Adam-God Theory

[_Tobin]

You are injecting something that is not said. You said in the post at the top of this page that he SPECIFICALLY taught that Adam is our God. It simply is not there and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, go figure! If you wish to INTERPRET Brigham's remarks that way, you have the right to do so.

Actually I said,

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Which I just demonstrated yet again in the quote from the John Dehlin:6 275,276.

[_CameronMO]

Jerry,

Before you resurrected this thread two days ago, did you read the entire thread? Did you start at page 1? Did you read the links provided in this thread? Just wondering.

[_gfchase]

You are injecting something that is not said. You said in the post at the top of this page that he SPECIFICALLY taught that Adam is our God. It simply is not there and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, go figure! If you wish to INTERPRET Brigham's remarks that way, you have the right to do so.

Actually I said,

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Which I just demonstrated yet again in the quote from the John Dehlin:6 275,276.

I quoted the entire section from John Dehlin 6 275-276 that deals with this topic and yet you still insist that he specifically taught that Adam is God the Father and you say that I am dancing around the issue. What more can I do than to give you the entire quote which I have done. It is you that is doing the tap dance. And again if you wish to talk about the issue of whether we can become Gods, fine, I am here to post the reality of what was and is taught and it is up to you to accept or reject. I fully recognized when I came to this forum that there are those who fall into the category of looking for a reason to disbelieve and they will always find a way to do so regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

To answer the question from cameronMO: I read probably half of the posts and checked some of the links and found nothing to change my mind.

Jerry

[_Tobin]

I quoted the entire section from John Dehlin 6 275-276 that deals with this topic and yet you still insist that he specifically taught that Adam is God the Father and you say that I am dancing around the issue.

Yep, and I underlined and bolded EXACTLY where he said it too.

What more can I do than to give you the entire quote which I have done.

I didn't ask you to quote it since I already have several times as well as underlined and bolded the relevant parts.

It is you that is doing the tap dance.

Not at all. I'm more than happy to let the quotations and underlined material speak for itself.

And again if you wish to talk about the issue of whether we can become Gods, fine,

Another misrepresentation of what I said and cited.

I am here to post the reality of what was and is taught and it is up to you to accept or reject.

No you aren't. You are here to push the agenda that the Adam/God theory was a clerical error and ignore everything that shows you are clearly mistaken.

I fully recognized when I came to this forum that there are those who fall into the category of looking for a reason to disbelieve and they will always find a way to do so regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Disbelieve what? I fully acknowledge that Brigham Young taught the Adam/God theory. I really don't have a problem with that. You are the only one in denial here.

[_grindael]

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.

Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.

Mark E Peterson says in ADAM: WHO IS HE - "Elder Charles C. Rich was not present on the day when President Young gave an address that was wrongly reported as saying Adam was our Father in heaven. (See John Dehlin 1:51.) The sermon was delivered April 9, 1852, and Elder Rich returned April 21. In a copy of the Journal of Discourses Elder Ben E. Rich, son of Elder Charles C. Rich, referred to the misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand corrected the statement to read as follows: "Jesus our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven." In this same statement Ben E. Rich wrote "As corrected above is what Prest. Young said, as testified to me by my father, C. C. Rich." (This signed statement is in the hands of the Church Historical Department.)

"Careless scribes made mistakes"? LOL. Read my comments above on how Young corrected EVERY SERMON and how George Watt made sure of it. "Careless scribes" also made the mistake of submitting an article to the Deseret News in 1873 that Young APPROVED, and which stood uncorrected by him until he died in 1877?

The "careless scribes" theory is just fantasy. Adam who is he? by Mark Peterson is full of omissions and outright mistakes, some of which he corrected in the 2nd Edition after being called out on them (like the Charles C. Rich statement). You are grasping at straws here. Read all of the OTHER sermons in which Young taught that Adam was God. And Young being obscure in some sermons means nothing.

They were not above denying polygamy when it suited them. What makes you think that Young would not do so for Adam God to selective audiences? You did not read the entire thread where all of this is shown to be a fantasy by Ben Rich (that it was the fault of scribes). How could Ben E. Rich correct something that his father told him was wrong, when his father wasn't even there? And that was the correction by Peterson who originally wrote that Charles E. Rich WAS there for that sermon when he was not. He then conveniently comes up with a statement by his son, who wasn't there either.

[_grindael]

Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This clearly says that Adam would provide tabernacles for HIS "spiritual children". That would be the children that he and Eve had in the pre-existence. Those who don't want to admit the truth, deny what is right in front of them.

[_gfchase]

I quoted the entire section from John Dehlin 6 275-276 that deals with this topic and yet you still insist that he specifically taught that Adam is God the Father and you say that I am dancing around the issue.

Yep, and I underlined and bolded EXACTLY where he said it too.

What more can I do than to give you the entire quote which I have done.

I didn't ask you to quote it since I already have several times as well as underlined and bolded the relevant parts.

It is you that is doing the tap dance.

Not at all. I'm more than happy to let the quotations and underlined material speak for itself.

And again if you wish to talk about the issue of whether we can become Gods, fine,

Another misrepresentation of what I said and cited.

I am here to post the reality of what was and is taught and it is up to you to accept or reject.

No you aren't. You are here to push the agenda that the Adam/God theory was a clerical error and ignore everything that shows you are clearly mistaken.

I fully recognized when I came to this forum that there are those who fall into the category of looking for a reason to disbelieve and they will always find a way to do so regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Disbelieve what? I fully acknowledge that Brigham Young taught the Adam/God theory. I really don't have a problem with that. You are the only one in denial here.

What you underlined had nothing to do with Adam being God except perhaps in your mind and others who want so desperately to disbeliever. He was talking about God the Father not Adam. It saddens me that you seem so desperate to prove from no evidence other than what I have posted of the original sermon. All the rest is vain imaginings. In spite of the fact that the original corrected material is in the hands of the church you still choose to disbelieve. Oh well.

[_gfchase]

Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This clearly says that Adam would provide tabernacles for HIS "spiritual children". That would be the children that he and Eve had in the pre-existence. Those who don't want to admit the truth, deny what is right in front of them.

I see that you do not read much better than your friend. It does not say that the Adam who resided on this earth will the one to provide tabernacles for his spirit children but rather AN Adam or in other words another first man and woman. Adam and Eve was used figuratively. However every man and woman who lives to be worthy to become Gods including Adam and Eve will eventually bear spirit children who will be sent to an earth to also gain bodies just as has been done here. There will be a first man and a first woman on each world who would be AN Adam and AN Eve.

Jerry

[_Tobin]

What you underlined had nothing to do with Adam being God except perhaps in your mind and others who want so desperately to disbeliever. He was talking about God the Father not Adam. It saddens me that you seem so desperate to prove from no evidence other than what I have posted of the original sermon. All the rest is vain imaginings. In spite of the fact that the original corrected material is in the hands of the church you still choose to disbelieve. Oh well.

As I've already said, you seem intent on misrepresenting either my position or the material itself. You clearly have no interest in honestly responding to the quotations. Unless and until you have something factual or relevant to say about the matter, I consider your denials just further evidence of the absurdity of your position. I think you have sufficiently demonstrated your agenda here and that you are purposely ignoring what is actually stated in the John Dehlin 6: 275, 276.

[_gfchase]

What you underlined had nothing to do with Adam being God except perhaps in your mind and others who want so desperately to disbeliever. He was talking about God the Father not Adam. It saddens me that you seem so desperate to prove from no evidence other than what I have posted of the original sermon. All the rest is vain imaginings. In spite of the fact that the original corrected material is in the hands of the church you still choose to disbelieve. Oh well.

As I've already said, you seem intent on misrepresenting either my position or the material itself. You clearly have no interest in honestly responding to the quotations. Unless and until you have something factual or relevant to say about the matter, I consider your denials just further evidence of the absurdity of your position. I think you have sufficiently demonstrated your agenda here and that you are purposely ignoring what is actually stated in the John Dehlin 6: 275, 276.

I know exactly what it says and would suggest to you that it is indeed YOU that is misrepresenting what is said there. It was I who posted the entire quote and pointed out that what you claimed simply was not there in spite of your continued insistence. The quote has absolutely nothing to do with Adam/God theory but rather addresses one of the basic teaching of the Church that ALL men have the ability to become Gods IF they are willing to do ALL that Christ asks of us to the best of our ability. God is our father and we are literally his children. He wants for us what He has himself, however it does not come without effort. This life is the test that we all must pass through to see who will and who will not DO what is necessary to become a joint heir with Christ and inherit ALL that our Father has to offer which is to become like HIM. This is what Brigham was addressing and not whether Adam is our God which he is not.

Jerry