physical death, then when the Lord said, “Thou shalt not partake of this fruit for (meaning for if you do) partake thereof, you shall surely die I comprehend as the Lord saying basically “you better be careful, you know if you eat that fruit you’re going to become mortal, and one of the consequences of being a mortal person is physical death.” Yes, Adam had his freedom of choice. But it was more like when a parent says to his child… “Don’t put your hand in the fire because if you do, you’re going to burn your fingers”. Now the child really wasn’t commanded NOT to do it, but was told he shouldn’t do it because if he did he would suffer the consequences. This is the way I look at what happened in the Garden of Eden. Thus Adam didn’t commit SIN, but he transgressed the laws of immortality and partook of physical food. His transgression wasn’t a sin, but the transgressing of the law of nature saying that eating mortal food turns you into a mortal being. In other words to remain an immortal being (and in the case of Adam it would be a resurrected mortal being; this the way he was when he came into the Garden of Eden) he had to continue to eat or partake of spiritual food. If he ate mortal food, once again as Melvin J. Ballard indicates, the substance flowing in his veins would change to blood and he would become mortal. He well understood the decision he was making, and in the case of Adam, that is why he came down to earth. Following what B.Y. suggested, he had to provide physical bodies for all those spirits he bore in the heavens. So he voluntarily and knowingly ate the fruit because that was the way he could provide physical bodies to his spiritual children. Eve (a wife of his in heaven) also had to eat of mortal food in order for her body to change and become mortal. She evidently well aware of the process of becoming mortal and it depicts her as first offering the fruit to Adam so they could begin the process.
For me, the way the history is written in the Bible is in parable form. Many things are written the way they are and the principles are given to us, living thousands of years later, to learn from and to apply in our lives. It is true in that the purpose of the history is to teach us either a lesson or teach us how we should conduct ourselves throughout our lives. But it may not necessarily be exactly the way it happened. Example: A friend of your son John calls and asks: “is John there?” John is in the backyard working, doing an important job you asked him to finish before let’s say 5pm. The time is 4:30 and if he is interrupted he won’t be able to get the job done. So you tell the friend “No, he isn’t .” Now technically John isn’t home in that he isn’t inside the house, so you weren’t lying. But he was home in the sense that he was on the premises and nearby. But you weren’t lying in your answer.
Another proposition I will make. And I haven’t been able to find yet any other words on the subject. But as this thought came to me once when I was studying, and it rang true to me, and continues to be. I hesitate to include this because it diverges from anything else I have ever heard on the subject. This is the idea: There is a fruit which upon its ingestion will cause a physical change to take effect in an immortal being and cause him to become mortal. There is a fruit that was on the tree of life that would cause a person to live forever. Cherubim and a flaming sword were put there to prevent them eating this fruit (of spiritual fruit that causes a change from mortality to immortality) where man without having repented would live forever (in his sins). My proposition or possibility: Adam, at the end of this visit to earth to carry out his purpose in coming here, didn’t die a physical death (he couldn’t die twice, because he came down as an immortal, resurrected being), after finishing his mission he partook of the tree of life (spiritual food) and was changed from mortal to immortal, or that which flowed through his veins (blood) was changed from blood to spiritual substance, and he once again returned to his immortal state in the heavens as he was before he came down.

This will be pretty heavy stuff (either right or wrong) but will give you something to think about.

[grindael]

Eternal Marriage Student Manual, (2003), 167–83
The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. ...

Samuel O. Bennion answered this question that was submitted to the Liahona, in 1908:

Q:As Adam was an immortal being when placed here on earth and commanded to multiply, would not his offspring have been immortal but for the fall?

M.P.F., Logan, Utah.

A: Yes. But they would have had spiritual bodies only, and not bodies of flesh, blood and bone. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the garden of Eden they had resurrected bodies, in which there was no blood. A spiritual fluid or substance circulated in their veins instead of blood. Consequently, they had not power to beget children with tabernacles of flesh, such as human beings possess. The fall caused a change in their bodies, which, while it rendered them mortal at the same time gave them power to create mortal bodies of flesh, blood and bone for their offspring. This is a very brief explanation of a very important subject.

Of course, this was 1908 and the Mormon Hierarchy were busy dismantling the Adam God Doctrine and replacing it with what Charles Penrose invented, a "theory" that no one understood and that Young didn't teach.

As for Adam and Eve, Young taught that they died, and then went back to the Spirit world after being resurrected by someone that had the keys to do so, NOT Christ. Your speculation about the fruit is interesting, but never taught by any Mormon Authority, certainly not Brigham Young. (That they ate another fruit to get back their immortality).

[gfchase]

He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.

Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.

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

[CameronMO]

He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.

Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.

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

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I must admit, when I came across this teaching a few years ago, I was disappointed. I'd grown up in the church, and this alleged statement attributed to President Young struck me as odd. So thank you for showing me that anything attributed to Pres. Young recorded by Rich was an error.

But what about the recordings of Samuel H. Rogers, Hosea Stout, Wilford Woodruff, and George D. Watt at that same meeting? Or other statements by Pres. Young regarding Adam-God in August 1852, October 1853, February 1854, October 1854, March 1855, February 1857, and October 1857, just to name a few? Did Mark E. Peterson say anything about these other instances of Pres. Young talking about Adam-God doctrine?

[gfchase]

He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.

Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.

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

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I must admit, when I came across this teaching a few years ago, I was disappointed. I'd grown up in the church, and this alleged statement attributed to President Young struck me as odd. So thank you for showing me that anything attributed to Pres. Young recorded by Rich was an error.

But what about the recordings of Samuel H. Rogers, Hosea Stout, Wilford Woodruff, and George D. Watt at that same meeting? Or other statements by Pres. Young regarding Adam-God in August 1852, October 1853, February 1854, October 1854, March 1855, February 1857, and October 1857, just to name a few? Did Mark E. Peterson say anything about these other instances of Pres. Young talking about Adam-God doctrine?

Can you be more explicit on where your information can be found. I found nothing in the Journal of Discourses for your august 1852 date and the only sermon for the October 1853 that I found addressed gathering the poor, the perpetual emigration fund, and emigration but not one word about Adam/God. I looked no further. I really do not have time to search without proper information. Remember that just because you find something on the internet does not mean that it is correct. I have found that what you usually get is quite inaccurate.

[ludwigm]

Welcome on the board, gfchase.

Nursery
Joined: 2013.12.03 08:26:03
Posts: 2

Good luck !

So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times.

"The scribes did it" is an outdated evasion. Please look for another excuse...

Mark E Peterson says ...

Is he the same Mark E. Petersen ?
The same Mark E. Petersen who said "If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get a celestial resurrection. He will get a place in the celestial glory."

If he is the same man - who can say a lot as man, not as prophet, seer and revelator - then I wouldn't refer to him as arbitrator. Sorry.

[CameronMO]

Can you be more explicit on where your information can be found. I found nothing in the Journal of Discourses for your august 1852 date and the only sermon for the October 1853 that I found addressed gathering the poor, the perpetual emigration fund, and emigration but not one word about Adam/God. I looked no further. I really do not have time to search without proper information. Remember that just because you find something on the internet does not mean that it is correct. I have found that what you usually get is quite inaccurate.

Thanks for your warning on the internet. I often forget that not everything is accurate, and that evil people might have secret agendas for spreading misinformation. To answer your question, though:

Rogers' recording can be found in his journal in the BYU Harold B. Lee Library.
Stout's recording can be found in his journal at the Utah State Historical Society.
Woodruff's recording can be found in the LDS Archives.
The August 1852 recording can be found at John Dehlin 6:275 http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cdm/compou ... 9602/rec/6
The October 1853 recording can be found at John Dehlin 2:6.
The February 1854 and October 1854 recordings can be found in the Brigham Young Collection in the LDS Archives, as well as the October 12, 1854 issue of Deseret News.
The March 1855 recordings can be found in the Samuel W. Richards journal in the Lee Library and the LDS Millenial Star, Vol. 17, No. 13.
The February 1857 recording can be found at John Dehlin 4:215-222.
The October 1857 recording can be found at John Dehlin 5:331-32.

I'll repeat what was said on the first page of this thread back in 2007- Everything you want to know about the Adam-God Doctrine can be found here, starting on page 14: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/fullbro ... /cpd/20104

[gfchase]

Can you be more explicit on where your information can be found. I found nothing in the Journal of Discourses for your august 1852 date and the only sermon for the October 1853 that I found addressed gathering the poor, the perpetual emigration fund, and emigration but not one word about Adam/God. I looked no further. I really do not have time to search without proper information. Remember that just because you find something on the internet does not mean that it is correct. I have found that what you usually get is quite inaccurate.

Thanks for your warning on the internet. I often forget that not everything is accurate, and that evil people might have secret agendas for spreading misinformation. To answer your question, though:

Rogers' recording can be found in his journal in the BYU Harold B. Lee Library.
Stout's recording can be found in his journal at the Utah State Historical Society.
Woodruff's recording can be found in the LDS Archives.
The August 1852 recording can be found at John Dehlin 6:275 http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cdm/compou ... 9602/rec/6
The October 1853 recording can be found at John Dehlin 2:6.
The February 1854 and October 1854 recordings can be found in the Brigham Young Collection in the LDS Archives, as well as the October 12, 1854 issue of Deseret News.
The March 1855 recordings can be found in the Samuel W. Richards journal in the Lee Library and the LDS Millenial Star, Vol. 17, No. 13.
The February 1857 recording can be found at John Dehlin 4:215-222.
The October 1857 recording can be found at John Dehlin 5:331-32.

I'll repeat what was said on the first page of this thread back in 2007- Everything you want to know about the Adam-God Doctrine can be found here, starting on page 14: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/fullbro ... /cpd/20104

I checked your 1852 and 1853 references and neither discuss the Adam/God theory. Tell me have you actually checked these references for your self? I will check the rest if you insist that they teach this theory, but so far you are not batting too well. What I find is grasping at straws.

[CameronMO]

I checked Journal of Discourses before posting the citations here, and I just re-checked them. It's clear that neither one of us is going to convince the other. You can continue to believe that the doctrine was brought up once, and it was a clerical error. I will continue to believe that President Young spoke about this doctrine several times over several years, and many people heard it and recorded it.

But at least we can agree on one thing- neither of us believe the words of the early Mormon prophets.

[Tobin]

I checked your 1852 and 1853 references and neither discuss the Adam/God theory. Tell me have you actually checked these references for your self? I will check the rest if you insist that they teach this theory, but so far you are not batting too well. What I find is grasping at straws.

You must have done a rather lousy job checking John Dehlin:6 275

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made kings of Kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation and they will go into the garden and ...

He goes on to identify that Adam is his father and that he, Brigham Young, will go on and attain all that the Father (presumably Adam) and Son have attained (p. 276).

[gfchase]

I checked your 1852 and 1853 references and neither discuss the Adam/God theory. Tell me have you actually checked these references for your self? I will check the rest if you insist that they teach this theory, but so far you are not batting too well. What I find is grasping at straws.

You must have done a rather lousy job checking John Dehlin:6 275

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made kings of Kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation and they will go into the garden and ...

He goes on to identify that Adam is his father and that he, Brigham Young, will go on and attain all that the Father (presumably Adam) and Son have attained (p. 276).

This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.

[Tobin]

This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.

Uh no. Maybe in your world that is what the Adam/God theory means, but in actuality the idea is that Brigham Young identifies Adam as God the Father. Clearly this seems to be what he is doing in John Dehlin:6 275-276

[gfchase]

This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.

Uh no. Maybe in your world that is what the Adam/God theory means, but in actuality the idea is that Brigham Young identifies Adam as God the Father. Clearly this seems to be what he is doing in John Dehlin:6 275-276

Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may become Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason not to believe will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

[Tobin]

Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adan is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may beco,me Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Well, you are either deliberately moving the goalposts or very confused. In either event, I don't really care. The Adam/God theory is not about Brigham Young teaching that "Adan[m] is the only God with whom we have to do" as you claim. In the John Dehlin:6 275-276, Brigham Young says "Adam is my father". He then states that he will go on and attain what the Father (Adam) and Son have attained. Since the subject he is talking about is becoming Gods, one would assume he is talking about becoming a God. That means that Brigham Young is teaching that Adam is God the Father, which is what the Adam/God theory is.

The next false claim you've made is that I didn't read the material. I actually did and that is why I cited it and know what it says.

Now, you can go off and pretend that the Adam/God theory was never taught by Brigham Young all you want. You can subscribe to the incorrect view that it was a clerical error and somehow all these references to it are mistaken. I find it hilarious that you need to resort to such tactics to explain away something he clearly taught though. You seem desperate to prove that Brigham Young as somehow always perfect in everything he taught, was apparently God, and couldn't have been mistaken and taught false stuff. And I find the fact you believe nonsense like that over what is clearly true rather humorous.

[CameronMO]

Those who seek for a reason not to believe will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

I thought you were the one that was seeking a reason not to believe.

It's there. President Young spoke about this several times, over several years, to many people who recorded it. Stop looking for the words "Adam-God," and look at the concepts he taught to the people.

[gfchase]

Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adan is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may beco,me Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Well, you are either deliberately moving the goalposts or very confused. In either event, I don't really care. The Adam/God theory is not about Brigham Young teaching that "Adan[m] is the only God with whom we have to do" as you claim. In the John Dehlin:6 275-276, Brigham Young says "Adam is my father". He then states that he will go on and attain what the Father (Adam) and Son have attained. Since the subject he is talking about is becoming Gods, one would assume he is talking about becoming a God. That means that Brigham Young is teaching that Adam is God the Father, which is what the Adam/God theory is.

The next false claim you've made is that I didn't read the material. I actually did and that is why I cited it and know what it says.

Now, you can go off and pretend that the Adam/God theory was never taught by Brigham Young all you want. You can subscribe to the incorrect view that it was a clerical error and somehow all these references to it are mistaken. I find it hilarious that you need to resort to such tactics to explain away something he clearly taught though. You seem desperate to prove that Brigham Young as somehow always perfect in everything he taught, was apparently God, and couldn't have been mistaken and taught false stuff. And I find the fact you believe nonsense like that over what is clearly true rather humorous.

Well golly gee whiz, let me see now. I have been a member of the Church for 58 years and I have been hearing the term Adam God theory from the beginning. I currently participate on several forums and have never until now, heard it referred to as having to deal with becoming a God, which is quite another topic that is commonly taught in the Church and was indeed taught by Joseph Smith before it was taught by Brigham Young. It is one of the basic tenants of the Church. Adam/God has always referred to the misquoted and corrected statement found in the Journal of Discourses that says in referring to Adam: "He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." Now if you wish to change the rules and say that the teaching that we can become Gods is what you wish to call the Adam God theory, then O K. I believe that it was Lorenzo Snow who said "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Nobody hides this teaching, as I said it is one of our basic tenants. Just please let me know which topic we are actually discussing.