Adam-God Theory

[Black Diamond Bay]

Dan:

What I am saying is that once you get elbow deep into the nuances of it these issues that at first glance seem so monumental will seem as such anymore. I have provided a lot of information in these AG threads with lots of links. Maybe just take some time to read through it and digest it and I am sure that many (most?) of you list of questions will go away when you see them directly addressed by BY, WW and others.

BDB:

I read through some/most of the material you posted (admittedly not all) and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to my first question. How could a perfect God come to earth as a mortal and sin, and still claim to be perfect? Just telling me that I haven't read enough material or I am not approaching this from the right paradigm isn't doing anything to answer the question. My other questions are a bit more complex, and I'm not particularly interested in typing them all out here, because I have no expectation that anyone here can provide me with adequate material or information to resolve the questions.

Dan:

Like I said, you see something "wrong" with AG based on your paradigms. If you ready what the early leaders had to say about AG you will realize they had a different paradigm than you and, therefore, they did not see the same concerns as being the 'problems' that you do. It is the very reason that you are not willing to continue and investigate for yourself that is prohibiting you from seeing your answers. In fact I answered this very question for you earlier today, but to you it still seems absurd and illogical, and that is because you refuse to see it from another paradigm. You will never be able to see it from the paradigm of the early leaders if you are unwilling to get your 'hands dirty' by searching honestly. Sorry to say it, but that is the truth.

BDB:

Your answer to the question was nothing more than to restate the AG theory. You provided me with no new material and no new explanation as to how a perfect God could come to earth and sin, and then still claim to be perfect. I am curious and not at all opposed to additional research, but it's not much of a priority seeing as how one rather obvious question can't be answered succinctly.

The attitude I perceive here is disturbing to me, in that it's one that I would generally associate with an anti, apostate, not the upstanding church member that you are. I take issue with your assumption that I have taken a close-minded, resentful approach to this topic and therefore have suffered an inability to truly understand...unlike yourself. I'm very familiar with that attitude and approach, I'm just surprised with where I'm finding it this time.

Dan:

Are you implying that I am being selective here BDB? If you go back and read the prior threads you will see I have given references to some great resources that will give you insight about Orson and the other related issues involved. I am not withholding on you. But if you do not go search through said sources, you will remain only able to see it through your own paradigms.

BDB:

No Dan, I implied nothing of the kind. My point was only that I have not taken the time to thoroughly research on my own the incidents involving Orson Pratt on this matter. I am relying solely on second-hand information provided by you, the accuracy of which is not in question. History is all based on perspective, and I question whether you and I would interpret things the same. Undoubtedly any variance in interpretation is due to my inability to see things through a different paradigm.

Dan:

There is no need for this. I did not insinuate any such thing. I have never called you this or implied this. What I was trying to get accross is that it is reasonable to assume and understand how someone who grows up under certain traditions and paradigms would have a hard time seeing issues and explanations from another paradigm or point of view that was held by prior generations of which little was previously known to the person. Again, you will need to be able to see things from THEIR point of view if you REALLY want to understand the answers to your questions. Otherwise, if you only look at it from your point of view and refuse to consider things furhter because you are not getting answers that square with your traditions and paradigms, you will never come to have any real understanding of how the issues did or may have made sense to them decades ago under different paradigms.

BDB: No, you never called me that, which is why I said that it was insinuated. I am smart, and certainly not incapable of seeing things from another persons point of view (please stop assuming that I have no understanding of the "paradigm or point of view that was held by prior generations"), but no matter which way I turn this one the "answers" don't provide me with any resolution. Keep in mind that I have provided you with only ONE question I have on this matter.

I hate to say it, but you are being condescending. I simply do not believe that you are so much my intellectual and spiritual superior that you have been able to grasp concepts that still elude myself, and the majority of faithful church members today. In my opinion you have taken a dangerously prideful position on this matter.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

I do know that I'm being accused of being shallow minded, and I have to admit that I am not exactly flattered by the suggestion.

not quite.....

my point is this....

do i believe it was doctrine? of course i do.....

is it doctrine today? of course it isnt...

is it hard to reconcile the two after one has read the many, many issues, questions, that the adam god concept raises? i would say, naturally....

we are a church that loves black and white, right angles, and perfectly fit pieces to the puzzle that is life. (one need not look any further than the discussion on the other site as evidence) is it difficult to wrap our minds around the teachings of a prophet of god that do not line up with our picture perfect idea of the afterlife? the answer to that is for you to decide....

make any sense?

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

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?

I think you need to understand the theory better in order to understand how this idea becomes believeable. Michael came to earth and became as a little child not knowing good from evil. That is how he was able to transgress the law that was given to him by Elohim.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I hate to say it, but you are being condescending. I simply do not believe that you are so much my intellectual and spiritual superior that you have been able to grasp concepts that still elude myself, and the majority of faithful church members today. In my opinion you have taken a dangerously prideful position on this matter.

i hate to mitigate, especially with people that are smarter than i, as i believe, aa, bdb, and dan are all smarter than myself....

but to interject bdb...

he did provide you with a possible answer to your first question.....

if you really want to understand about the principles brigham taught, all the material is readily available, if you dismiss the principles based on your reasoning, is it not you that finds yourself in a 'dangerously prideful position' as your reasoning directly contradicts that of a consecrated prophet?

the last paragraph was intentially condescending....

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

not quite.....

my point is this....

do i believe it was doctrine? of course i do.....

is it doctrine today? of course it isnt...

is it hard to reconcile the two after one has read the many, many issues, questions, that the adam god concept raises? i would say, naturally....

we are a church that loves black and white, right angles, and perfectly fit pieces to the puzzle that is life. (one need not look any further than the discussion on the other site as evidence) is it difficult to wrap our minds around the teachings of a prophet of god that do not line up with our picture perfect idea of the afterlife? the answer to that is for you to decide....

make any sense?

AG was once considered true; fine. It is no longer considered true; fine. I'm not seeing the difference between your stance as stated in this post and mine, unless you are saying that AG is true. I've noticed that so far you've not been willing to make such a statement. What say ye?

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

AG was once considered true; fine. It is no longer considered true; fine. I'm not seeing the difference between your stance as stated in this post and mine, unless you are saying that AG is true. I've noticed that so far you've not been willing to make such a statement. What say ye?

i think our stances are entirely different as you have stated brigham was stubborn, wouldnt change, held onto certain ideas, etc....

i believe the idea to be truly inspired as i think brigham was an inspired seer....

to be completely honest i dont know where i fit.....ive wrestled with the idea for literally months, where ever single day i have dedicated a portion of my day to reflecting on the idea, thinking about the true nature of god, what will happen to me next....this reflection has bettered my person and i feel like my thoughts have been towards heaven with much more frequency.....

could i see it being a reality? yes....

could i see the current lds theology being the way it is? yes....

do i struggle with either possibility? no, as either way is ok with me....

but i find comfort in levels of the adam god theory that i dont find in our current line of thought....

[Black Diamond Bay]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

if you really want to understand about the principles brigham taught, all the material is readily available, if you dismiss the principles based on your reasoning, is it not you that finds yourself in a 'dangerously prideful position' as your reasoning directly contradicts that of a consecrated prophet?

No, my reasoning is very much in line with SWK, a consecrated prophet.

[Archaea]

interesting discussion friends.

I am always strengthened and enlightened as people discuss their intellectual struggles.

AG is perplexing to me. Its history is fascinating, and I'm not certain we have the whole picture of its development. We clearly do not have what JS taught except as BY taught it.

I understand BDB's struggle with it. I am somewhat concerned with the cavalier method with which the Church dismissed it, but it is consistent with how the Church deals with muddy matters.

I wish their were more openness, but if I were in charge, perhaps I would reach the same conclusion. Their job is tough and I don't want to do it.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

i think our stances are entirely different as you have stated brigham was stubborn, wouldnt change, held onto certain ideas, etc....

i believe the idea to be truly inspired as i think brigham was an inspired seer....

to be completely honest i dont know where i fit.....ive wrestled with the idea for literally months, where ever single day i have dedicated a portion of my day to reflecting on the idea, thinking about the true nature of god, what will happen to me next....this reflection has bettered my person and i feel like my thoughts have been towards heaven with much more frequency.....

could i see it being a reality? yes....

could i see the current lds theology being the way it is? yes....

do i struggle with either possibility? no, as either way is ok with me....

but i find comfort in levels of the adam god theory that i dont find in our current line of thought....

So allow me to put words into your mouth. Brigham Young was inspired to give the AG theory, which may or may not be true. Is that a fair statement?

Now, I don't quite accept the idea that Brigham would be inspired to say something that was not true. I also don't think there's a position between the two ideas. I'm going to go so far as to say there are really only two options: 1, Brigham was correct and the church has forsaken that correct teaching, or 2, Brigham was mistaken and the church has corrected that mistaken teaching. I lean to the latter, myself.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by All-American

Now, I don't quite accept the idea that Brigham would be inspired to say something that was not true. I also don't think there's a position between the two ideas. I'm going to go so far as to say there are really only two options: 1, Brigham was correct and the church has forsaken that correct teaching, or 2, Brigham was mistaken and the church has corrected that mistaken teaching. I lean to the latter, myself.

here is my problem....

i struggle with the idea that prophets are wrong when they teach over, and over, and over, and over, an idea, or principle in the name of god....

brigham has done this....and i believe he is a prophet of god....

if brigham was wrong where do we draw the line? can i now as a member of the church say wilford woodruff was wrong and the church has been in apostacy since the 1890s?

so the struggle is two fold...

a. im not smart enough to wrap my idea around the concept...as i dont fully understand, nor claim to understand what will happen in the eternities....

b. i struggle saying a prophet was blatantly wrong...its easier for me to accept the leadership of the church sweeping an issue under the rug, than it is for me to claim a prophet was wrong...which essentially is what i believe swk did....

making sense?