The "Adam-God Theory"

[_Themis]

No themis, look at your posts. You kept saying "lie," but it was not a lie by Abraham or God since she really was his sister!

Read the account. It is an attempt at deception, and is therefore lying. God would not be that stupid not to recognize this.

[_gdemetz]

I disagree Themis. The truth was told in stating that Sarah was his sister. Was some deception involved? Yes, insofar as withholding information to save Abraham's life. Is this the only incident in which God or His prophets have withheld information which caused confusion, and could possibly be referred to as deception? Of course not. There are numerous instances in the scriptures where God withheld information which could be termed as deceptive. For example, we are told, as revealed by God to Moses, that man was created from the dust of the earth, which is true, but it could also be termed by some as deceptive since Adam was the son of God. Has this deceived many people? Of course, it has. Just look at all the cartoon type films regarding this which depict Adam rising up from the ground. There are numerous other instances I could mention in which God or His prophets have told the truth. but not revealed the whole story. I would never call God or His prophets a liar for this!

[_Themis]

I disagree Themis. The truth was told in stating that Sarah was his sister. Was some deception involved? Yes,

BINGO That's what people call lying.

[_Franktalk]

I will offer you this challenge again and it is about the 6th time. Find me one contemporary of Young that understood his AG teaching as Adam SR/JR. Till you can do so shut up about it.

Let me comment on this question.

In the following who is God?

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

And in this one?

Joh 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Joh 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

Who was Thomas calling God?

If you say that Jesus is part of the Trinity then Who was Christ calling to on the cross? If indeed He is all then how did He separate on the cross? According to Tertullian who defined the trinity they are without division in condition, power, and substance.

"As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian17.html

So in order to avoid a God Sr. and A God junior you create a trinity. That is undescribable and unknowable yet a required article of faith. I will tell you that when you people can describe the trinity then you will have the mind set to understand the Adam God relationship. Until then seek answers.

[_Fence Sitter]

Franklin D. Richards:

Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and our God, I have to say do not trouble ourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about that matter. The Lord has told us in a revelation which he gave through the Prophet Joseph, Jan. 19, 1841 - "I design to reveal unto my Church things which have been kept hid from before the foundation of the world, things that pertain to the dispensation of the fullness of times." (D&C 124:41) I would like to know where you will find scriptures to prove those things, by which have never before been revealed. Some feel their bounded duty to prove everything which belongs to our faith from the Bible, but I do not, and I will excuse you from all obligation to prove this from the Old Scriptures, for you cannot, if you try. You may bring much collateral evidence from the Bible and other revelations that will dissipate objections, and serve to strengthen the position, but to directly and substantially prove it, as the world requires and as we can the first principles, it will puzzle you to do it, and from henceforth we may expect more and more of the word of the Lord giving us instructions which are nowhere written in the Old Scriptures. If we feel ourselves, and teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be proved from the scriptures, we shall never know much of the Lord ourselves, nor be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent. If as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, the prophet and apostle Brigham has declared it, and that is the word of the lord. That is vastly stronger proof than Christendom can give for much that they profess to believe. Tell the Saints that if this stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside. You can help them roll it out of their way so that they will be but a short time till they will find a place in their building where no other stone will fit; then it will be on hand all right, and will come into its place in the building without the sound of hammer or chisel.

Seems like even back then they realized the Bible conflicted with Adam-God

[_Fence Sitter]

I will give you a few words doctrine, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Brother Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published; therefore pay good attention,
and store it up in your memories. Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God.
That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel, because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness - and
will. It is one of the most glorious revelations [concerning] the economy of heaven, yet the world hold it [in] derision. Had I
revealed the doctrine of Baptism for the Dead instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me who would have
ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass.

Brigham Young

[_Fence Sitter]

Bishop Heber Bennion 1920
Supplement to Gospel Problems, 8-9, 13
It seems strange that people will believe that `as man now is, God once was, and that as God now is, man may be'; that
`God is an exalted man' and still repudiate the doctrine of Adam-God. These incredulous people believe that Elohim,
Jehovah and Michael (Adam) the `Father of all living,' created the world and yet cannot believe that He is the God of this
world. It seems presumptuous indeed for them to ever aspire to be the God of anything, if Adam cannot be the God of the
world he created and peopled. If a man is not to become the God of his own posterity what will he be the God of?

[_Franktalk]

Seems like even back then they realized the Bible conflicted with Adam-God

Many details about God are left out in scripture. I will just wait and find out later. I see no rush to find out. It is what it is and I will not change a thing. All of this is a stumbling block for those who wish to stumble. Where is the spiritual interest in the Adam God discussion, I find none but I do find lots of worldly interest. This kind of stuff does not interest me. But I do wonder why some are so fixated by it.

[_Fence Sitter]

Seems like even back then they realized the Bible conflicted with Adam-God

Many details about God are left out in scripture. I will just wait and find out later. I see no rush to find out. It is what it is and I will not change a thing. All of this is a stumbling block for those who wish to stumble. Where is the spiritual interest in the Adam God discussion, I find none but I do find lots of worldly interest. This kind of stuff does not interest me. But I do wonder why some are so fixated by it.

Frank,

You find no spiritual dimension in Adam/God because you reject it, and not only do you reject it you reject its historicity. Those that rejected it when it was being taught (like Orson Pratt) made similar arguments because they knew that outright denial of Adam God meant censure by BY. Basically Orson Pratt apologized for contradicting BY and said he would keep his theological opinions to himself and let it all work out in the hereafter.

If BY was right about Adam-God, theologically it changes a lot.

Your definition of a stumbling block here seems to be some one who disagrees with you on this issue.

You're spending a lot of time refuting something that does not interest you.

History is interesting.

[_gdemetz]

Do you know the exact reasons why Orson or others objected to it? It may have been because Brigham Young taught that Adam was a god over us! Do you think Brigham Young is a complete idiot, who would one day teach that Adam, as well as all of us are the offspring of our Heavenly Father as I have plainly quoted, and the next day state that Adam is our Heavenly Father?!? That assumption is ridiculous!!!