Adam-God Theory

[_Bazooka]

We really need to discard most of the knowledge of mankind as something that can be argued as true to the exclusion of anything else.

What other knowledge is there?
The knowledge plants have perhaps, if only we knew what the tree's were saying!

"All things are possible with God" is really the basis for beginning to be enlightened.

But "All things are possible with God" is part of the knowledge of mankind, it's what portions of mankind "think" to be true.

But the sophistry of our species' most "wise" persons discards "God" along with any real discussion (not argumement) about "Existence".

They don't discard God per se, they just acknowledge that there is zero tangible, reasonable evidence to support any existence of a sentient divine being. I would go as far as to say there is no reasonable evidence to support the existence of the supernatural.

In other words, most of us argue about finite things that are transcended by Existence, as if those finite things constitute facts and everything else is mere imagination.

How can we argue about non finite things that are out-with knowledge of our existence?
What is there apart from facts, that isn't imagination or belief?

The reality is that "facts" are always subject to change, so imagination is actually more directly accessible to understanding than a finite set of current "facts" which we say we have today, which will be seriously amended or even largely discarded tomorrow....

Everything is subject to change. Facts, beliefs, imaginations....in fact, the reality that facet are subject to change, is subject to change


Ed, you are using a lot of words to say nothing at all.

[_Uncle Ed]

Well, you certainly got my head (pin-head?) spinning with that answer.

So, IYO, finite things are facts that can change, while imagination is more comprehensible...and therefore constant???

No. Don't take what I said too far. Of course some facts will keep you alive, or, if violated in preference to your imaginative powers, will get you into trouble, and trouble can sometimes kill you.

What I am saying is that we ought to develop and maintain a hefty dose of skepticism when accepting other kinds of "facts": the kind that do change over time, or even disappear altogether - like the earlier notions about cosmology that modern science has not only overturned but eliminated entirely. Yet we are incapable of determining much more than we already "know" about the universe, and will remain incapable until we can actually get out there and scrounge up more information. All remains theoretical until then. Lots of competing ideas are being floated about how the universe could come to be, what could cause such a phenomenon to occur where there was apparently nothing before, etc. Earlier, religions had all the answers, too many of them in fact, for them to all be true. Now religion has NO answers, only assertions based on those earlier "answers" (dogma).

But the one thing that religion retains is pondering causes and forces behind existence of the perceived, empirical world. I say "religion" in the sense of the individual's decision to believe or entertain ideas that the empirical senses do not detect, i.e. science does not acknowledge and therefore cannot study, and furthermore has nothing to say on the matter.

We all exist in that realm that science does not touch. To assume it is merely imagination, chemicals swirling in feckless patterns of shifting thought, without any purpose or cause in the existence of such a phenomenal process of thought, is to assume a dumbing down of what makes our species unique.

When I dumped a dogmatic approach to my religion, and consciously chose to turn away from the religion of my upbringing (the religion I was raising my children in), I realized that I had an immediate second choice to make: do I continue to believe in "God", or do I discard all credence in a Necessary Cause of Existence. I knew that some people gravitate naturally to the one over the other. It seemed necessary to me that an explanation of existence in the first place was at the core of our empirical senses. So I retained "God" and began again to try and find out what that word means to me. I'm still going at it, with Joy everlasting (I expect this quest to never end), and my belief in "God" is greater than it ever was within Mormonism's theological parameters....

[_grindael]

Bumping....

For new evidence in the pretty recently released Council of 50 minutes, from the date of April 5, 1844 (starting pg. 83) and this taught by Joseph Smith the "Prophet" of the "Restoration":

The chairman [Joseph Smith] explained the meaning of the word “Ahman” which signifies the first man or first God, and “Ahman Christ” signifies the first mans [p. [84]] son. He then referred to the labors of the committee and said that the council could not decide as to their labors untill they had completed their work. They could only sanction what been done and the committee must continue untill they had completed the document.

In 1832 Smith taught his followers some of the "pure Adamic language" and this is the definition of the word "Ahman" and some plays on it:



In 1855 Pratt (who's notebook is above) explained the above "revelation":

There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, “What is the name of God in the pure language?” The answer says, “Ahman.” “What is the name of the Son of God?” Answer, “Son Ahman—the greatest of the parts of God excepting Ahman.” “What is the name of men?” “Sons Ahman,” is the answer. What is the name of angels in the pure language?” “Anglo-man.”

This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is, that these intelligent beings are all parts of God, and that those who have the most of the parts of God are the greatest, or next to God, and those who have the next greatest portions of the parts of God, are the next greatest, or nearest to the fulness of God; and so we might go on to trace the scale of intelligences from the highest to the lowest, tracing the parts and portions of God so far as we are made acquainted with them. Hence we see that wherever a great amount of this in(telligent Spirit exists, there is a great amount or proportion of God, which may grow and increase until there is a fulness of the Spirit, and then there is a fulness of God. Orson Pratt, who was there and made his own copy of the "revelation". (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 2:342-3).

So to recap, Joseph is teaching that the name of God is always "Ahman" or in other words, the FIRST GOD or FIRST MAN and "Ahman Christ" is always the first man's son. Notice that in 1832 it was "Son Ahman". Now it is "Ahman Christ". This is because of Joseph's new teaching that Adam was God and Jesus was his son. Brigham Young claimed over and over again that Joseph taught it, this is evidence that yes, he did.

[_DRLehrer]

Bruce McConkie admitted to Eugene England that Brigham Young did indeed teach that Adam was "our God" -

See his letter at https://www.mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-reb ... ne-england

Also, President Gordon Hinckley commented in a news interview that BY taught some "strange things, like Adam was God..." (sorry - I don't have the source at hand)