davidlory on youtube regarding Adam-God

[_gdemetz]

This is not talking about a bad young woman. It is talking about a good young woman who would be impregnated by God Himself! However, the people can not tell whether a woman is a virgin or not by looking at her! The sign was that Isaiah gave them a prophesy from God that would be a sign to them that they could know when this would happen, and that sign was that the land would be void of her two kings. This is the sign that the people would be able to see!

[_Tobin]

This is not talking about a bad young woman. It is talking about a good young woman who would be impregnated by God Himself! However, the people can not tell whether a woman is a virgin or not by looking at her! The sign was that Isaiah gave them a prophesy from God that would be a sign to them that they could know when this would happen, and that sign was that the land would be void of her two kings. This is the sign that the people would be able to see!

Yes, I understand your problem with 'virgin' because many Mormons believe that God had to do the deed with Mary. I'm actually trying to help you see that the scriptures state otherwise though. Do you really suppose that God is so unsophisticated that God has to rut around like a commmon animal? That God is devoid of any level of technology and sophistication? That it is simply beyond God's ability to cause a 'virgin' to become pregnant? The problem I have with Mormons is they lack any level of imagination or understanding of God. This causes them to debase God and in turn debase the word of God to the lowest common denominator. God is not a man and man is not God nor will they ever be God.

[_Darth J]

The quote I gave was plain enough to show what he meant. If you don't want to accept that, OK, but please leave off the personal attacks!

Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Also, I have never seen any official statement from the church supporting the "virgin birth."

Ezra Taft Benson:
First Presidency Message, "Finding Joy in Christ"

He was the Only Begotten Son of our Heavenly Father in the flesh—the only child whose mortal body was begotten by our Heavenly Father. His mortal mother, Mary, was called a virgin, both before and after she gave birth. (See 1 Ne. 11:20.)

Yes, that is right. It is consistent with Heavenly Father (Elohim) being the Father of Adam, and not Adam fathering himself, or turning himself from a celestial being to a mortal.

The Adam-God doctrine is that Elohim was the father of Adam, not that Adam fathered himself. If you don't believe Adam, our Heavenly Father, entered the Garden of Eden with an eternal body and became mortal, then it's a good thing Brigham Young isn't around anymore. You might get excommunicated---just like Orson Pratt almost was until he repented and stopped contradicting the Prophet on this doctrine.

Also, the Superbowl analogy is a not a good one to dispute a plain statement of ones belief.

I don't care about your personal belief. We're talking about the teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young, who plainly taught that Adam is Heavenly Father.

I assume by it that you meant that the majority of Brigham Young's statements support the so-called Adam-God theory,

Find me one of Brigham Young's contemporaries who considered this a "theory," not an inspired doctrine. Other than Orson Pratt, I mean, who had to repent in sackcloth and ashes for contradicting the Lion of the Lord.

but having read all of his discourses, I can truthfully state that they do not.

And I bear you my solemn witness that I have read all the discourses of Warren Jeffs, and I can truthfully state that he does not believe in polygamy, no matter how many people misunderstand his teachings.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Quote-miner!

- VRDRC

[_gdemetz]

The quote I showed you from Brigham Young clearly stated that Elohim (Heavenly Father) fathered Adam, which is exactly what you have stated! So if Adam was fathered by Heavenly Father, according to Brigham Young's statement, how could Adam be Heavenly Father (Elohim), unless his name was also Elohim and He fathered himself! Also, it is true that Nephi referred to Mary as a virgin before Christ's birth, and he also keeps referring to her as the virgin that he saw, after the birth of Christ, and this can lead to confusion. However, the so-called "virgin birth" is not Mormon doctrine. Brigham Young, James Talmadge, as well as Bruce McConkie and many other of the general authorities who were knowledgeable concerning Mormon theology, specifically taught otherwise (See "Mormon Doctrine" under "Son of God.") Also, BC gave a very good link in which church leaders explain the confusion over Brigham Young's statements which led to the false "Adam-God theory which even some church members today accept.

[_Tobin]

Also, it is true that Nephi referred to Mary as a virgin before Christ's birth, and he also keeps referring to her as the virgin that he saw, after the birth of Christ, and this can lead to confusion. However, the so-called "virgin birth" is not Mormon doctrine. Brigham Young, James Talmadge, as well as Bruce McConkie and many other of the general authorities who were knowledgeable concerning Mormon theology, specifically taught otherwise (See "Mormon Doctrine" under "Son of God.")

Whoa what? You'll dispute what is written in Isaiah, the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, but you'll accept what Brigham Young, James Talmage, and BRM speculated about it? Why? Were they there? I'm sorry, but sometimes Mormons really make me wonder.

[_gdemetz]

Tobin, I believe you are misinterpreting Nephi's comments, and as far as the passage in Isaiah is concerned, it is a gross mistranslation. The Hebrew word "Alma(h)" was translated as "virgin," but the meaning is "young woman." The New Testament states that she was "overshadowed," (a nice way to put it) by the Most High, and that it was by the Holy Ghost, meaning that the Holy Ghost protected Mary in those circumstances, but the Holy Ghost is not the father, Heavenly Father is. These prophets whom you speak of weren't speculating. They have received revelations on this matter and have taught them plainly.

[_Darth J]

The quote I showed you from Brigham Young clearly stated that Elohim (Heavenly Father) fathered Adam, which is exactly what you have stated! So if Adam was fathered by Heavenly Father, according to Brigham Young's statement, how could Adam be Heavenly Father (Elohim), unless his name was also Elohim and He fathered himself!

You're being deliberately obtuse. A man's name could be Steve, or Fred, or Bob, but his kids are going to call him "Father" or "Dad," regardless of what his given name is. What a given god's name is in Mormon cosmology is irrelevant to whether that god has the status of Heavenly Father relative to that god's spirit children. This is explicitly taught by the LDS Church:

Gospel Principles, Ch. 47: Exaltation

Blessings of Exaltation

They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father.

Brigham Young taught that Elohim is Adam's Heavenly Father, and Adam is our Heavenly Father.

Also, it is true that Nephi referred to Mary as a virgin before Christ's birth, and he also keeps referring to her as the virgin that he saw, after the birth of Christ, and this can lead to confusion. However, the so-called "virgin birth" is not Mormon doctrine.

Ezra Taft Benson, who was President of the Church when he wrote that First Presidency message, probably just didn't understand what the Church teaches.

Brigham Young, James Talmadge, as well as Bruce McConkie and many other of the general authorities who were knowledgeable concerning Mormon theology, specifically taught otherwise (See "Mormon Doctrine" under "Son of God.")

Mormon Doctrine specifically disavows being an official statement of LDS teachings. Brigham Young has been thrown under the bus by the modern LDS Church for many of his teachings, such as the Adam-God doctrine, the God-had-sex-with-Mary doctrine, and the seed of Cain doctrine.

In Jesus the Christ, Talmage made the statement that Heavenly Father "begat" Jesus "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof." This statement is so vague that it is devoid of meaning.

The current LDS Church, presided over by President New S. Room, will go down kicking and screaming denying that it has ever been taught that God had sexual intercourse with Mary. But if you want to take the position that the modern Prophets and Apostles Who Are Special Witnesses of Jesus Christ can't even agree on a consistent Christology, I won't argue.

Also, BC gave a very good link in which church leaders explain the confusion over Brigham Young's statements which led to the false "Adam-God theory which even some church members today accept.

No, bcspace gave a line to a very poor ad hoc and question-begging essay by someone who is not a church leader, in which the author imposes his modern LDS view of the Godhead on Brigham Young's teachings with no evidentiary support.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, I believe you are misinterpreting Nephi's comments, and as far as the passage in Isaiah is concerned, it is a gross mistranslation. The Hebrew word "Alma(h)" was translated as "virgin," but the meaning is "young woman." The New Testament states that she was "overshadowed," (a nice way to put it) by the Most High, and that it was by the Holy Ghost, meaning that the Holy Ghost protected Mary in those circumstances, but the Holy Ghost is not the father, Heavenly Father is. These prophets whom you speak of weren't speculating. They have received revelations on this matter and have taught them plainly.

I'm misinterpreting nothing.
Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God, and through that process selected the word 'virgin' as the word that Nephi meant and used. It is clear as day there in the Book of Mormon. Your next contention is equally as ludicrous. You claim that Isaiah 7:14 was mistranslated. Well, guess what? Joseph Smith re-translated that exact chapter word for word in 2 Nephi 17.

2 Nephi 17:14 Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign - Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

And I understand you have a problem here believing the word of God because there are contradictory teachings coming from modern-day Mormon prophets. That should just help you see that those modern-day prophets were mistaken in their speculations and should not be believed.

[_gdemetz]

"We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens."

Is this plain enough for you?! Brigham Young plainly states that we , including Adam and Eve, are all the offspring of Heavenly Father! So, how could he consider Adam as our Heavenly Father as you critics have tried to state and twist his meaning!

Furthermore, one thing that has frustrated me in my years of studying Mormon Doctrine, as that I have found by experience that one can not trust the temple shows to be accurate in depicting the teachings of the prophets, and one also can not trust the translations. The Book of Mormon is not perfect. For example, in the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, the first verse in the fourth chapter of Isaiah is at the end of chapter 3. It is different from the Bible and the Book of Mormon! Joseph Smith taught, in explaining Revelation 1:6, as if it is referring to the Father of Heavenly Father, but for some reason, he translated it differently. If he were here, I would ask him why, but unfortunately, he is not. You can't have it both ways. You want to pick and chose your versions. However, I have learned from experience that one should always take what the prophets have taught over a translation, particularly when the translation is in question. Isaiah taught that it was a young woman who gave birth to Christ (correct original translation). The modern prophets and apostles have taught the same thing. The New Testament teaches that the young woman was "overshadowed" by the Most High, and that meaning should also be obvious. The sign that someone would actually be able to see as a sign, since no one could see if a young woman was a virgin or not (at least I hope they wouldn't), was, as Isaiah states, that the land would be void of her two kings. Now, that is a real sign for people to look for! In spite of all this evidence, you want to accept a recopying of an incorrect version Isaiah because it is apparently what you want to believe. If you do, then go ahead and believe what you want to, but you won't convince me to believe that way, and you won't convince me of the other concerning the silly Adam-God theory, which is not Mormon Doctrine anyway!