Adam-God Theory
 

Okay there are a few things here that don't make sense to me about the Adam-God theory. If God is Adam, does that mean that God transgressed in the Garden of Eden? Hardly seems possible for a perfect God. How does that work?

This is a popular topic, Adam-God. Check out these previous threads:

http://www.cougarguard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7

http://www.cougarguard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=258

http://www.cougarguard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1096

http://www.cougarguard.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1360

I know it won't be popular to say this,,but bluntly put it's a completely false doctrine that inevitably leads to some kind of apostasy.

I've yet to see someone who insists on believing it stay in the church for the long haul.

There are some things that are left to personal interpretation and then there are A LOT of things in the gospel that have been shown, whether they be taught in the open or not and that are very plain and very clear.

It isn't one of those "hidden or mysterious truths". It's very plain and clear who Adam is and who Heavenly Father is. We know this from very CLEAR and DISTINCT differences taught in the temple and through further study.

One can choose to entertain other thoughts in regards to this doctrine and while that's certainly their right, but ultimately what they're really doing is confusing something that is plain and clear.

What makes you think that any of us subscribe to the Adam/God theory? Sure it was discussed. But I don't recall anybody jumping on board.

I have been clear to say that I am not ...
 

... an Adam-God disciple, but then, it may be true, I do not know.

What is clear is that it was rock solid church doctrine at one point. And from my experience, I know of MANY who believe it to be true who were or are solid members of the church. Balboa is correct for many though, that when some fall away, they will point to the apostate state of the current church and its leaders for abandoning a principle our early leaders expressed to be inviolable.

BDB, in the AG concept, Adam, as Father and God, wilfully condescends (i.e., chooses to "fall") into mortality and in the process be placed in a situation of innocense and lack of understanding. He knew he would be redeemed for His transgression. As He previously gained power over death through resurrection from a prior mortality, He had the power to lay down his life and take it up again, which he did at the end of his mortality.

I've rarely seen anyone on here have the guts to come out and say "it is false doctrine", instead I mostly read..."well you can't discount what Brigham Young said" etc...etc......you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I just thought I would say what most probably think, but don't have the guts to do. I have no problem saying it's a false doctrine and feeling comfortable while saying it. I'm not trying to offend anyone by saying that. Sorry if you were.

LOL. Nice to see the old Rocky back. No offense taken because I've never subscribed to the theory. I learned a lot about the history of the theory in the discussions here. That's about the extent of it.

Good for you. How do you deal with what Brigham Young said about it?

How do you deal with what Brigham Young said about the moon and its residents SoCal?

Not to speak for Rocky or anybody else, I have no problem saying it is false doctrine. My viewpoint is that Brigham Young heard Joseph Smith say that God was once a man and had ascended to his position, and had heard him say that Adam had ascended to his throne in the Celestial Kingdom, put two and two together and got five.

I have absolutely no problem with the idea that a man who was a member of the church for only twelve years when he was put in charge of it might make a mistake that big. I believe that the insistance of one member of the quorum of the twelve, acting alone, kept the leaders of the church from leading its members astray, as God promised would never happen. I believe that now, having received further light and knowledge, leaders of the church have discarded a thought that was popular in its day, even among the highest circles of the church, but is false nevertheless.