Adam= St. Michael?

[_h2001st]

Along the same line of the Adam-god Theory... does the LDS Church believe that Adam was St. Michael?

[_Casslanpepci]

In short, yes. Adam was Michael.

[_h2001st]

Thanks- I appreciate the candid reply (the first one I've gotten, actually).

If you'll pardon my ignorance: What is your church's impression of Brigham Young's term "Ancient of Days?" Was he referring to Adam, or God the Father? (I don't want to get into Trinity issues and its associated terminology right now- so we'll leave it there.)

[_Nevo]

The position of the Church is that Adam is the Ancient of Days.

[_moksha]

From the non-reformed Hebrew, the term Ancient of Days referred to God.
Perhaps the Adam-God theory was Brigham Young's attempt to meld the traditional Mormon understanding with traditional Christian thought.

Out of curiosity, where did the understanding of Adam being St. Michael came from?

[_ludwigm]

Adam is Michael.
Adam is "our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do" (but "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")
Jesus is Jehovah/JHWH/Yahveh/any_spelling_of_hebrew/greek.
Elohim was (is?) anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, whatever this means.
Elias is John the Baptist.
Elias is not John the Baptist.
Elias is Noah.
Elias is Abraham itself.
We don't know who is Elias (Only by divine revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith is this topic brought into focus for us who live in the last days. ).
Horse is tapir.
Horse is deer.
Gold is tumbaga.
The cureloms and cumoms are useful unto man.

You know, in Mormonism everybody is other person, everything is a different thing.
This is the essence of the continuous revelation.

Continuous revelation from God to his saints, through the Holy Ghost or by other means, such as vision, dreams, or visitations, makes possible daily guidance along true paths and leads the faithful soul to complete and eternal salvation in the celestial kingdom. The principle of gaining knowledge by revelation is the principle of salvation. It is the making known of divine truth by communication with the heavens, and consists not only of revelation of the plan of salvation to the Lord’s prophets, but also a confirmation in the hearts of the believers that the revelation to the prophets is true.

[_h2001st]

Thank you, Nevo!

The link was not only helpful, it provided an answer to my follow up question regarding how an "archangel could trangress..." I appreciate it!

[_h2001st]

Moksha-

Grammatically in Hebrew is "Elohim" always the plural form of "El"?
Also is there a difference between the singular form "El" and "Eloah?"

Thanks.

[_moksha]

Moksha-

Grammatically in Hebrew is "Elohim" always the plural form of "El"?
Also is there a difference between the singular form "El" and "Eloah?"

Thanks.

Checked with the Wiki and they had this to say:

The Talmudic tradition rendered Michael's name as meaning "who is like El?". In recent years, a popular mistake has become to translate the name as "One who is like God." It is, however, meant as a question: "Who is like the Lord?" The name was said to have been the battle cry of the angels in the war in heaven against Satan and his followers.

The entire entry about Michael the Archangel, a.k.a. St. Michael, is facinating.
Seems like evey religious group has a variation on a theme as to what Michael represents. Why should Mormons not have their own individual take on the matter?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)#Christian_tradition

[_h2001st]

Moksha-
yes, I agree- Thanks for the information.

From the Roman Catholic viewpoint, an angel, especially an archangel, can't "regress" into the form of man... because their purpose is completely different from man's. I suspect, it would be considered "infinite reversal of causation."

However, there is a section of the Catechism (CCC 412 & 460) speaking of "progression" http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=2153&repos=5&subrepos=8&searchid=422648
for Adam after original sin... Thomas Aquinas http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/cat_view.cfm?recnum=637&repos=5&subrepos=8&searchid=422643
wrote that "there is nothing to prevent human nature from being raised up to something greater, even after sin..."

(of course, I'm focusing on the act of progressing- not the difference in the end result of the two religions.)

So if there any Jesuit scholars out there... help me out?