davidlory on youtube regarding Adam-God

[_Nightlion]

I have read all of the discourses of Brigham Young, and I carefully explained that on my original post concerning the Adam-God theory. You should read that.

Sorry, I have failed to notice where your original post is. Not in this thread. I spent over four years full time researching into things like this going to the Church Historical Library daily. I am familiar with what Brigham Young said.

I doubt if the future will be able to look back into sites like this and do research. It would be dumbfounding on Zion to see you guys ignore what I have unfolded in two posts here. The arrogance of the day....man oh man. lol

[_gdemetz]

It is on this site entitled; "The Adam-God Theory." It explains how Brigham Young used the term "Adam" to apply to a Heavenly Father and the term "Eve" to apply to a Heavenly Mother.

[_Nightlion]

It is on this site entitled; "The Adam-God Theory." It explains how Brigham Young used the term "Adam" to apply to a Heavenly Father and the term "Eve" to apply to a Heavenly Mother.

Let me see if I am getting this correctly. You are saying that our heavenly Father and our heavenly Mother came into the garden and partook of the grosser element and then had children, namely Adam and Eve who were the ones who partook of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and fell. Is that the two Adam theory?

If so I can see where the confusion is. You refuse to admit that the man Adam IS the father of our spirit bodies to begin with. Therefore you have to conflate this ignoramus notion. And what happened after the first Adam the Real God of the world made our Adam and Eve? He stopped eating gross element and his celestial body regenerated and he hied back to Kolob with his wife in tow? lol

Tell me I am totally off about this. Otherwise I am greatly disappointed.

[_gdemetz]

Yes, that is basically it. He goes on to state, in his August 28, 1852 discourse, that future exalted beings who become like Heavenly Father and Mother, and also refers to them as "Adam" and "Eve," will have to go to a new world and eat and drink of the "fruit" there so that they could have children with physical bodies (as opposed to the spirit children that celestial beings would otherwise have - see Hebrews 12:9) so they could be the "Adam" (Jr.) and "Eve," or first parents of that world. The Bible states that Adam was made from the dust (meaning materials-including fruit) of the earth, and it also states that Adam is the son of God (see Luke 3:38). The prophet Brigham Young explained how both these statements are true!

[_Nightlion]

Yes, that is basically it. He goes on to state, in his August 28, 1852 discourse, that future exalted beings who become like Heavenly Father and Mother, and also refers to them as "Adam" and "Eve," will have to go to a new world and eat and drink of the "fruit" there so that they could have children with physical bodies (as opposed to the spirit children that celestial beings would otherwise have - see Hebrews 12:9) so they could be the "Adam" (Jr.) and "Eve," or first parents of that world. The Bible states that Adam was made from the dust (meaning materials-including fruit) of the earth, and it also states that Adam is the son of God (see Luke 3:38). The prophet Brigham Young explained how both these statements are true!

Damn! That is one sorry bit of sophistry there boy. I noticed you failed to solve the problem of just exactly how God the Eternal Father regains his Celestial powers. All good drama has flaws. Hell, even really good stories leave out plausibility on purpose for extra dramatic tension. But as cute as this is and as juvenile as it is cute in terms of scriptural exegesis it just ain't so. Making your first son wed his sister.....eeeeweee!

You know, however, that if Adam and Eve are truly the parents of our spirit bodies and then they came into the world to continue the seeds, as the scripture says, both in the world and out of the world (D&C 132 that's spiritual and physical kiddo) which is the work of exalted seed bearers, that lots of what Brigham was attempting, poorly, to string together fits better on my strand than it does on yours. The only reason they are called gods is because they too lay down their lives and take them again. (subject to a Redeemer) nothing like The Very Eternal Father. Amen.

A desperate attempt to salvage the egotism that WE get to be a god-almighty. It all weighs upon a non-prophet though. Brigham was crappola for prophet and he admitted it himself as he deferred to Heber for prophesy. lol. Good grief. Okay, enough fun for me. Keep this bit of glubenstalen breitchenslitch it suits you since you show no inclination to learn the truth.

[_gdemetz]

You didn't understand my post. This is one big problem; the way Brigham Young taught it! He referred to Heavenly Father as "Adam," however, it was only a term that he used! Heavenly Father never lost his celestial glory! Brigham Young even refers to future exalted beings as an "Adam" or an "Eve"! Please read carefully my topic article!

[_DannyBoy]

Brigham Young taught that Adam was the Father of our spirits, and the Father of the spirit and body of Jesus. He joined with Mary and begot Jesus with her in a "natural course of events". He taught this from 1950 until his death. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming.

I came across a video on youtube where a guy with the username davidlory was discussing Adam-God. I watched his 45 min. video and then made a few comments on it. The problem is that there is a 500 character limit on each comment, and it was difficult to be that succinct and still be understood when discussing such a complex subject. I invited davidlory over here to discuss this without the hindrance of a character limit. He believes that Jesus Christ had lived on another world in another body as a father to Michael or Adam before he came here and was born as Jesus Christ. I don't believe that Brigham Young taught that. Anyone else can feel free to jump in and comment.

Here is a link to the video comments:

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=BIE6J-mKPro

[_gdemetz]

I don't know what evidence on U Tube there is, or wherever you are referring to, but I have read all of the discourses of Brigham Young, and of all his quotes on this topic, there is only one which is very confusing, and I explained it on "The Adam God Theory." However,the critics point out another statement, which I also explained, and as I previously mentioned, it clearly refers to future "Adams" and "Eves." I am going by what Brigham Young actually stated and not by how others may have interpreted his statements.

[_Darth J]

I don't know what evidence on U Tube there is, or wherever you are referring to, but I have read all of the discourses of Brigham Young, and of all his quotes on this topic, there is only one which is very confusing, and I explained it on "The Adam God Theory." However,the critics point out another statement, which I also explained, and as I previously mentioned, it clearly refers to future "Adams" and "Eves." I am going by what Brigham Young actually stated and not by how others may have interpreted his statements.

There are numerous statements, it was not a "theory," and the teachings are not confusing. They are only confusing if you are trying to graft modern LDS theology on the teachings of Brigham Young. Brigham Young taught that Elohim is the God who is the father of Michael/Adam, and Adam is the father of both our spirits and our bodies. There is no "Adam, Sr./Adam, Jr." Modern Latter-day Saints believe that Elohim is Heavenly Father. The Adam-God doctrine is that Elohim is in effect our Heavenly Grandfather, and that Michael/Adam is Heavenly Father. It's the historical record, not a matter of opinion. It's what Brigham Young and the LDS Church officially taught for many years.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17350

[_gdemetz]

You claim that is the case, then post a quote from Brigham Young to support that.