[All-American]

Well, I gambled in using "God" instead of "Heavenly Father."

When I said "God," I meant "Heavenly Father," as in the one I talk to when I pray.

I don't argue that Michael was Adam. I don't even argue over using the term "Michael God" (cf. Psalms 82:6). When I used the word "God" in my previous post, I referred to the individual we identify as the Father.

So, after reading Dan's last post, three questions come to mind:

1.) Is the AG theory that Adam is the same as God the Father, or merely that a) Adam is a god, and b) we, as his descendents, are his subordinates? My understanding was that the AG claimed Adam=God, the father.

Assuming that my understanding was correct:

2.) Was Brigham Young teaching something that was absolutely true and later driven underground, or something that was realized to be false and disavowed?

3.) Which is more likely: Spencer W. Kimball being wrong in his statement, or deliberately lying in order to cover up true doctrine?

As for your last point, I can see why Adam-God theory doesn't get that much publicity. It seems to me that it is inconsistent with what light and knowledge we have since acquired, such as the further definition of the roles and members of the Godhead. As you said, we have since resolved the idea that Jehovah=Jesus and that Michael (Adam) is his subordinate. Nevertheless, there is so much that is so difficult to interpret and understand, less damage would be done by letting lying dogs lie rather than try to pin it all down.