Adam-Ondi-Ahman: Is it the Second Coming?

[friendsofthe]

I have maintained for some time now that the Lord's coming to AOA is the Second Coming. However, because of various statements given by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie many in the church today believe that AOA is pre-second coming.

In a series of three post I have recently shown exactly what the scriptures have to say about this. My posts do not agree with the statements of the above mentioned brethren. I think they are pretty convincing. If you have an interest in this sort of thing please take a minute to read the posts and then return and give me some feedback. Here are the links to the posts:

Part one: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/adam-ond ... -part-one/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part two: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/adam-ond ... ng-part-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part three: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/adam-ond ... ng-part-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AlbertaBronco]

It is a pre-second coming ... When the second coming happens the whole world will know and see it. AOA is just an event for those with priesthood keys that need to be delivered back to the Savior. I think for the most part, the church as a whole will not even know this event happened.

[friendsofthe]

AlbertBronco wrote:
It is a pre-second coming ... When the second coming happens the whole world will know and see it. AOA is just an event for those with priesthood keys that need to be delivered back to the Savior. I think for the most part, the church as a whole will not even know this event happened.

It would appear that you didn’t read the blogs. I’m aware that what your saying comes from the Statements of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.

The blogs were written in order to show that the scriptures tell a very different story. That was the whole point of the blogs.

[jwharton]

Part of people's difficulty in understanding the advents of deity is because people do not have eyes to see their tangible bodies of flesh and bone.

For example, when you see a covenant body of members who are all in union acting in harmony with a particular spirit according to certain laws, then you can see what a covenant body of flesh and bone is, which is a spiritual body, but which is a tangible body with flesh none-the-less.

Once you begin to look at things in this manner, then it becomes possible to see things with much greater clarity.

Also, it enables you to see that we aren't only looking for the return of Jesus. It then becomes possible to understand that we are looking at and directly involved in the advents of the Testator (Michael-Adam), Son of Man (Abel/Seth) and the Father (Eloheim-Adam).

It is these covenant priesthood bodies of flesh and bone that shall rule and reign during the Millennium and they are right in front of our own eyes hidden in plain sight.

This should also alert us to the danger that by following the spirit and policies of Lucifer, who opposes the Father's Plan, we can potentially find ourselves becoming members of the flesh and bone body of Cain. This is a present risk we need to open our eyes to.

[friendsofthe]

My latest post.

Predicting the Second Coming: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/predicti ... nd-coming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[wildad]

My latest post.

Predicting the Second Coming: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/predicti ... nd-coming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, totally non-sequiter.

[freedomforall]

Part of people's difficulty in understanding the advents of deity is because people do not have eyes to see their tangible bodies of flesh and bone.

For example, when you see a covenant body of members who are all in union acting in harmony with a particular spirit according to certain laws, then you can see what a covenant body of flesh and bone is, which is a spiritual body, but which is a tangible body with flesh none-the-less.

Once you begin to look at things in this manner, then it becomes possible to see things with much greater clarity.

Also, it enables you to see that we aren't only looking for the return of Jesus. It then becomes possible to understand that we are looking at and directly involved in the advents of the Testator (Michael-Adam), Son of Man (Abel/Seth) and the Father (Eloheim-Adam). What is your implication here? And who is the son of man in your view?

It is these covenant priesthood bodies of flesh and bone that shall rule and reign during the Millennium and they are right in front of our own eyes hidden in plain sight.

This should also alert us to the danger that by following the spirit and policies of Lucifer, who opposes the Father's Plan, we can potentially find ourselves becoming members of the flesh and bone body of Cain. This is a present risk we need to open our eyes to.

[freedomforall]

I have maintained for some time now that the Lord's coming to AOA is the Second Coming. However, because of various statements given by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie many in the church today believe that AOA is pre-second coming.

In a series of three post I have recently shown exactly what the scriptures have to say about this. My posts do not agree with the statements of the above mentioned brethren. I think they are pretty convincing. If you have an interest in this sort of thing please take a minute to read the posts and then return and give me some feedback. Here are the links to the posts:

Part one: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/adam-ond ... -part-one/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part two: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/adam-ond ... ng-part-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Part three: http://thebridegroomcometh.net/adam-ond ... ng-part-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My thoughts are these: Since the New Jerusalem is going to be established using a land mass of about 1380 miles squared, and Independence will be within that area, so will AOA. We also know that the City of Enoch will return and become a major part of the New Jerusalem. We also know that the City of Old Jerusalem will be rebuilt where it is today.
As for Jesus coming to AOA any time sooner is possible, because it is stated that he will come as a thief in the night prior to his actual descending in the clouds in all his glory.

[jwharton]

It then becomes possible to understand that we are looking at and directly involved in the advents of the Testator (Michael-Adam), Son of Man (Abel/Seth) and the Father (Eloheim-Adam).

What is your implication here? And who is the son of man in your view?

I'm saying an advent of Deity in the flesh is as a flesh and bone body, which means it is a covenant body of several members who are united by covenant into a union. I'm saying Adam is a single being composed of a plurality of members united in covenant. It's the same concept with the Bride of Christ being the Church. You can also call the Church the Body of Christ as well because Christ and His Bride are in a union as well.

Paul talks about what a body of flesh and bone is in Ephesians 5:30. This is the basis upon which Paul became a personal eye-witness of the resurrected body of Jesus Christ. He realized who the resurrected Jesus was when he came to realize, for example, that Stephen was one of the members of Jesus Christ's resurrected body of flesh and bone. When this connection came to him he realized just how blind he really was and it took him quite a while to fully digest this and sort everything out that was affected by this new vision he obtained.

My implication here is that when Joseph Smith Jr. was instrumental in facilitating the restoration of a living body of Melchizedek Priesthood holders who enter into the oath and covenant of the Melchizedek Priesthood, that this unified body was the coming forth of Michael-Adam as prophesied of in Daniel chapter 12 and Revelation chapter 12. Both of these scriptures say Michael shall stand up in the latter-days and fight with the dragon/serpent and that there shall be a time of trouble/war in heaven. I am further saying that Michael coming to the earth is the advent of the 3rd member of the Godhead in the latter-days and so I also referred to Him as the Testator. I am further inferring that due to Michael-Adam's fall and being cast out of the Garden, etc. that the Testator sealed His witness of the Father and the Son with His own blood. This is how Michael ultimately ends up serving in the capacity of the Holy Ghost. This is Adam in His fallen state, fallen such that all of His spirit children at that level can be ministered to by Him in a special way. Thus, Adam fell that we might have joy in being redeemed. The time comes that the Holy Ghost will again take up His Body and be redeemed. When this happens, the time of probation will be over. Joseph Smith Jr. as an individual also depicted this role of being a testator with his own personal life as well, but I am not saying Joseph Smith Jr. himself as an individual was Deity. The Melchizedek Priesthood covenant body is the advent of Deity.

This is why if you continue the narrative of the restoration of this priesthood body as Michael-Adam who comes to lay the foundation for the next cycle of creation, the narrative of this body is an exact match to the creation narrative. Adam went into the Garden of Eden in Jackson Co. Missouri and transgressed and was driven out into the lone and dreary wilderness of the Great Basin where He and Eve would be buffeted by the adversary until Their day of redemption would come. Our narrative as collective covenant bodies is the narrative of Adam and Eve. This is why in the endowment we are told to consider ourselves as if we are Adam and Eve. We are told to do this because we in fact are.

As for who the Son of Man is, this is the advent of Abel. Adam's name is Man of Holiness and so Abel is a Son of Man. We also know Abel has a brother Cain who is also a son of the morning right along with Abel. The narrative we have of our pre-existence where the Father's plan and the two sons, etc. is talked about is the Adam, Abel and Cain dynamic. For whatever reason, Joseph Smith Jr. didn't ever make that connection explicitly clear, but the parallel is to me unmistakable. There are also other cross-confirming and calibrating factors that supports this, but I won't go into those in this post.

The dynamic we see playing out between the two sons is the son Abel is adamant to render the acceptable offering and the other son Cain becomes deluded by the cunning of Lucifer to render an offering that isn't acceptable to the Father. Evidently Cain was susceptible to the adversary because Adam and Eve were driven out into the wilderness and put under the buffetings of the adversary. Abel held out faithful but Cain succumbed. So, we see Adam and Eve going through a time of trouble and a war among their spirit children members who all sub-divided themselves among these two other flesh and bone bodies.

As we know, the son Cain was overcome with the adversary's delusion and becomes arrogant against the Father and His Plan and seeks to pull the glory and honor to himself. When Abel's offering is deemed acceptable and Cain's as unacceptable the jealousy raged and Cain murdered Abel. This is the War in Heaven where those who did not support the Father's Plan were cast out with the adversary and became the recipients of perdition.

Put another way, all those individual spirit children members who became deceived by Lucifer's strong delusion became members of the flesh and bone body of Cain. They were unified in their pact to murder (excommunicate) all those who were adamant to hold true to the Father's Plan and render the acceptable offering. Cain was deluded into thinking his plan was superior to the Father's Plan and subtly did all he could to usurp it. All those member of his body of flesh and bone failed to see how the counterfeit plan ultimately led them into a form of spiritual tyranny where you have to render unquestioning obedience to those in their pact, which pact had usurped a great amount of power and leadership within the wider body of all of Heavenly Father's spirit children (at the individual member level vs. the covenant body level). (I realize this may be a bit perplexing so please know I'm willing to patiently bear with you if it seems disjointed and hard to follow.)

So, for example, when the Father's Plan has healthy provisions for checks and balances to remove officers in leadership who have transgressed, which may be as simple as neglecting to perform their duties, can have a common council convened if a significant number of petitions are raised to have them removed from office, etc. is ever to become transplanted with the mindset that the members are not to question their leaders and they are to consider them infallible, then this represents the encroachment of the pact of Cain to usurp the leadership of Heavenly Father's Kingdom of agency and individual accountability with totalitarianism that is beyond reproach. Instead of petitions being heard and addressed, petitioners are threatened to be excommunicated (spiritually murdered) if they do or say anything that could expose the usurpation of Lucifer via Cain's instrumentality.

Please let me know if this makes enough sense to justify me continuing to address the Eloheim-Adam part of this.

[freedomforall]

Let it suffice that Jesus Christ is...The Son of Man. Who can dispute all these evidences?

Jesus Christ, Son of Man

one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven: Dan. 7:13 . ( Rev. 1:13 ; Rev. 14:14 . )
Son of man hath power on earth: Matt. 9:6 . ( Mark 2:10 ; Luke 5:24 . )
shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come: Matt. 10:23 . ( Matt. 25:13 ; Luke 18:8 ; D&C 58:65 . )
Son of man came eating and drinking: Matt. 11:19 . ( Luke 7:34 . )
Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath: Matt. 12:8 . ( Mark 2:28 ; Luke 6:5 . )
whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: Matt. 12:32 . ( Luke 12:10 . )
shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in … the earth: Matt. 12:40 .
He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man: Matt. 13:37 .
Son of man shall send forth his angels: Matt. 13:41 .
Whom do men say that I the Son of man am: Matt. 16:13 .
Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father: Matt. 16:27 .
not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming: Matt. 16:28 . ( Matt. 24:27, 37, 39 ; Mark 13:26 ; D&C 45:39 ; D&C 61:38 ; D&C 63:53 ; D&C 64:23 ; D&C 68:11 ; D&C 130:14, 17 . )
Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen: Matt. 17:9 . ( Mark 9:9 . )
Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them: Matt. 17:12 . ( Mark 8:31 ; Luke 9:22 . )
Son of man shall be betrayed: Matt. 17:22 . ( Matt. 20:18 ; Matt. 26:2, 24, 45 ; Mark 14:21, 41 ; Luke 22:22, 48 . )
Son of man is come to save that which was lost: Matt. 18:11 . ( Luke 19:10 . )
when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory: Matt. 19:28 .
as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto: Matt. 20:28 . ( Mark 10:45 . )
appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: Matt. 24:30 .
see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven: Matt. 24:30 . ( Mark 13:26 ; Luke 21:27 . )
see the Son of man sitting on the right hand: Matt. 26:64 . ( Mark 14:62 ; Luke 22:69 . )
of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed: Mark 8:38 . ( Luke 9:26 . )
written of the Son of man, that he must suffer: Mark 9:12 .
Son of man is delivered into the hands of men: Mark 9:31 . ( Mark 10:33 ; Luke 9:44 ; Luke 24:7 . )
cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake: Luke 6:22 .
Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives: Luke 9:56 .
Son of man hath not where to lay his head: Luke 9:58 .
as Jonas was a sign … so shall also the Son of man be: Luke 11:30 .
him shall the Son of man also confess: Luke 12:8 .
Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not: Luke 12:40 .
ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man: Luke 17:22 .
lightning … so shall also the Son of man be: Luke 17:24 .
days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man: Luke 17:26 .
thus shall it be … when the Son of man is revealed: Luke 17:30 .
all things … concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished: Luke 18:31 .
accounted worthy … to stand before the Son of man: Luke 21:36 .
no man hath ascended up to heaven, but … the Son of man: John 3:13 . ( John 8:28 ; John 12:34 . )
as Moses lifted … so must the Son of man be lifted up: John 3:14 .
execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man: John 5:27 .
everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give: John 6:27 .
Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man: John 6:53 .
if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up: John 6:62 .
hour is come, that the Son of man should be glorified: John 12:23 . ( John 13:31 . )
What is … the son of man, that thou visitest him: Heb. 2:6 .
in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man: Rev. 1:13 .
done unto the Son of Man even as they listed: D&C 49:6 .
Son of Man cometh not in the form of a woman: D&C 49:22 .
Son of Man shall come down in heaven, clothed in the brightness of his glory: D&C 65:5 .
those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man: D&C 76:16 .
build a house … that the Son of Man might have a place to manifest himself: D&C 109:5 .
Son of Man hath descended below them all: D&C 122:8 .
if thou livest … thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man: D&C 130:15 .


Son of Man

A title of our Lord, found in the Gospels about 80 times, used by Him in speaking of Himself but never used by anyone else in speaking of Him, though we see from Acts 7:56 that Christians did apply it to Him soon after His Ascension. In the Old Testament the expression “son of man” is frequently used to denote simply “a man” (Num. 23:19; Job 25:6; Ps. 8:4; 80:17). The expression is found 90 times in the book of Ezekiel, where the Lord uses the term for the prophet.

The main ideas that probably underlie the title as applied to our Lord are (1) lowliness, humility, and suffering (Matt. 11:19; Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:45; 14:21; Luke 7:34); (2) honor and dignity, as head and founder of the kingdom of God, and judge of all men (Matt. 13:41; 16:28; 19:28; 24:30–31; 25:31; 26:64; Mark 2:10, 28); (3) the thought of Him as the representative or ideal Man, chosen by our Lord as expressive of His headship over the whole human family.

Latter-day revelation confirms the special meaning and sacredness of this phrase when used as a name of the Savior, as in D&C 45:39; 49:6, 22; 58:65; Moses 6:57.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/son-of-man?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freedomforall]

Man of Holiness...is not Adam. The phrase is derived from the language of Adam.

Another name for God the Father (Moses 6:57).

57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time.

Moses 7:35
35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

[freedomforall]

Cain is Perdition

Moses 5:24
24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.

And God told Cain he would rule of Lucifer.

Moses 5:23
23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;

Moses 5:30
30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.

[jwharton]

Let it suffice that Jesus Christ is...The Son of Man. Who can dispute all these evidences?

I certainly do not dispute them. Are you thinking I did not agree with this?

What was the name of the Father and the two Sons in the pre-existence?

Michael, Jehovah and Lucifer?
Adam, Abel and Cain?

[jwharton]

Cain is Perdition

Moses 5:24
24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.

Notice how it is said of Cain "for thou was also before the world". This is saying that Cain was in the pre-existence relative to our current cycle of creation. This means that in the latter end of this current cycle there will be a repeat and a new flesh and bone body of Cain will be created, just as a new advent of Michael-Adam will come in the latter-days.

And, as I said elsewhere, the members of the new Cain's body of flesh and bone became such by being overcome by the delusions of Lucifer and the lies that he uses to attempt to usurp the Father's original plan. The Father allows the infiltration of Lucifer's spirit because the buffetings of the adversary are in effect. He has to tolerate the tares among the wheat for a time. So, all those individual members who buy into the agenda of the tares are spiritually born into becoming a member of Cain's body of flesh and bone.

And God told Cain he would rule of Lucifer.

Moses 5:23
23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;

Moses 5:30
30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.

That does indeed provide an interesting bit of additional detail as to how it works on the left-hand path.

None of which takes away from what I have said so far.

[freedomforall]

Let it suffice that Jesus Christ is...The Son of Man. Who can dispute all these evidences?

I certainly do not dispute them. Are you thinking I did not agree with this?

What was the name of the Father and the two Sons in the pre-existence?

Michael, Jehovah and Lucifer?
Adam, Abel and Cain?

Elohim, Jehovah and Lucifer.
Man of Holiness, Jehovah/Jesus Christ and Satan...Cain is Perdition

[freedomforall]

Cain is Perdition

Moses 5:24
24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.

Notice how it is said of Cain "for thou was also before the world". This is saying that Cain was in the pre-existence relative to our current cycle of creation. This means that in the latter end of this current cycle there will be a repeat and a new flesh and bone body of Cain will be created, just as a new advent of Michael-Adam will come in the latter-days.

And, as I said elsewhere, the members of the new Cain's body of flesh and bone became such by being overcome by the delusions of Lucifer and the lies that he uses to attempt to usurp the Father's original plan. The Father allows the infiltration of Lucifer's spirit because the buffetings of the adversary are in effect. He has to tolerate the tares among the wheat for a time. So, all those individual members who buy into the agenda of the tares are spiritually born into becoming a member of Cain's body of flesh and bone.

And God told Cain he would rule of Lucifer.

Moses 5:23
23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him;

Moses 5:30
30 And Satan sware unto Cain that he would do according to his commands. And all these things were done in secret.

That does indeed provide an interesting bit of additional detail as to how it works on the left-hand path.

None of which takes away from what I have said so far.

Please tell us that all this is strictly your opinion, and not fact, please. A lot of things you've said are not corroborated by scripture. This is why I question its validity. Where is the acknowledgement that scripture is truly accepted as something the saints can glean from, those I have provided?
I believe them above all else.
Cain is Perdition
Man of Holiness is God the Father
Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ of the New.
Jesus Christ is our creator, he created the earth and man to possess it.
Son of Man is Jesus Christ
Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael. He is the archangel and will come again to the earth as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:26).
To act as if we are Adam and Eve does not mean we are literally. They were our first parents, being the direct offspring of God the Father in spirit and all the faithful followers of Christ, joint heirs with Christ in God's kingdom.

If we agree on all these points then that's a good start.

[jwharton]

Let it suffice that Jesus Christ is...The Son of Man. Who can dispute all these evidences?

I certainly do not dispute them. Are you thinking I did not agree with this?

What was the name of the Father and the two Sons in the pre-existence?

Michael, Jehovah and Lucifer?
Adam, Abel and Cain?

Elohim, Jehovah and Lucifer.
Man of Holiness, Jehovah/Jesus Christ and Satan...Cain is Perdition

Brigham Young taught that Michael is the father of our spirits.
Therefore, it is Michael who is the Father in the pre-existence.
Jehovah is who comes and redeems Michael-Adam from His fall.

Remember, we are taught that Michael goes down first.
He goes down to lay the foundation of the new creation.
Then, subsequently, Jehovah goes down to redeem him.
The process of Jehovah redeeming Michael is their union.

Upon Michael's redemption and union with Jehovah they became Eloheim.
And, upon Adam's redemption, the new Day 1 of a new Creation begins.
This is the great light that breaks fourth when previous is the darkness of Michael's fall.

Isaiah 44:6 talks about the union of Lord of Hosts and the King of Israel.

The scripture below talks about how the redemption of Zion after the Gentiles have rejected it and gone into darkness will have another chance to receive the light. But, collectively, the Gentiles will reject the redemption of Zion when the father sets his hand the second time. The first time was as Michael-Adam, but the second time is as Eloheim-Adam.

D&C 45
28 And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;
29 But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.
30 And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
31 And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.

[jwharton]

Please tell us that all this is strictly your opinion, and not fact, please.

Please, first seek to understand me, then make a judgment.
There are aspects of what I am saying that are a bit of a new paradigm.
Once you get to the point that we are on the same page with what I view a flesh and bone body as, that will really help. How are you coming on understanding that aspect?

We aren't talking about single solitary individual persons like you and me.
We are talking about covenant bodies composed of a plurality of members.
Please recall, Joseph taught the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone.
Paul gives us a clear indication of what a body of flesh and bone is in Eph. 5:30.
These bodies are composed of a plurality of members joined by covenant.

So, when you talk about the union between Michael and Jehovah, it's pretty simple.
It just means the entire union of all of the members of each of their pluralities.

A lot of things you've said are not corroborated by scripture. This is why I question its validity.

Question away because much of what I have learned was due to visionary experiences. I am still discovering all the time how my vision and scriptures are in agreement. But, as I indicated above, if you don't take into consideration how the narrative of Adam and Eve plays out with them as bodies of members joined in covenant, it will always be confusing.

Where is the acknowledgement that scripture is truly accepted as something the saints can glean from, those I have provided?

Does it make you uncomfortable that when I read them I do not see disagreement with what I believe?
Do you recall in my rounds with SkyBird that we finally got to the point where the apparent contradictions between Joseph Smith's statements and scripture were able to be fully reconciled by the context I viewed them from?
If you get the right frame of reference or the right context, apparent contradiction vanishes.

I believe them above all else.

I also believe them and strictly confine myself to what God speaks in them.
That is why I appreciate it when I get constructive and substantive criticism.
Usually what happens is I confront an apparent contradiction that is a doorway to a deeper understanding where I am able to see something I couldn't have seen previously.

Cain is Perdition

I agree 100%.

Man of Holiness is God the Father

And Brigham Young taught that Adam is our Father and our God.

Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ of the New.

Yes, and Jehovah was the Son of Man in the beginning. They are all the same.

Jesus Christ is our creator, he created the earth and man to possess it.

That is correct, Son of Man also rules and reigns during the Millennium and plays a crucial role in getting the whole Millennial temple work cleansed, set in order and performed in truth and righteousness. If it wasn't for Son of Man, Adam would never have been redeemed and the work of creation to organize the whole next cycle of Creation would never have happened. All would have been lost and entirely wasted.

Son of Man is Jesus Christ

Yes, indeed. Son of Man is the son who in the beginning said, "Father, Thy will be done and the glory be Thine." This was Jehovah who also becomes the Son of God, even Jesus Christ. The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, which is what happened to both Adam and Abel, for that matter.

Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael. He is the archangel and will come again to the earth as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:26).

This is correct, Michael comes first, lays the foundation by way of receiving the fullness, but who falls into transgression and needs to be redeemed. Then, the second coming of Jesus Christ takes place via the advent of the Son of Man who redeems Michael. By way of this process they enter into union and Michael and Jehovah become Eloheim, the Almighty God.

To act as if we are Adam and Eve does not mean we are literally.

We literally are as covenant bodies. We are in the latter-days and Michael standing up is the restoration of the Gospel when the Father sets His hand the first time to establish His Kingdom. However, Michael-Adam falls and so when He is redeemed is when the Father sets His hand the second time, which is Zion's redemption, which is also when the new Creation's Day 1 is kicked off.

They were our first parents, being the direct offspring of God the Father in spirit and all the faithful followers of Christ, joint heirs with Christ in God's kingdom.

The cycle is repeating. We are again spiritual offspring of the Melchizedek Priesthood body and the Church body as Eve, the Mother of all Living. We call ourselves brothers and sisters in the Gospel because we literally are spirit children of the new Michael of the latter-days to lay the foundation for the new creation.

If we agree on all these points then that's a good start.

I believe we do and it will help you tremendously to understand me when it finally clicks in your mind to look at these bodies of Deity as covenant bodies composed of a plurality of members joined in covenant.

[freedomforall]

I certainly do not dispute them. Are you thinking I did not agree with this?

What was the name of the Father and the two Sons in the pre-existence?

Michael, Jehovah and Lucifer?
Adam, Abel and Cain?

Elohim, Jehovah and Lucifer.
Man of Holiness, Jehovah/Jesus Christ and Satan...Cain is Perdition

Brigham Young taught that Michael is the father of our spirits.
Therefore, it is Michael who is the Father in the pre-existence.
Jehovah is who comes and redeems Michael-Adam from His fall.

Remember, we are taught that Michael goes down first.
He goes down to lay the foundation of the new creation.
Then, subsequently, Jehovah goes down to redeem him.
The process of Jehovah redeeming Michael is their union.

Upon Michael's redemption and union with Jehovah they became Eloheim.
And, upon Adam's redemption, the new Day 1 of a new Creation begins.
This is the great light that breaks fourth when previous is the darkness of Michael's fall.

Isaiah 44:6 talks about the union of Lord of Hosts and the King of Israel.

The scripture below talks about how the redemption of Zion after the Gentiles have rejected it and gone into darkness will have another chance to receive the light. But, collectively, the Gentiles will reject the redemption of Zion when the father sets his hand the second time. The first time was as Michael-Adam, but the second time is as Eloheim-Adam.

D&C 45
28 And when the times of the Gentiles is come in, a light shall break forth among them that sit in darkness, and it shall be the fulness of my gospel;
29 But they receive it not; for they perceive not the light, and they turn their hearts from me because of the precepts of men.
30 And in that generation shall the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.
31 And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.

So you believe in the Adam God theory. Well guess what? It is bogus from the get go. It is no longer valid doctrine. It was his OPINION, not canonized scripture.

What I have said still goes because it comes right out of canon not some fairy tale book.

Look, Jehovah came to earth and lived a sinless life as Jesus Christ...sinless...not one sin to his name, period. Had he sinned just one time his atoning sacrifice would have meant nothing, because he had to be completely sin free.
For anyone to even suggest that Adam is God the Father, they don't understand this truth. If God the Father had been Adam, how could God claim to be God and yet have a son that is sinless? In this light, God/Adam sinned upon partaking the forbidden fruit.
God the Father = one sin in the garden and many after being expelled. Therefore could not be God, rather a sinner just like the rest of us.
Jesus Christ a son of God the Father = not one sin, none!
Did the son have to atone for the Father's sins as well? This whole idea is utterly ridiculous.
Now just how does something like this look. It is just plain nonsense to say the least.

How can a sinless son go and sit next to his father a sinner. And God says he does not allow sin in the least degree to enter into his kingdom. And to have the son atone for the father, come on!

[freedomforall]

Please tell us that all this is strictly your opinion, and not fact, please.

Please, first seek to understand me, then make a judgment.
There are aspects of what I am saying that are a bit of a new paradigm.
Once you get to the point that we are on the same page with what I view a flesh and bone body as, that will really help. How are you coming on understanding that aspect?

We aren't talking about single solitary individual persons like you and me.
We are talking about covenant bodies composed of a plurality of members.
Please recall, Joseph taught the Father and the Son have bodies of flesh and bone.
Paul gives us a clear indication of what a body of flesh and bone is in Eph. 5:30.
These bodies are composed of a plurality of members joined by covenant.

So, when you talk about the union between Michael and Jehovah, it's pretty simple.
It just means the entire union of all of the members of each of their pluralities.

A lot of things you've said are not corroborated by scripture. This is why I question its validity.

Question away because much of what I have learned was due to visionary experiences. I am still discovering all the time how my vision and scriptures are in agreement. But, as I indicated above, if you don't take into consideration how the narrative of Adam and Eve plays out with them as bodies of members joined in covenant, it will always be confusing.

Where is the acknowledgement that scripture is truly accepted as something the saints can glean from, those I have provided?

Does it make you uncomfortable that when I read them I do not see disagreement with what I believe?
Do you recall in my rounds with SkyBird that we finally got to the point where the apparent contradictions between Joseph Smith's statements and scripture were able to be fully reconciled by the context I viewed them from?
If you get the right frame of reference or the right context, apparent contradiction vanishes.

I believe them above all else.

I also believe them and strictly confine myself to what God speaks in them.
That is why I appreciate it when I get constructive and substantive criticism.
Usually what happens is I confront an apparent contradiction that is a doorway to a deeper understanding where I am able to see something I couldn't have seen previously.

Cain is Perdition

I agree 100%.

Man of Holiness is God the Father

And Brigham Young taught that Adam is our Father and our God.

Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament, Jesus Christ of the New.

Yes, and Jehovah was the Son of Man in the beginning. They are all the same.

Jesus Christ is our creator, he created the earth and man to possess it.

That is correct, Son of Man also rules and reigns during the Millennium and plays a crucial role in getting the whole Millennial temple work cleansed, set in order and performed in truth and righteousness. If it wasn't for Son of Man, Adam would never have been redeemed and the work of creation to organize the whole next cycle of Creation would never have happened. All would have been lost and entirely wasted.

Son of Man is Jesus Christ

Yes, indeed. Son of Man is the son who in the beginning said, "Father, Thy will be done and the glory be Thine." This was Jehovah who also becomes the Son of God, even Jesus Christ. The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, which is what happened to both Adam and Abel, for that matter.

Adam is the Ancient of Days and is also known as Michael. He is the archangel and will come again to the earth as the patriarch of the human family, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C 29:26).

This is correct, Michael comes first, lays the foundation by way of receiving the fullness, but who falls into transgression and needs to be redeemed. Then, the second coming of Jesus Christ takes place via the advent of the Son of Man who redeems Michael. By way of this process they enter into union and Michael and Jehovah become Eloheim, the Almighty God. I 100% disagree.

To act as if we are Adam and Eve does not mean we are literally.

We literally are as covenant bodies. We are in the latter-days and Michael standing up is the restoration of the Gospel when the Father sets His hand the first time to establish His Kingdom. However, Michael-Adam falls and so when He is redeemed is when the Father sets His hand the second time, which is Zion's redemption, which is also when the new Creation's Day 1 is kicked off.

They were our first parents, being the direct offspring of God the Father in spirit and all the faithful followers of Christ, joint heirs with Christ in God's kingdom.

The cycle is repeating. We are again spiritual offspring of the Melchizedek Priesthood body and the Church body as Eve, the Mother of all Living. We call ourselves brothers and sisters in the Gospel because we literally are spirit children of the new Michael of the latter-days to lay the foundation for the new creation.

If we agree on all these points then that's a good start.

I believe we do and it will help you tremendously to understand me when it finally clicks in your mind to look at these bodies of Deity as covenant bodies composed of a plurality of members joined in covenant.

Covenant or no covenant we cant swap people around and make them who they are not. I cannot agree with this stuff. And I have done a lot of studying. Jehovah and Michael becoming Elohim, sorry, I don't think so.

[jwharton]

So you believe in the Adam God theory. Well guess what? It is bogus from the get go. It is no longer valid doctrine. It was his OPINION, not canonized scripture.

The problem is he tried to teach what he had been taught by Joseph Smith that very few would tolerate. Joseph Smith tried to teach it to others too but they would, as he put it "fly to pieces".
Brigham Young quickly learned that there was no stomach for these things yet and also that people were not even understanding what he was trying to teach.
Until someone actually can prove to me they understood what Brigham Young was intending to teach and how it is wrong, then is all they are doing is being in a disbelieving attitude about it.
There was no doubt or equivocation in Brigham Young's mind about what he attempted to teach. He said that this doctrine would prove the salvation of those who understood it and the condemnation or damnation of those who reject it.

What I have said still goes because it comes right out of canon not some fairy tale book.

Me beliefs are also 100% in accordance with holy writ.
I also have the bonus of being 100% in accordance with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as well, much of which the church now misunderstands and/or simply rejects outright.

Look, Jehovah came to earth and lived a sinless life as Jesus Christ...sinless...not one sin to his name, period. Had he sinned just one time his atoning sacrifice would have meant nothing, because he had to be completely sin free.

Yes, the lamb had to be without blemish.

For anyone to even suggest that Adam is God the Father, they don't understand this truth. If God the Father had been Adam, how could God claim to be God and yet have a son that is sinless? In this light, God/Adam sinned upon partaking the forbidden fruit.
God the Father = one sin in the garden and many after being expelled. Therefore could not be God, rather a sinner just like the rest of us.
Jesus Christ a son of God the Father = not one sin, none!
Did the son have to atone for the Father's sins as well? This whole idea is utterly ridiculous.

You lost me here. I'm not sure what your hang-up is.

Michael-Adam comes in the latter-days and lays the foundation for the Father's Kingdom.
He is the father of our spirits along with Eve as the Mother of all Living (the Church).
Adam is the Alpha/Omega so it can be a bit confusing to sort out the end from the beginning. I suspect you are getting hung up in that somehow.

Now just how does something like this look. It is just plain nonsense to say the least.

I agree what you are stumbling over appears to be non-sense.
I'm not even really following your ideas here to know where you are having troubles.
I'm not sure which is the best way to go but either you need to help me get clarity on your concerns or I need to somehow help you get better clarity on how I see it.

How can a sinless son go and sit next to his father a sinner. And God says he does not allow sin in the least degree to enter into his kingdom. And to have the son atone for the father, come on!

I'm not perfectly clear on what you are saying here, but there are some scriptures I think you should look at which will be helpful.

Revelation 12
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Son of God is mankind's Christ.
Son of Man is God's Christ.

[jwharton]

Covenant or no covenant we cant swap people around and make them who they are not. I cannot agree with this stuff. And I have done a lot of studying. Jehovah and Michael becoming Elohim, sorry, I don't think so.

What do you mean by "swap people around and make them who they are not"?

I'll show you an example of how Isaiah had no problem in conceiving of this 3-in-one Godhead.

Isaiah 44:6 says:
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel,
and his redeemer the LORD of hosts;
I am the first, and I am the last;
and beside me there is no God.

Michael is Adam, who received dominion as a king, who needed to be redeemed.
Jehovah is the LORD of hosts who is the redeemer of the king who fell.
These two beings, the redeemed and the redeemer of the redeemed, are one.
The obvious implication here is that Michael and Jehovah are in union as Eloheim.
Adam is the first and Adam is the last, which is Adam and His redeemer in union.

[freedomforall]

So you believe in the Adam God theory. Well guess what? It is bogus from the get go. It is no longer valid doctrine. It was his OPINION, not canonized scripture.

The problem is he tried to teach what he had been taught by Joseph Smith that very few would tolerate. Joseph Smith tried to teach it to others too but they would, as he put it "fly to pieces".
Brigham Young quickly learned that there was no stomach for these things yet and also that people were not even understanding what he was trying to teach.
Until someone actually can prove to me they understood what Brigham Young was intending to teach and how it is wrong, then is all they are doing is being in a disbelieving attitude about it.
There was no doubt or equivocation in Brigham Young's mind about what he attempted to teach. He said that this doctrine would prove the salvation of those who understood it and the condemnation or damnation of those who reject it.

What I have said still goes because it comes right out of canon not some fairy tale book.

Me beliefs are also 100% in accordance with holy writ.
I also have the bonus of being 100% in accordance with Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as well, much of which the church now misunderstands and/or simply rejects outright.

Look, Jehovah came to earth and lived a sinless life as Jesus Christ...sinless...not one sin to his name, period. Had he sinned just one time his atoning sacrifice would have meant nothing, because he had to be completely sin free.

Yes, the lamb had to be without blemish. #:-s You claim God the Father is Adam, right? This would make Adam the Father of Jehovah in spirit, right? Jehovah came to earth as Jesus Christ, right? You would also be saying the two personages that appeared to Joseph Smith would have been Adam and Jehovah, right? Jesus lived a sin free life, right. Adam did not. And if Adam is God the Father, who then cast Adam out of the garden? And how can a sinless son be subject to a sinful father? Jesus atoned for all mankind, including Adam, right? So Jesus in effect, actually atoned for his own father's sins, right? Can you see by now how totally ridiculous this concept is? I don't know how much plainer I could present this. It isn't a hang up, rather, it is asinine to even accept such doctrine. People need to think outside the box here, big time. And I don't care who says any different, this just doesn't fit logic, common sense, reason or even a possibility. We plainly can't have Jesus atoning for his own father's, Adam's, sins. This is way beyond absurd. Further, I don't believe any rational person could be condemned for not believing this nonsense. I mean, how could a sinful father even expect his son to be sinless? Think about it.

For anyone to even suggest that Adam is God the Father, they don't understand this truth. If God the Father had been Adam, how could God claim to be God and yet have a son that is sinless? In this light, God/Adam sinned upon partaking the forbidden fruit.
God the Father, Adam, sinned in the garden and after being expelled from it, a sinner just like the rest of us.
Jesus Christ a son of God the Father was absolutely sinless! And Christ declared that he was sent to do the will of the Father. So this sounds like Jesus is doing the will of a father NOT sin free, yet Christ was sin free.
Did the son have to atone for the Father's sins as well? This whole idea is utterly ridiculous.

You lost me here. I'm not sure what your hang-up is. Just give it some thought and it will hit you like a bean bag going ninety mph.

Michael-Adam comes in the latter-days and lays the foundation for the Father's Kingdom.
He is the father of our spirits along with Eve as the Mother of all Living (the Church).
Adam is the Alpha/Omega so it can be a bit confusing to sort out the end from the beginning. I suspect you are getting hung up not hung up, because this is not truth. in that somehow. Man of Holiness is the father of Spirits. Christ is Alpha and Omega:

Doctrine and Covenants 81:7
7 Behold, and lo, these are the words of Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Amen.

Now just how does something like this look. It is just plain nonsense to say the least.

I agree what you are stumbling over I'm not stumbling because this is not truth. I think it is you that stumbles. appears to be non-sense.
I'm not even really following your ideas here to know where you are having troubles. I simply do not, will not believe this ridiculous doctrine. I know better than that. You've got your own mind made up even though you claim to be open minded to something else. I see no truth in this statement when you keep claiming that I am stumbling.
I'm not sure which is the best way to go but either you need to help me get clarity on your concerns or I need to somehow help you get better clarity on how I see it. Thank you, but I see no need to see how you see it. It is not what scriptures teach. Believe me, I've read them many times. I do not need to hear what people supposedly said when I can read scripture and be taught by the Holy Spirit of Truth.

How can a sinless son go and sit next to his father a sinner. And God says he does not allow sin in the least degree to enter into his kingdom. And to have the son atone for the father, come on!

I'm not perfectly clear on what you are saying here, but there are some scriptures I think you should look at which will be helpful. Just know that the Adam-God theory is nothing but theory, not fact.

Revelation 12
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

Son of God is mankind's Christ.
Son of Man is God's Christ.

[freedomforall]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Current position of the LDS Church

Eventually, the doctrine was publicly denounced as false by LDS Church leaders. In 1976, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

"The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. 'We will follow those who went before,' they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.
"We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced."

Later the same year, apostle Mark E. Petersen stated:

"Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel. ...

"God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

"Then how could it be said by anyone that he had 'an only begotten' son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

"Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

"Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

"Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

"Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh. ...
"If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation."

Adherents of Mormon fundamentalism generally accept the Adam–God doctrine.

The LDS Church's disavowal of the doctrine contributes to what fundamentalists perceive to be a general intellectual or spiritual retreat by the church from doctrines felt to be excessively challenging to their preconceptions. Along with the practice of plural marriage, belief in the Adam–God doctrine became a defining aspect of the Mormon fundamentalist movement.

Are you a Mormon fundamentalist? If so, this would explain your trying so hard to get some followers on this forum. Not me, that's for sure and for certain.

BTW, this is a pro-LDS site. The doctrine being espoused here is not in line with this fact.

[BroJones]

A decent summary FFA, thank you.

For the record, I do NOT agree with Jwharton when he says

These two beings, the redeemed and the redeemer of the redeemed, are one.
The obvious implication here is that Michael and Jehovah are in union as Eloheim.

FAR out, and not so, my friend. I hope you can get this straightened out in your mind.