- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
It’s been speculated that Holy Ghosts may rotate out at a faster rate (i.e. JS was a HG)
Yes, that definitely is speculation.
😈 Old-Timer wrote:Quote:It’s been speculated that Holy Ghosts may rotate out at a faster rate (i.e. JS was a HG)
Yes, that definitely is speculation.
😈 Just innocently trying to get that nut-shell description out there
It’s cool. I was smiling like this 
I’m a little late on the Adam-God thing, but here’s a little something from a friend of mine, Joe… “One of the common criticisms of Brigham Young’s theological posits about
Adam is that it confuses the various persons of the Godhead – i.e., if Adam
was God the Father, then who was the character he was talking to in the
Garden, anyway? Whoever it was, he certainly TALKS as though he were God
the Father, since he speaks about His Only Begotten Son, etc. So what’s
that all about? Isn’t Adam *talking to* God the Father?” It certainly seems
that he is!
I think it might be helpful to review a few salient points here that I
believe have some bearing on the issue. First, remember that in BY’s view,
Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, and Adam are OFFICES in the Priesthood – they are
roles pertaining to the Celestial Order, which explains his and other early
Church leader’s comments about “the Great Elohim, Jehovah,” or “Yahovah
Michael,” or “the Great Elohim, Yahovah Michael.” This is all easy to
understand. The Celestial Order is Patriarchal, and the revealed offices of
that Order are all somehow connected to the roles of either FATHER or SON.
Please keep this in mind as you read the rest of my mini-sermonette!
We are all familiar with the concept of divine investiture of authority –
that is, where a being comes in the name of another (sort of a PROXY), and
performs a specific task or function, speaking and acting as though he were
that “other.” Turn it around, and you have your answer as to how Adam could
be speaking to God the Father in the Garden:
“The Priesthood of God is the great, supreme, legal authority that governs
the inhabitants of all redeemed and glorified worlds. In it is included all
power to create worlds, to ordain fixed and permanent laws for the
regulation of the materials in all their varied operations, whether acting
as particles, as masses, as worlds, or as clusters of worlds. It is that
power that reveals laws for the government of intelligent beings–that
rewards the obedient and punishes the disobedient–that ordains
principalities, powers, and kingdoms to carry out its righteous
administrations throughout all dominions?.when [men] are perfected, they
will have power to act in every branch of authority by virtue of the great,
and almighty, and eternal Priesthood which they hold: they can then sway
their sceptres as KINGS; rule as PRINCES, minister as Apostles; officiate as
Teachers; or, ACT IN THE HUMBLEST OR MOST EXALTED CAPACITY. THERE IS NO
BRANCH OF THE PRIESTHOOD SO LOW THAT THEY CANNOT *CONDESCEND* TO OFFICIATE
THEREIN; none so high, that they cannot reach forth the arm of power and
control the same (OP, The Seer, “Power and Eternity of the Priesthood,”
1:10).
Just as a being such as an angel may by divine investiture of authority
(i.e., by PERMISSION) act and speak as though he were of a higher office or
calling, so may the Greater (by RIGHT) sway the sceptre of power and fill
ANY office, HIGH OR LOW. In the Celestial Order, filling a lower position to
effect the salvation of man is an act of CONDESCENSION, and Orson Pratt’s
words are not only important for what they tell us about the Priesthood on
the Earth, but for what they intimate about Celestial Government:
“God is a God of order; he is a God of law. God is that being that sways his
scepter over universal nature and controls the suns and systems of suns and
worlds and planets and keeps them moving in their spheres and orbits by law;
and all his subjects must comply with law here on the earth, that they may
be prepared to do his will on the earth as his will is done by the angelic
hosts and those higher order of intelligences that reign in his own
presence” (OP, JD 14:276, April 9, 1871).
In light of Orson Pratt’s comments above, consider: we think nothing of it
if JESUS is referred to as both FATHER and SON. But we never turn it around!
We give no thought at all about what this both absolutely means and what it
might imply about JESUS’ OWN FATHER, or GRANDFATHER, or GREAT-GRANDFATHER.
Now, as for “condescending to officiate” in an office, let me provide you
with an interesting example or two.
In Freemasonry, a LODGE will drop to a lower degree to receive candidates
who have not yet received higher degrees, and this places certain
constraints on their actions. All of the Brethren in the Lodge may be Master
Masons, but until the newly obligated Brother is *raised* a Master Mason,
the Lodge is obliged to STEP DOWN and perform the work needed to raise him
up, in accordance with the rules governing the lower degree. Further, the
Master of the Lodge may appoint another to stand in his place at the head of
the Lodge while he fills another role (any role he chooses, I might add!)
while bestowing a degree. It does not prove that he is not the Master of the
Lodge, because he fills another office while bringing a Brother to light. It
does not prove that he is not Master of the Lodge, because another acts and
speaks in the role of Master, while the Master performs another work.
Similarly, Brigham Young commented: “THIS IS A KEY FOR YOU. The faithful
will become Gods, even the SONS of God; but this does not overthrow the idea
that we have a father. Adam is my Father ? but it does not prove that He is
not my Father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a
Father.” (BY, JD 6:274-275)
Perhaps a more immediate example will be better suited here. Which office is
greater, that of Elder, or that of Bishop? The office of Bishop is the
highest office in the AARONIC PRIESTHOOD. Clearly, the office of Elder is
greater, since it is associated with the MELCHIZEDEK Priesthood. That fact
notwithstanding, when a literal descendant of Aaron cannot be found, the man
who fills the office of Bishop is in actuality a High Priest, which office
is greater than that of Elder. So, in effect, the High Priest STEPS DOWN to
officiate in his calling as Bishop, because a literal descendent of Aaron
*cannot be found.* So, while strictly speaking the office of Elder is
*greater* than that of Bishop, practically speaking, the Bishop is a High
Priest acting in a lower office (see James N. Hall, _Adam God Theory_, 1986.
Pp. 21-22).
Perhaps this has brought to your mind certain words in the Endowment: “Is
man found on the Earth?? MAN IS NOT FOUND on the Earth,” and so a God STEPS
DOWN and officiates in the calling or role of Adam – which is his RIGHT.
Adam is created from the “dust of the Earth.” In the Bunkerville Decision,
Wilford Woodruff taught that “the seed of man was *OF* the dust of the
earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was
Eternal Lives” (Charles Lowell Walker Diary, 2:740-741, as quoted, Tholson,
AG, 156)
This quote brings to mind Buckeye’s Lament and D&C 132, and reveals if
“Eternal Lives” was understood (at least by Presidents Woodruff and Cannon)
to refer to the spiritual or physical offspring of Deity.
I have perhaps said more here than I intended, but that’s alright — it is
easily dismissed since it is all personal speculation anyway. Perhaps it
would have been best to skip the sermon and give you Brigham Young’s SHORT
answer to the question – Adam was talking to THE GRANDFATHER – or was that,
THE FATHER ? Or then again, was that, the GREAT-GRANDFATHER? Maybe
Brigham was really confused:
Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were Father, Son, and Grandson. They made this
Earth and Michael became Adam (BY, **JOSEPH F. SMITH JOURNAL**, entry for 17
June 1871).
Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we
are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit
his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were
more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more
or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather (JD 9:148)”
Warmest Regards — JSW (edited somewhat by HiJolly)
HiJolley!!! you little devil Im all a tingle
I always (alright, I only recently discovered there were debates about this) found it fascinating that Mormon theology can be so specific about certain heavenly details, and yet still the leaders cannot agree who the heck God, Jesus, Adam, Michael, the Father and the Son really are. The names pertaining to roles makes sense, the hierarchy makes sense, the godhead kind-of makes sense. Eternal matter and God being a man makes sense. I’ve been reading Paul Toscano’s Strangers in Paradox, and he’s got some interesting theories as well, including the Heavenly Mother and Jesus being the one and only God. I swear, man, I’ve been confused recently as to whom I am actually praying to! Shouldn’t this have been cleared up by the church ages ago?! And for the record, I’m still holding out that Jesus is a clone of God and is therefore both the Father and the Son and is sacrificing Himself. Hey…I’m the one that’s supposed to be spewing all these “apostate splinter-group” doctrines 😆 HiJolly’s buddy Joe makes some good points….I’ve scratched quite a few of my precious remaining hairs out over this stuff.
It really is a beautiful doctrine though….and it makes the temple ceremony (what’s left of it) make so much sense.
Example: (without being too tacky or out-of-line)
“Adam being true and faithfull in all things….yada, yada,…..”
I used to think…”but I’m not Adam”….
Of course you are……..it’s an office…not someone’s name.
That’s medium rare meaty stuff…..
Just sayin…..
spacious maze wrote:I always (alright, I only recently discovered there were debates about this) found it fascinating that Mormon theology can be so specific about certain heavenly details, and yet still the leaders cannot agree who the heck God, Jesus, Adam, Michael, the Father and the Son really are. The names pertaining to roles makes sense, the hierarchy makes sense, the godhead kind-of makes sense. Eternal matter and God being a man makes sense. I’ve been reading Paul Toscano’s
Strangers in Paradox, and he’s got some interesting theories as well, including the Heavenly Mother and Jesus being the one and only God. I swear, man, I’ve been confused recently as to whom I am actually praying to! Shouldn’t this have been cleared up by the church ages ago?! And for the record, I’m still holding out that Jesus is a clone of God and is therefore both the Father and the Son and is sacrificing Himself.
Personally, I don’t really invest much of my ego in knowing ‘who’ God is. I understand and agree that it’s important to know the only true God, but for me I am learning as He interacts with me. And that’s just alright with me. I can endure a little (or a lot of) ambiguity.As far as my own personal view on Adam-God, I view it in two ways, the cover and the core. The ‘cover’ is the whole Adam/Jehovah/Elohim thing in a very symbolic, title-based way. Not peoples names, but titles. And not literal, in the Eternal sense, but in a functional, practical development and higher-realm sense. Not literal, but still very *real* in a way that I surely do not fully understand. Yet.
The ‘core’ meaning of it is the Eternal for me. Adam as our God is Adam Kadmon, the vessel containing the intelligences which broke and fragmented and which fragmented intelligences we have at our core of being. As we journey through life, we grow and develop that personal spark of intelligence into what will someday again be the re-united Adam Kadmon of old, on a truly cosmic scale.
HiJolly
We should clarify that although some sources seem to indicate that ‘Adam’ is a title, it is clear from most of Young’s writings that the specific personage of Michael the Archangel (clearly synonymous with Adam according to Young) was the father of our spirits. A good LDS-friendly secondary source to support this is on the FAIR wiki webpage, in their article on the “Lecture at the Veil”. http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22 ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_the_%22Lecture_at_the_Veil%22 I personally do not see any support for the idea that Elohim or Jehovah are titles. Does anyone have any scripture or General Authority quotes to back that up?
You are so correct. If an individual needs some LDS apologetics-based explanations for disturbing doctrine…fairmormon.org is a wonderful place to look.
Elohim is actually plural but can refer to the “head of an individual group of gods”. It certainly is not an individual’s name.
This is gettin a bit deep….
I’m not sure this is inline with the “mission” of this sight but I guess that’s up to the mods….
This is definitely NOT a item I need to put at the head of my todo list. I believe that Valoel made the following comment to me in a different thread:
“Think of it this way. You now know at least one way that didn’t work for you”
Delving into the depths of this topic is one of the things that did not work for me.
I’m grateful for everyone putting up with my dropping it into this thread. For some reason it was good for me to air this and see that others understand the complexities that this can, has and does add to our issues at hand.
Thanks !
Very late to the party….and this spin may not be the most helpful. WARNING: POTENTIAL RANT. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
But I want to put that out there because it is a different perspective.
This is why it hurts sometimes for us sisters… like an unexpected kick in the solar plexis from a toddler in your life….
“As
manis, God once was…” As a female, this is what we read:“As
[wo]manis, God once was..” So we can translate it one of the following ways (or get the headache from trying):1. It’s the generic “man” – so we can be individually like God… except females can’t be all powerful the way God is because we are “hearkening” to a higher power, and we are “ordained” unto our husbands, whereas God is not “ordained” to anyone.
2. “You can grow up to be a Heavenly Mother” – whatever that means… followed by crickets… because the collective LDS narrative does not include a whole lot about her, and the sources that have any bearing on the subject are paganism and the Catholics… (not to mention it usually cycles in to a zillion spirit children)
3. “The singular “man” actually is a plural “man and woman” – that might have merit, but there are issues if your plurality does not match the accepted parameters due to singleness, polyandry-ness, or gender preference. Also less doctrinal support.
4. “Guys being patriarchal guys and we get to figure it out on the other side (if there is an other side) later” – meanwhile this couplet that we have a hard time drawing meaning from gets a lot of air time.
5. “Guys being patriarchal guys who need this to be all they can be” – meanwhile I work out something that works for me in the here and now that I focus on while this gets air time.
END RANT
I love men. I love my man. I am striving to understand patriarchal doctrine – why it came about, and how it is changing, and how in some cases, it shouldn’t ever change in my opinion. I am doing my best to understand the situation so that I can be understood.
If you read the rant and are male, I ask that the next time the couplet comes up, you give us sisters the nod of respect that you have an understanding of why we struggle with this (and a few other) cultural concepts.
AmyJ wrote:If you read the rant and are male, I ask that the next time the couplet comes up, you give us sisters the nod of respect that you have an understanding of why we struggle with this (and a few other) cultural concepts.
I am male and I have gotten myself in trouble on gender topics in the past so I hesitate to comment but I promise I’m being nice and I’m contributing my actual thoughts. I actually don’t interpret the “as man is….” thing in any of the ways you do, I hear “as humans are….”
On the other hand, I don’t believe that particular dogma and I think the church has backed off it. Even if it’s only for political correctness or trying to appear more mainstream, I think backing off it is a good thing.
This is NOT doctrine, but here is the etymology behind “man” and “woman”. In latin, “manus” meant a person or individual, regarless of gender, which later evolved into “mann”. It has reference to our unique abilities with our hands. “Humanus” meant of or belonging to man. In old English, the word “wer” was used to designate a male human. The word “wif” or “wifmann” was used to designate a female human. It’s also where we get “wife”. However, overtime, people stopped calling male humans “wer”, and begun to just call them “mann”. Also, as a side note, all young children were once referred to as “girls”. The bible is very… translated and reinterpreted, but it still has its routes in latin and old english. It leads to many problems with figuring out what the author’s meant. I wouldn’t feel too bad. Yes, Heavenly Mother isn’t talked about much. In all honesty, I don’t think she was ever officially canonized into Church doctrine; it was more something we inferred, from our doctrine of eternal families, with a few comments from Church leaders, and a hymn that declares it a reasonable assumption. To make things even tricker, it’s pretty evident in the doctrine and practices of the Church, that Heavenly Father is a polygamist.
Not that I buy that. Setting aside what is “true” for what is “useful”, I think it can be very valuable to have a “deified” Mother Figure, like the Virgin Mary in Catholicism, or Guanyin in Buddhism. I wish we had a little more something like that in the LDS Church. We all can use a perfect Heavenly Mother to turn to.
Thanks, Dande. Also, if you see the term “a man” or “the man” it always refers to a male individual. But if you see “man” without either the indefinite or definite article, as in “as man is” then it (should) always be a synonym for “mankind”, “humankind”, “humanity”.
In fact, taking those latter terms, the term “mankind” goes back to the middle ages, but the term “humankind” was first used after the advent of the KJV of the bible. We tend to prefer the term “humankind” now, because it feels more inclusive, which is fine, but in the same way that “man” is gender-neutral, so is “human”, which just means “of man”.
Having said all this, I completely agree that humanity has suffered for nearly all time with a secondary role for women and we see remnants of this past in frequent ways in our language, culture, society. I’m glad we live in a time now that is much improved, but we obviously will continue to be saddled with the past perceptions for a while into the future.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.