Who was Adam, or, Adam was who?

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

[NoGreaterLovecaptain of 1,000]

About the time we finally got rid of that thread, another one comes along.
I say go with the most modern day prophets counsel on the subject and leave the rest in the grave.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

About the time we finally got rid of that thread, another one comes along.
I say go with the most modern day prophets counsel on the subject and leave the rest in the grave.

They say better late than never.

That's just it; modern day prophets reject previous prophets on the matter, so who's the real prophet? But I'm willing to decelerate the horses on this one. It's sad how fast members of the church will put their heads in the sand when anything that raises hackles comes forth. And it's even sadder that there could exist anything to suggest a variation of doctrine. Sounds like a huge can of worms, anyway. We just push under the rug anything that doesn't fit today's teachings. Next year we can hide what doesn't fit the teachings of that day. Hmmm, kind of weird. And I'm glad that it doesn't affect my salvation.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

There is a monster thread on it - great points of view on all sides of the issue in my opinion...had some great discussion with my bishop about it.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

How did you miss the looong 21 page thread on this topic?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12459&p=246512#p246512

[7cylon7captain of 1,000]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

How did you miss the looong 21 page thread on this topic?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12459&p=246512#p246512

Because many are not authorized to even read this forum. It is taboo I guess.

[dausercaptain of 100]

The more one learns the more surprises their are.

Telestial people do well to handle the wisdom thereof.
Terrestrial people do well to handle their wisdom
Celestial people do the wisdom of the Celestial.

The wisdom between kingdoms is contradictory...it keeps the damed perfectly happy where they belong...each in it's place of knowing it all.

[tribraccaptain of 100]

[sbsioncaptain of 1,000]

the endowment sez, we are all Adams and Eves, so what does that tell you about interpretation of ALL men and women

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

How did you miss the looong 21 page thread on this topic?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12459&p=246512#p246512

For maybe three reasons. 1. I may have become a member way after the original thread was started. And 2. I didn't feel like going through hundreds of threads to see what has been discussed. 3. There's always a chance for new information, new insight and theories on this topic.
I've heard the term on several occasions but never delved into the subject. In the first place, I thought it was hokey, another one of those sensationalized goose-bump gang stories going around in the church.

Frankly, I'm sick of all the hidden idiosyncrasies and doctrinal opposition that some folks are quick to try and hide as if nothing is happening, or ever did happen.

Are we not supposed to ask questions? Are we supposed to dumb, deaf and blind so that we will never have our emotions stirred up?

[gkearneycaptain of 100]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

How did you miss the looong 21 page thread on this topic?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12459&p=246512#p246512

It not very helpful to refer people to threads that are closed and can not be read.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

How did you miss the looong 21 page thread on this topic?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12459&p=246512#p246512

It not very helpful to refer people to threads that are closed and can not be read.

Tis hard to read a sealed book. Where have I heard this before? Hhmmmm.
Anyway, after some research I have my own thoughts and ideas on the matter. Things that settle my mind, at least. And since scripture supersedes all and is "official church doctrine", I'll go with scripture.

Luke 3:38 Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Daniel 7:9-14 ...the Ancient of days did sit...his throne was like the fiery flame...one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.,
D&C 138:38 Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,
D&C 27:11 Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

That's all for now.

[LukeAir2008captain of 1,000]

Pres. Kimball never made any comment on anything taught by the early Prophets. He simply warned of false ideas that were circulating at the time and mentioned the so called 'adam-god theory'. So whatever Pres. Kimball was referring to it was a false idea. He wasn't referring to teachings given by previous Prophets of the Church and his own Grandfather, Pres. Heber C Kimball.

It's the same as when Pres. Hinckley told a reporter that we don't teach that God was once a man. This is the age of information. The enemies of the Church know more about LDS doctrine than most of the members. There were thousands who laughed at that statement and called Pres. Hinckley a liar.

Pres. Hinckley and Pres. Kimball were just trying to diffuse opposition to the Church and steer clear of controversy. They know fine well what the early Prophets taught. They just don't want the basic mission of the Church to be railroaded.

Anyone who thinks that Pres. Kimball was declaring that the earlier Prophets of the Church were teaching false doctrine and worshipping a false God doesn't have any understanding or testimony.

These men knew the identity of their Heavenly Father. It's the modern saints who walk in darkness and ignorance.

[ktgcaptain of 100]

Another thread on the subject viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19054
in which I posed the following, which no one wanted to address:

I'm sure there's countless contrary examples but here's a few.

From LDS.org, Gospel Fundamentals:
"Our Father in Heaven named the first people on earth Adam and Eve. They were two of His most valiant children. They made it possible for all of us to come to earth.

In heaven, Adam was called Michael. He was one of our leaders. He led us in the war against Satan. Michael was a good man. He did what our Father in Heaven wanted him to do. He became the first man to be on this earth."

And how do you reconcile these scriptures?

Abraham 5:7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Alma 11:45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

God's spirit and body cannot be divided, he being a resurrected and glorified man. Then how is it possible, if Adam is our God, that his spirit was placed into his body in the Garden?

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Another thread on the subject viewtopic.php?f=31&t=19054
in which I posed the following, which no one wanted to address:

I'm sure there's countless contrary examples but here's a few.

From LDS.org, Gospel Fundamentals:
"Our Father in Heaven named the first people on earth Adam and Eve. They were two of His most valiant children. They made it possible for all of us to come to earth.

In heaven, Adam was called Michael. He was one of our leaders. He led us in the war against Satan. Michael was a good man. He did what our Father in Heaven wanted him to do. He became the first man to be on this earth."

And how do you reconcile these scriptures?

Abraham 5:7 And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the man’s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul.

Alma 11:45 Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

God's spirit and body cannot be divided, he being a resurrected and glorified man. Then how is it possible, if Adam is our God, that his spirit was placed into his body in the Garden?

Moses 4:25-29
25 By the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou shalt return unto the ground—for thou shalt surely die—for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou wast, and unto dust shalt thou return.
26 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living; for thus have I, the Lord God (Father), called the first of all women, which are many.
27 Unto Adam, and also unto his wife, did I, the Lord God (Father), make coats of skins, and clothed them.
28 And I, the Lord God (Elohim), said unto mine Only Begotten (Jesus Christ): Behold, the man (Adam) is become as one of us (Father & Son) to know good and evil; and now lest he put forth his hand and partake also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever,
29 Therefore I, the Lord God, will send him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken;

Gen 2:7
7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

D&C 88:15
And the spirit and the body are the soul of man.

Christ lived a sinless life. Had he committed even one sin we would have been lost forever. If God had been Adam, could he have lived 930 years without committing one sin? Is it logical that Christ would have atoned for his Father's sins? None of this stuff fits.

According to the scriptures above, they do not indicate God entering the body. It says that "the man" had become like them, knowing good and evil.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Is the Adam-God theory taboo on this forum? I learned and understand there exists opposition between a statements made by Brigham Young, and Spencer W Kimball.

How did you miss the looong 21 page thread on this topic?
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=12459&p=246512#p246512

It not very helpful to refer people to threads that are closed and can not be read.

It's not closed and it can be read.