Deleted

[marc]

I don't believe in Brigham Young's Adam God theory. I won't address the multiple mortal probations, but consider that this mortal life right now is our time to prepare to meet God. What comes after is just part of the "eternal round" of the course of God and gods and not something to worry about, though it's interesting to consider.

[gardener4life]

Not bad. You brought up something interesting and that is good to know.

One thing that you can use to correlate this with on scriptures... in the Book of Mormon it says that we return to God to dwell with him forever. It also says in the sacrament prayers that we will remember him always. It doesn't say until the next rebirth lol. For the most part most people will dwell with God forever, except for people maybe trustworthy enough to help seed other words and build them.

Mosiah 2:41

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

(never ending happiness? I would suggest that means we're not kicked out to go back to another lower kingdom and go through another wash cycle. Endless cycles in the washer and dryer wouldn't be never ending happiness.

1 Nephi 10:21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever. (It freely shows the idea that dwelling with God is possible. It doesn't say that its impossible for God's children to dwell with him, only that the unclean can't.)

3 Nephi 28:40 And in this state they were to remain until the judgment day of Christ; and at that day they were to receive a greater change, and to be received into the kingdom of the Father to go no more out, but to dwell with God eternally in the heavens. (OK good wording here. Isn't that nice? So that's the state of the obedient and worthy.)

Moroni 8:26

26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God. (Wow. All the Saints.)

Mosiah 15:23 They are raised to dwell with God who has redeemed them; thus they have eternal life through Christ, who has broken the bands of death.

There are other scriptures you can pull up like this. Here are just a few I found quickly.

[Spaced_Out]

This is ridiculous - What our spirit learns stays with us including the knowledge we gain, ordinance we have including baptism the PH and eternal marriage can never be taken, except by our own wickedness. Whatever God does is forever the infusing our intelligence into a spiritual body can't be undone -i have tried and searched all means it simply cant be done. Likewise the resurrection is final merger of an immortal body with an immortal spirit never to be separated again. There are only two estates our first prior to getting a mortal, and our mortal existence.

God is a perfect judge and can easily determine the nature of our spirits whether we live one day or a hundred and place us in a kingdom of glory accordingly - there is no need for a second chance - the same spirit that possess us in this life continues to possess us in the life to come. God does not enjoy seeing people suffer and there is no need or purpose to redo a mortal probation.

[sandman45]

Pearls before swine. Keep an open mind and you might learn something.

[gardener4life]

I don't believe in Brigham Young's Adam God theory. I won't address the multiple mortal probations, but consider that this mortal life right now is our time to prepare to meet God. What comes after is just part of the "eternal round" of the course of God and gods and not something to worry about, though it's interesting to consider.

This was never a Brigham Young idea. It was only faked by 'religious leftists' to be said by him. If you remember we had a green blue textbook for Priesthood and Relief Society a few years ago. And its very clear reading it that Brigham Young understood the plan of salvation very clearly. You would be surprised how many people misquote Brigham Young. I can't belief how often I've heard people say, "Brigham Young said this...Brigham Young said that..." and it never checks out. Look in the green blue Brigham Young teachings of the presidents of the church book. You will see Brigham Young had a very clear idea who Heavenly Father was.

[Spaced_Out]

Pearls before swine. Keep an open mind and you might learn something.

Sometimes a persons mind can be so open that their brain falls out.

[inho]

I don't believe in Brigham Young's Adam God theory. I won't address the multiple mortal probations, but consider that this mortal life right now is our time to prepare to meet God. What comes after is just part of the "eternal round" of the course of God and gods and not something to worry about, though it's interesting to consider.

This was never a Brigham Young idea. It was only faked by 'religious leftists' to be said by him. If you remember we had a green blue textbook for Priesthood and Relief Society a few years ago. And its very clear reading it that Brigham Young understood the plan of salvation very clearly. You would be surprised how many people misquote Brigham Young. I can't belief how often I've heard people say, "Brigham Young said this...Brigham Young said that..." and it never checks out. Look in the green blue Brigham Young teachings of the presidents of the church book. You will see Brigham Young had a very clear idea who Heavenly Father was.

I do not believe in the Adam-God theory, but I do believe that Brigham Young taught it. Just look at the original sources, it is pretty hard to deny it. Obviously, those teachings didn't make it into the Teachings of the presidents of the church manual. Just like that manual says nothing about polygamy. If you look at the manual, you will see that Brigham had a very clear idea what monogamous marriage is like. Yet he was a polygamist. Similarly, by choosing the right quotes, it is possible to erase all the traces of Adam-God teachings.

[gardener4life]

I don't believe in Brigham Young's Adam God theory. I won't address the multiple mortal probations, but consider that this mortal life right now is our time to prepare to meet God. What comes after is just part of the "eternal round" of the course of God and gods and not something to worry about, though it's interesting to consider.

This was never a Brigham Young idea. It was only faked by 'religious leftists' to be said by him. If you remember we had a green blue textbook for Priesthood and Relief Society a few years ago. And its very clear reading it that Brigham Young understood the plan of salvation very clearly. You would be surprised how many people misquote Brigham Young. I can't belief how often I've heard people say, "Brigham Young said this...Brigham Young said that..." and it never checks out. Look in the green blue Brigham Young teachings of the presidents of the church book. You will see Brigham Young had a very clear idea who Heavenly Father was.

I do not believe in the Adam-God theory, but I do believe that Brigham Young taught it. Just look at the original sources, it is pretty hard to deny it. Obviously, those teachings didn't make it into the Teachings of the presidents of the church manual. Just like that manual says nothing about polygamy. If you look at the manual, you will see that Brigham had a very clear idea what monogamous marriage is like. Yet he was a polygamist. Similarly, by choosing the right quotes, it is possible to erase all the traces of Adam-God teachings.

From the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, Brigham Young;

I do not believe for one moment that there has been a man or woman upon the face of the earth, from the days of Adam to this day, who has not been enlightened, instructed, and taught by the revelations of Jesus Christ. “What! the ignorant heathen?” Yes, every human being who has possessed a sane mind. I am far from believing that the children of men have been deprived of the privilege of receiving the Spirit of the Lord to teach them right from wrong (DBY, 32). (If Brigham Young taught this idea, which he did not, then why is he teaching that Adam needed to be taught by Christ. Brigham Young did NOT teach the Adam God Theory. Also that theory came out later after he was dead. People falsify documents also. Remember a few years ago people were caught later when falsifying the Joseph Smith salamander letter. That chapter quoted is in Chapter 6, which is about communication between God and man. So if that were the case and if the Adam God Theory were real then why would Adam be praying to himself?)

Also the same sources quoting this theory quote Orson Pratt being one of the founders of some of the current fundamentalist breakoff groups. That is clearly not true. He died in Salt Lake City as the last surviving member of the original Quorum of the twelve, WHO DID NOT break away from the church. Had he been part of any of the break off movements he would not have died in Salt Lake City, October 3rd, 1881. Google is not a good source for truth about the gospel or mormonism. You can find all kinds of fictitious information there. They also quote Wilford Woodruff and others believing in the Adam God theory. This is entirely false. People will try to lead you astray! People falsify information to destroy the church and have been caught doing so over and over again. The current strategy especially is to try and say Brigham Young, and Wilford Woodruff did other than current presidents which they did not.

Also do you really think the Lord is going to choose a leader that isn't reading the scriptures? Every prophet since Joseph Smith has always taught them to read the scriptures. And do you really think they going to believe some false agenda that was created later if they are really reading the scriptures every day? Think about it. People falsify this stuff because they think it gives them a good foundation to build lies upon.

Another fact; Brigham Young and Heber C Kimball knew and were one of the only two people who had the temple ordinances memorized when they went west. They had to have it memorized. And before they left Nauvoo Brigham Young was night and day in the Nauvoo temple trying to get people organized to leave. That means they had the endowment memorized by heart and had daily been thinking and seeing about how Adam prayed to Heavenly Father. Saying Brigham Young went in for the Adam God theory doesn't work. Think about it.

Chapter 4 of that book is also entitled, 'KNowing and Honoring the Godhead'. (Need I say more?)

Perhaps if more people would read the scriptures they wouldn't be misled by philosophies of our day, which try to hoodwink people about what truth really is?

Also I would point out something. And this is the most important part. People who denied prophecy, and revelation, and miracles and denied the Spriit of God chose to not have greater light and the Holy Ghost. Then they read the quote, "As man is, God once was," and then they overcompensated trying to say that the child Adam is also his own Father because they had less of the Holy Ghost than other people because they'd rejected the Spirit to found their own fundamentalist groups.) It's a very clever tactic. They are looking at an old teaching, using it as a foundation source, then saying its more than what the original source actually said and people have trouble disputing it because of that. The current Adam God Theory isn't the same as what Brigham Young, and others were teaching about Adam. The Adam God Theory overcompensated is trying to say Adam IS and WAS Heavenly Father. Brigham Young and others were only saying Adam is progressing to be like Heavenly Father. There is a noticeable difference. It's a clever Satan trap; and the fact that it is done so cleverly should show you exactly what it is, a clever lie built on half truth. And the best lies mask truth partially and then deviate into a train wreck as they wreck peoples lives that follow them.

Also we have hints about warnings about philosophies like this in the scriptures which are trying to repeat a similar scheme similar to evolution. Evolution is denying heavenly parentage to create the idea that the clay pot crafted itself! This is the biggest flaw in the Adam God Theory, which doesn't teach Adam is allowed to mentored by Heavenly Father, but denies Heavenly Father to say the child and the father are the same thing! That is clearly very illogical. No prophet of God would have taught that in that form. Once again, the Adam God Theory of today isn't the same teaching as something like in D&C 132. (Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff also had access to the scriptures, divine inspiration including the information of D&C 132.)

Compare these verses too and think about them;

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Isaiah 45:9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? (referring to denying prophecy and revelation, or denying God, or denying the real authority of God. But in our minds of course the potter would have to have hands to shape the clay.)

[True]

Have you ever read through theJournal of Discourses? It’s basically conference addresses from the time they got to Salt Lake. It is in there. It has shown me that prophets can make mistakes. They are men. But this is still God’s church and Christ heads it. That much I know.

[ParticleMan]

The people that believe in Adam-God or multiple mortal probations completely disrespect the purpose of Jesus Christ's Atonement and the resurrection of the body and spirit....

Thanks for sharing your opinions. However, there are those who reason and feel differently, who instead find greater meaning in the Atonement in light of some of these concepts. Reaching this conclusion, have you considered all available material? Have you read and pondered "Understanding Adam-God Teachings" by Drew Briney? It is the most comprehensive and unbiased treatment so far.

[inho]

This is from the BY manual (Chapter 4)

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal (DBY, 24).

This is how it continues in the original sermon published in the Journal of Discourses, see scriptures.byu.edu:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

If one chooses quotes this way, the end result is a manual without any traces of Adam-God teachings. But they are in the original sources.

I think it is important to acknowledge that BY taught AG-theory. If the only response to it is a denial, the consequences might be harmful. If one learns from you or from someone else that it is not true that BY ever taught AG-theory, and then later learns that it is undeniable fact that he taught Adam-God theory, then that someone will likely feel betrayed. He/she starts to think that if that was a lie, then maybe some other things were lies too. Then he/she is more vulnerable to any kinds of anti-Mormon propaganda.
It is better to teach the truth, even though it might be uncomfortable.

[True]

This is from the BY manual (Chapter 4)

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal (DBY, 24).

This is how it continues in the original sermon published in the Journal of Discourses, see scriptures.byu.edu:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

If one chooses quotes this way, the end result is a manual without any traces of Adam-God teachings. But they are in the original sources.

I think it is important to acknowledge that BY taught AG-theory. If the only response to it is a denial, the consequences might be harmful. If one learns from you or from someone else that it is not true that BY ever taught AG-theory, and then later learns that it is undeniable fact that he taught Adam-God theory, then that someone will likely feel betrayed. He/she starts to think that if that was a lie, then maybe some other things were lies too. Then he/she is more vulnerable to any kinds of anti-Mormon propaganda.
It is better to teach the truth, even though it might be uncomfortable.

Perfectly said. Thank you

[LdsMarco]

Adam-God is a teaching from the 1850’s church of which modern LDS are unfamiliar. It is not taught today as a doctrine in the mother (LDS) church. In fact, modern LDS leaders have made an effort to refute Adam-God. One who is unfamiliar with the “doctrine” of Adam-God might want to turn to the numerous articles that have been written on the subject. Many of these can be found on the internet or in publications of fundamentalist LDS churches that teach it.

Briefly, Adam-God refers to a teaching that emerged publicly in the 1850’s LDS church that “Adam is the very Eternal Father of Heaven.” Of course, this is taken literally by these early LDS (as well as fundamentalist LDS churches today), meaning that Adam is the personage that fathered Jesus and is the one whom Jesus referred to as his “Father”. Again, it is a literal view.

But, is there another (a non-literal) meaning that is more profound? In the LDS endowment, patrons are told to “consider themselves as Adam and Eve”, but few seem to do so. If Adam is the Father in Heaven, then who are you? Perhaps there is a profound allegorical meaning here that is not anything new at all because it is taught many places in the Biblical scriptures? In fact, there is a profound encounter of Jesus with his disciples who asked him to “shew us the Father”, but the reply was the cryptic “If you have seen me, ye have seen the Father” (cf John 14:9). Moreover, many Christian denominations will even refer (rightly) to Jesus as “the Father” as well as “the Son.”

As one begins to contemplate these things, one realizes it brings us full circle back to the same thing as other scriptural metaphors. Essentially, it is that man is the outward man(ifestion) of God (thereby a Son). He (physical man) is the temple in which God resides, although a usurper often sits on the throne (that belongs to the Father). Despite the carnal misunderstandings, every man (and woman) is both the Father and the Son (Christ Michael – Adam).

One who searches for God should realize that he has not far to travel because the Kingdom of Heaven is as close to him as his own hands. If God is omnipresent (as well as omniscient, omnipotent), then he is everywhere present. If he is everywhere present, then he is right here, right now. That narrows ones search down quite a bit.

[gardener4life]

This is from the BY manual (Chapter 4)

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth [see Hebrews 12:9]; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal (DBY, 24).

This is how it continues in the original sermon published in the Journal of Discourses, see scriptures.byu.edu:

Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.
Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.

If one chooses quotes this way, the end result is a manual without any traces of Adam-God teachings. But they are in the original sources.

I think it is important to acknowledge that BY taught AG-theory. If the only response to it is a denial, the consequences might be harmful. If one learns from you or from someone else that it is not true that BY ever taught AG-theory, and then later learns that it is undeniable fact that he taught Adam-God theory, then that someone will likely feel betrayed. He/she starts to think that if that was a lie, then maybe some other things were lies too. Then he/she is more vulnerable to any kinds of anti-Mormon propaganda.
It is better to teach the truth, even though it might be uncomfortable.

Perfectly said. Thank you

Use the scriptures and what is revealed. The AG Theory of today as I already said is not the same that it was in the 1800s. The separatists and fundamentalists (of which you belong to) are teaching today that Adam was and is the same being as Heavenly Father. The fact that you can't let this go shows that you are one of those groups hiding here to lead away LDS people. Think for a minute. Brigham Young personally taught the endowment. What's in the endowment? We can't really talk about it because its too sacred. But what we do know is that there are places in it where Heavenly Father, Jesus, and Adam are in the same place with dialogues with one another as separate beings.

Do you really think that you can teach that Brigham Young taught that Heavenly Father and Adam were the same being when everyday he was teaching people the opposite?

I can see you aren't going to let this go.

What you have are two different groups that are calling and defining Adam God Theory or Adam God differently. One is saying as man is God once was. And the other group is saying Adam WAS and IS the same person as Heavenly Father. Thinking about the story of creation and what was in the scriptures, and what's in the temple, there is not any way that the early presidents of the church could have been unaware of that. Even in Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff's days they spent much of their day in the temple, most of the week (or in the Endowment House, etc.)

And you are teaching false ideas as an apostate. Anyone who has read the scriptures can see it for what it is and what you are doing and I'm calling you out. You can't be trusted to not mislead people.

It also says that the stick of Joseph and Judah will come together against the teaching of false doctrines. So if it makes you feel better we have two books of scripture because of you. Isn't that wonderful?

[True]

I reject the Adam God theory outright for what it is: false doctrine. Of course it isn’t in the scriptures. You need to do some more research. You can start here at fairmormon, a Mormon apologist website:

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Morm ... God_theory

[BruceRGilbert]

Perspectives and "Orientation":

1.) The term "GOD" is a "Title" and a "Priesthood Office."
2.) The term "Father" is, also, a "Title"

Consider the following reference with respect to Adam as found in scripture so as to add clarification to his position relative to our Supreme "Father" and our Supreme "God:"

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, . . .
.
.
.
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

In the coming day, there will be a Council in the valleys of Adam-Ondi-Ahman wherein the "Ancient of Days" will receive the "Son of Man" and keys will be returned. Adam or "Michael," to use his Pre-mortal name, is subservient to Jesus or "Jehovah." There is a "Hierarchy" of Priesthood holders in Heaven with a "Presiding Presidency," if you would, who each bear the title of "God," as if it were "President." The "Presidency" together, can also be referred to as "God," meaning "Godhood" or "Presidency." To further shed light on the subject, there is also a "Council of the "Gods," akin to a High Council wherein Arcangels are included, of which "Michael" or Adam, "Gabriel" or Noah, "Raphael" and others who may be Heads of Dispensations.

From Wikipedia:

Michael in the Hebrew language means "Who is like God?" or "Who is equal to God?" Michael has been depicted from earliest Christian times as a commander, who holds in his right hand a spear with which he attacks Lucifer/Satan, and in his left hand a green palm branch. At the top of the spear there is a linen ribbon with a red cross. The Archangel Michael is especially considered to be the Guardian of the Orthodox Faith and a fighter against heresies.
Gabriel means "God is my strength" or "Might of God." He is the herald of the mysteries of God, especially the Incarnation of God and all other mysteries related to it. He is depicted as follows: In his right hand, he holds a lantern with a lighted taper inside, and in his left hand, a mirror of green jasper. The mirror signifies the wisdom of God as a hidden mystery.
Raphael means "It is God who heals" or "God Heals" (Tobit 3:17, 12:15). Raphael is depicted leading Tobit (who is carrying a fish caught in the Tigris) with his right hand, and holding a physician's alabaster jar in his left hand.
Uriel means "God is my light," or "Light of God" (II Esdras 4:1, 5:20). He is depicted holding a sword against the Persians in his right hand, and a flame in his left.
Sealtiel means "Intercessor of God." He is depicted with his face and eyes lowered, holding his hands on his bosom in prayer.
Jegudiel means "Glorifier of God." He is depicted bearing a golden wreath in his right hand and a triple-thonged whip in his left hand.
Barachiel means "Blessed by God." He is depicted holding a white rose in his hand against his breast.
Jerahmeel means "God's exaltation." He is venerated as an inspirer and awakener of exalted thoughts that raise a person toward God (II Esdras 4:36). As an eighth, he is sometimes included as archangel.

In the course of conversation, it behooves us to determine how these "Titles" are used and to recognize that there is a "Supreme" Being under whose direction all the others reside and have stewardship.

[marc]

I don't believe in Brigham Young's Adam God theory. I won't address the multiple mortal probations, but consider that this mortal life right now is our time to prepare to meet God. What comes after is just part of the "eternal round" of the course of God and gods and not something to worry about, though it's interesting to consider.

This was never a Brigham Young idea. It was only faked by 'religious leftists' to be said by him. If you remember we had a green blue textbook for Priesthood and Relief Society a few years ago. And its very clear reading it that Brigham Young understood the plan of salvation very clearly. You would be surprised how many people misquote Brigham Young. I can't belief how often I've heard people say, "Brigham Young said this...Brigham Young said that..." and it never checks out. Look in the green blue Brigham Young teachings of the presidents of the church book. You will see Brigham Young had a very clear idea who Heavenly Father was.

Fair enough. I really know very little about the subject other than the few things I've read in Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses. I think I was bored yesterday when I replied in this topic, of which I have little to no interest. My apologies.

[gardener4life]

Well I apologize for upsetting people. But I worry about people leading people astray too. It took a lot for marc to say what he did just now too.

Marco's idea that Adam represents any humble truth seeker was a good idea. It's true. It's wonderful how we can get insight from other people that are humble and seeking the Spirit to teach them.

I also noticed later this from the 3rd or 4th paragraph of Chapter 14 in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church Brigham Young Book, page 93 in the physical book;

"Adam. God was once known on the earth among his children … as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in the first ages of their existence on the earth, as … our gardens are to our wives and children, or as the road to the Western Ocean is to the experienced traveler [see Moses 3:15–21; 4:14–30; 5:4–5, 9, 12; 6:51] (DBY, 104)."

I also should relate why I was probably sounding worried about an incorrect idea being taught. I do apologize and realize I should have been more humble. But I don't apologize for saying the truth. And I do worry that some people are very clever in trying to mislead people. When I saw an incorrect idea being taught I remembered this verse in the Book of Mormon;

Alma 10:17

17 Now they knew not that Amulek could know of their designs. But it came to pass as they began to question him, he perceived their thoughts, and he said unto them: O ye wicked and perverse generation, ye lawyers and hypocrites, for ye are laying the foundations of the devil; for ye are laying traps and snares to catch the holy ones of God. (There is a very cunning plan to lead astray the holy ones of God. The scriptures show it.)

That could be any of us in that trap if we're not careful and watch out for one another. So when I thought of that verse I thought...why would I let someone fall into a trap and get hurt? But I probably riled people up a bit. Sorry. But every person is of value to their family and Heavenly Father. And if we could prevent someone from hurting themselves by walking into a spiritual trap it would be better to avoid the pain.

[Spaced_Out]

From the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, Brigham Young;

I do not believe for one moment that there has been a man or woman upon the face of the earth, from the days of Adam to this day, who has not been enlightened, instructed, and taught by the revelations of Jesus Christ. “What! the ignorant heathen?” Yes, every human being who has possessed a sane mind. I am far from believing that the children of men have been deprived of the privilege of receiving the Spirit of the Lord to teach them right from wrong (DBY, 32).
(If Brigham Young taught this idea, which he did not, then why is he teaching that Adam needed to be taught by Christ. Brigham Young did NOT teach the Adam God Theory. Also that theory came out later after he was dead. People falsify documents also. Remember a few years ago people were caught later when falsifying the Joseph Smith salamander letter. That chapter quoted is in Chapter 6, which is about communication between God and man. So if that were the case and if the Adam God Theory were real then why would Adam be praying to himself?)

I have no issue with the first quote that you posted. The scriptures are plain that every person who enters this life has the light of Christ with the outward manifestation being our conscience it is what teaches us right from wrong. All people will be judged as to how they hearkened to the light of Christ, even during times when the gospel was not on the earth.

It is just people scan the scriptures and quotes of GA and make false interpretations and take things way out of context - it is always one or two scriptures or isolated quoted despite many thousands of teachings to the contrary.

[brianj]

Have you ever read through theJournal of Discourses? It’s basically conference addresses from the time they got to Salt Lake. It is in there. It has shown me that prophets can make mistakes. They are men. But this is still God’s church and Christ heads it. That much I know.

The Journal of Discourses is more than that. It is evidence that every six months we should kneel down and express deep gratitude for broadcast schedules. A brief review of the JD suggests that talks were only partially prepared at best. Those volumes imply that at least some church leaders would ramble on until they were tired of talking. Broadcast schedules for radio, TV, and now satellite force the church leaders to start and end on time instead of when they feel like it.

[True]

Have you ever read through theJournal of Discourses? It’s basically conference addresses from the time they got to Salt Lake. It is in there. It has shown me that prophets can make mistakes. They are men. But this is still God’s church and Christ heads it. That much I know.

The Journal of Discourses is more than that. It is evidence that every six months we should kneel down and express deep gratitude for broadcast schedules. A brief review of the JD suggests that talks were only partially prepared at best. Those volumes imply that at least some church leaders would ramble on until they were tired of talking. Broadcast schedules for radio, TV, and now satellite force the church leaders to start and end on time instead of when they feel like it.

Hahaha! Soooo true! Although there is some really good stuff in there:)

[inho]

Now when Christmas is almost over (Christmas Eve is the most important day in my part of the galaxy although the celebration still continues, we have a day off even in Dec. 26), I have time to comment here again.

I hesitated whether I should respond. Partly, because the OP was about MMP falsehood, which is related but not necessarily the same as Adam-God. I also hesitated, because I personally don't believe in Adam-God doctrine. I only want to present the history correctly, because I really believe that it is better to confront all the oddities of our history than shy away from them.

The AG Theory of today as I already said is not the same that it was in the 1800s. The separatists and fundamentalists (of which you belong to) are teaching today that Adam was and is the same being as Heavenly Father.

...

Do you really think that you can teach that Brigham Young taught that Heavenly Father and Adam were the same being when everyday he was teaching people the opposite?

I agree that there are several versions of the Adam-God theory. They are all equally false.
However, it is a fact that Brigham Young taught things which are not in harmony of current church teachings.
BY taught that Elohim is an exalted God, who is Michael's (Adam's) superior. He also taught that Michael was an exalted being when he came to Garden. According to him, Michael is the father of our spirits and the father of Jesus. The distinction between Elohim and Michael makes it possible to see the endowment in the light of Adam-God teachings.

Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.
JoD 1:51

Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits.
JoD 7:290

“And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image.” I am quite satisfied to be made aware by the scriptures, and by the Spirit of God, that He is not only the God and Father of Jesus Christ, but is also the Father of our spirits and the Creator of our bodies which bear His image
JoD 11:122-123

I could quote more, but let this suffice. I quote from the Journal of Discourses for two reasons: They are easily accessible, so that you can check those quotes yourself (e.g. scriptures.byu.edu). These were also public sermons, BY preached this from the pulpit, these are not just some private speculations.
In some other sources, these ideas are expressed even more clearly. Similar quotes could be found in the journals of Wilford Woodruff, from Heber C. Kimball or others who were contemporaries of BY.

Brigham Young taught Adam-God doctrine. The church today does not teach it. Personally, I am more comfortable with the current stance.

That you claim that I am a closeted fundamentalist is not only false but it's also hurtful.

[Juliet]

The premise of the opinion is what I disagree with. The reason God doesn't talk to us more and teach us more, is because we are so sure that we know what does and does not fit into reality. How can we learn and grow when we say, "such and such could never be just because it goes against everything else we already believe." Until we all know the whole truth, then we can't limit what is and what is not. Just because a church teaches it, doesn't make it true. We know truth by the Holy Spirit and by the spiritual gifts that we grow to be able to receive.

I remember taking a physics class, and being surprised when I was sure I had the answer because I am intuitive, and the answer ended up being completely the opposite of my intuition. And this happened several times. That taught me that just because you think something fits does not make it so. It is important to be open minded so that you can accept different answers than what you previously thought.

[Alaris]

The premise of the opinion is what I disagree with. The reason God doesn't talk to us more and teach us more, is because we are so sure that we know what does and does not fit into reality. How can we learn and grow when we say, "such and such could never be just because it goes against everything else we already believe." Until we all know the whole truth, then we can't limit what is and what is not. Just because a church teaches it, doesn't make it true. We know truth by the Holy Spirit and by the spiritual gifts that we grow to be able to receive.

I remember taking a physics class, and being surprised when I was sure I had the answer because I am intuitive, and the answer ended up being completely the opposite of my intuition. And this happened several times. That taught me that just because you think something fits does not make it so. It is important to be open minded so that you can accept different answers than what you previously thought.

Joseph Smith about 6 months before his martyrdom

"I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions." — Joseph Smith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 520.

If one wants to cling in to one's own understanding, great. Until one desires to know all things one may want to tread more lightly before declaring such things that cannot be.

[gardener4life]

The only sources of scripture that are free of mistakes is the Book of Mormon. (You will probably argue against that too because that's what you do.) And the only approved learning sources are the standard works, possibly the hymn book, the gospel principle and Sunday school books, and approved literature. That's because we know those are free of error.

Journal of Discourses isn't approved material. Why are you quoting it? Are you trying to prove you are right by showing flaws in a priesthood holder? By doing so you will confuse people around you that are young in their testimonies. Is that really what you should be doing? And I've had seminary teachers tell me years and years ago to stay away from it (Journal of Discourses) and that it has errors.

You guys keep quoting the Journal of Discourses like it's scripture. I would be really careful about that. A lot of people get mixed up by putting a secondary book before the Book of Mormon and the real scriptures, or use them to pick flaws out in priesthood leaders. One time in a ward a few years ago they had to keep bringing the Bishop into Gospel Doctrine because the teacher kept teaching Hugh Nibley book ideas as scripture instead of the real scriptures. She kind of embarrassed herself and had to be publicly corrected because she was leading people off. IF there weren't victims she wouldn't have had to be corrected in front of others. Simons Ryder started doing what you are doing by trying to look for errors instead of building his own testimony and others) and then apostatized because of a flaw he perceived in Joseph Smith. And who kept bringing up the flaw to that? That person didn't help. (his name was spelled wrong.) And if you don't fall away yourself, you will be the instrument of causing others to fall away. And then you started out saying you admit Adam God is wrong and then at the end sound like you are promoting it again by saying another championed it.

I don't want to offend you but every time I turn away from here yet another false idea pops up or bringing up some flaw in a prophet (which is the same thing). You shouldn't be doing that. That's shaky ground to be trying to show flaws in a prophet. People grab onto that and use it for persecution. And this tactic of picking flaws in prophets is a trap Satan uses a lot.

One of the reasons we don't accept everything quoting people as scripture or acceptable teaching material is because the people taking it down might have mixed up wording too. And do you really think that you know the gospel better than Brigham Young?

And how do you know what you read in that so called book that Brigham Young quoted was even quoting it right? The typewriter wasn't in mass production until only a few years before his death (the year the typewriter was invented and mass produced are different by quite a bit). And even then you could only get them in certain parts of the world (not Utah yet). And I doubt they had access to it They didn't have tons of paper and resources in Pioneer era Utah. They wrote stuff by hand, and I doubt they could keep up to a speaker that wasn't waiting for them. And if there was bad hand writing they might have guessed what someone said. He could have gotten tongue tied maybe from meaning one thing but it didn't sound like he intended (which does happen to people due to fear of public speaking and or dehydration or other reasons.) And because the J of Discourses was never meant to be teaching material it wasn't really edited right. When something is edited then you correct what needs adjusting, clarify something, and make sure you don't confuse people. People misquote stuff too. You will never know if mistakes in there are editor, note takers perceptions, or mistakes, instead of the teacher (very likely note takers could be culprits, most those people had no formal education and very little access to books.)

You could cause harm by your misplacing something that isn't scripture going before scripture, and by continually bringing up flaws on someone that you never met. I don't know about you but it sounds impossible to perfectly quote someone's talk word for word in the 1800s before they had the technology to be able to do so. And you are so sure that's accurate what you are reading?

Also people have tampered with the Journal of Wilford Woodruff. I saw two versions, and one of them looked as if it was trying to cause harm. Sometimes you get wolves wearing sheep's clothing. And even back then they did have those too. And you know saying someone is putting history first or history into perspective isn't a good idea. You put the Spirit and scriptures first, and history later. History is perception and people have never been able to cut their perceptions and bias away from truth when trying to document truth, so there will be errors with documented history. You should be questioning whoever documented history over questioning a prophet. That right there tells me something is off. Why would someone question and doubt the prophet first instead of questioning the documentor(s) or the supposed history?