The Theories of Two saints…

Markk

Active member
@Aaron32 has a way to go before he gets to solid ground on these subjects but he knows enough. It is unfortunate that he keeps insisting that we can find common ground by shifting our doctrines to appear to be like yours. I believe his philosophy is to accept what you can now and later the rest will fall into place. So, in this sense, polygamy is not an issue to worry about since we don't practice it today in mortality. And, he accepts polygamy in heaven because he doesn't believe that sex has anything to do with continuing the seeds. He seems to think that women there will accept a man's name as if that makes any sense. Plutonic relationships. In reality, no one will be married, we'll just share names.
I read this and I believe this deserves a thread of it’s own…

BoJ….And you are on solid ground? I see otherwise, but moving forward.

Part of one of your theories goes something like this, in part…Every planet or world that is created (organized) will have two sets of Adam’s and Eves. One of these sets of Adam’s will be the father of spirits (God set 1), the other the father physical mankind (God set 2).

In regards to God set 1, he and his wive/s lived in a celestial world, and pre-existing spirits will be roaming about and will come to them and ask for help to obtain a mortal body. And once God set 1, decides to help out this eternally existing spirit, they will be begotten to this God set, via a purely symbolic new birth and covenant…in which they are referred to being a offspring, born, begotten. Then as a symbolic child, and not a literal child of God set 1, these spirits will be reared in the many mansions of God set 1, and taught the gospel…and this is called “being raised to maturity.” I can only assume that these spirits are not gender neutral, and are male and female by nature (Please verify?).

Also one of these roaming spirits, was actually the first spirit to ask for help to God set 1. He was Jehovah, the future God of the Old Testament and the Future messiah of this earth…I assume that at some point he would have also asked for a body based on your theory, and I also assume that is when he was begotten by Mary as the Christ. I have to keep assuming also, and that Lucifer was denied this help because when invited, along with Jehovah, to a council of God’s to determine the plan of salvation for mankind, his plan was rejected and he took off with one third of the roaming spirits…(Please verify, and correct any error in my assumption here? )

In the meanwhile God set 2, when chosen by God set one, had to come to this earth and eat of the fruit and die. This death was just a future physical death and not a spiritual death (Note: LDS theory demands a spiritual death here as the reason for the Atonement, which you denied). This God set 2 then proceeds to create physicals tabernacles so the symbolic children of God set 1 can enter into these physical bodies created by God set 2 and their literal procreated offsprings, which in your view is the continuation of seeds.

Aaron’s theories are more emotional and spiritual. They are based mostly on random Bible and the BoM versus without a full context…blending traditional Christian thought with general Mormon thought, yet stuck and struggling with how to get around teachings he just can’t cross the line to accept.

IMO Aaron is honestly trying to work through this and trying to understand it, while always keeping his testimony close to his heart. I see your approach, as a convert and member because of marriage, as having your own lines or boundaries set. In this specific case spirits being begotten by sex of a HF and HM. So you just start twisting everything, and try to navigate your way through the maze of teachings…taking bits and pieces of this and that as you go through this.

I understand I can be wrong in my opinion, by this is what I see. And, you can certainly clean up my understanding by stopping it the one line ad Homs, and deflections and give me your clear “plan of salvation” and understanding of all this. It is impossible to navigate through your posts in that there is so much deflection and back pedaling.

Give it a shot, give me three or four paragraphs of how this all works according to your understanding? Then we can build our conversation on a clear bench mark That we can refer to.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Part of one of your theories goes something like this, in part…Every planet or world that is created (organized) will have two sets of Adam’s and Eves.
Sorry. Bzzzt... wrong again. You haven't got a clue what my theories are. I've spelled them out and you still can't get it right. If this is the case, then how can anyone possibly expect that you'd have anyone else's "theories" right?
One of these sets of Adam’s will be the father of spirits (God set 1), the other the father physical mankind (God set 2).
In a sense, this is correct. There is a resurrected being on one side of the veil and on the other side of the veil is his child who can die if he chooses. The resurrected being cannot die even if that is something he would choose.
In regards to God set 1, he and his wive/s lived in a celestial world, and pre-existing spirits will be roaming about and will come to them and ask for help to obtain a mortal body.
Again, you fail to understand even though I corrected you in the thread this topic came from.
Then as a symbolic child, and not a literal child of God set 1,
It is literal. As I pointed out before, not all literal offspring come about through sexual relations.
these spirits will be reared in the many mansions of God set 1
No. Not the spirits. They will be taught the gospel and the plan, but not reared. Spirits who have received a body, like Adam and Eve did will be reared.
I can only assume that these spirits are not gender neutral, and are male and female by nature (Please verify?).
Again, there is nothing to assume. "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." The Family, A Proclamation to the world. You have, somehow, managed to come up with yet another identity that is called, "I can only assume", pre-spiritual. :rolleyes:
Also one of these roaming spirits, was actually the first spirit to ask for help to God set 1.
As all of us could not be born without Adam, no one could be saved without Jesus. Adam could not be who he is except God gave him the opportunity to be who he is. It's not something he could do himself. Jesus could not be who he is except God gave him the opportunity to be who he is. "And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given me" (Matt 28:18). Praytell, who gave this authority to Him? Could it be the one who sent him? There are obviously things that Jesus didn't have before that he had afterward. He didn't have a body and he wasn't a resurrected being. He didn't have the experience of mortality nor of pain and suffering. Apparently, he didn't know how to succor us before this experience. And, he didn't have the authority to save one single soul until after the resurrection. Obviously, someone gave these things to him.

I wouldn't have put it the way you did. Clearly, Jesus is in a class by himself. I don't believe he was a "roaming spirit" and never made that connection. You did. And I don't think Jesus asked for help, but instead knew his role and actually gathered the spirits who followed him. As Jesus frequently states, His sheep know his voice and follow. You have described, IMO, a situation where one doesn't lead by example but is simply one of the sheep, begging for help. I see Jesus as being the one who offered to help us. We went to him, not the Father. No matter what scenario is presented, one must remember that no one comes to the Father except through Christ. John 14:6 "I [Jesus] am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".
He was Jehovah, the future God of the Old Testament
??
Future messiah of this earth
Ok. I get it. Your reference is from the preexistence.
I assume that at some point he would have also asked for a body based on your theory, and I also assume that is when he was begotten by Mary as the Christ.
Bzzzt. Wrong again. Jesus according to our doctrine has always been God and will always be God. I have never said anything contrary to that doctrine. Your assumptions lead me to wonder, again, why your assumptions about anything we teach are worth consideration.
I have to keep assuming also, and that Lucifer was denied this help because when invited, along with Jehovah, to a council of God’s to determine the plan of salvation for mankind, his plan was rejected and he took off with one third of the roaming spirits…(Please verify, and correct any error in my assumption here? )
I'm not sure what you think you're assuming here. Lucifer was cast out of heaven with 1/3 of the host of heaven for rebellion. He didn't keep his first estate (first as in there wasn't an estate before that even though you think there was).
In the meanwhile God set 2, when chosen by God set one, had to come to this earth and eat of the fruit and die.
Wrong again. I'm not sure where you get the "God set 2" concept from. It should be Adam set 1 who is God and a resurrected being and Adam set 2, who has not yet been born. In this case, Adam set 1, according to Brigham Young, not me, ate the fruit of this earth to prepare himself with his wife to have sex to give a body to Adam set 2. At this point, either you don't see the obvious problem or you are setting things up to create a problem. And again, you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I think you're confused about what you think we believe and what I'm actually stating. As Brigham Young taught, God the Father in the Garden was from Adam set 1. He is not the immediate father of Adam set 2. He, according to Brigham Young is the Father of Jesus Christ who has not yet been born. Adam set 2 has different parents, each of them, Adam from Adam set two has different parents and Eve from Adam set two has different parents.

I believe we can logically conclude that Brigham Young believed that the fruit that Adam set 1 ate was from the earth where Adam set 2 would eventually live and since the fruit of that earth would come from the dust of that earth (the soil is literally the source of nourishment for all plants that produce fruit), Adam set 1 then through the process of sexual relations had the dust of the earth within them to make/create/give birth to a body that Adam set 2's spirits could inhabit.

Again, Adam set 1 could not die no matter how much fruit they ate. I'm not buying your interpretation of what Brigham Young said. Adam set 2 could die from the day they were born if they so chose. That fruit isn't the fruit Brigham Young was talking about.
This death was just a future physical death and not a spiritual death (Note: LDS theory demands a spiritual death here as the reason for the Atonement, which you denied).
This is completely unrelated. I never made any claim about spiritual death which in LDS doctrine is a separation from God. I said that spirits cannot be killed or destroyed which, as I said, is totally unrelated to spiritual death. :rolleyes:
This God set 2 then proceeds to create physicals tabernacles so the symbolic children of God set 1 can enter into these physical bodies created by God set 2 and their literal procreated offsprings, which in your view is the continuation of seeds.
So weird. I totally don't know what you just said.
give me your clear “plan of salvation” and understanding of all this.
I can give you a clear plan of salvation, but I can't help you with understanding it. You need to take care of that.

I believe it's quite simple,
1. God finds himself in the midst of intelligences and decides to make laws where they can become like him. That's the objective and purpose of the plan.
2. God creates a world and bodies for those spirits to dwell in during their mortal sojourn
3. God opens the door where those who follow him can return to him.
4. Those who follow him become like him and can do all that he did.
5. return to step 1 and do it all again, only we add to the beings who find themselves in the midst of intelligences those who followed him during their mortal sojourn.
Then we can build our conversation on a clear bench mark
I believe we've had clear benchmarks all along and you've managed to mess that up, so I don't know what you think you will be able to do with this. Adam in the garden is only one part of the plan of salvation. Basically, I concur with the three pillars described by BRM, Creation, the fall and the atonement.

1. The creation, makes laws where these spirits can become like him.
2. The fall, is what brought about our mortal sojourn
3. The atonement is opening the doors where those who follow him can return.
This is salvation
Exaltation is becoming like him and doing all that he is doing. The key that unlocks this is eternal marriage.
 

Markk

Active member
Thanks BOJ this is certainly interesting, but again thanks, we have something to build on here.

I have a few questions, I will start with your objection in me calling them God set 1 and God set 2. Your preference names are… Adam set 1, and Adam set 2.

Were Adam set 1 exalted beings, and were Adam set 2 exalted beings?
 

Markk

Active member
I believe I said before that I wasn't going to respond to absurdly simple questions. Why are you even asking this question?
It is not like there is a LDS teaching I can go to that teaches anything remotely on this, I’ve searched exhaustively, …you are the single source of this as far as I know. Watson is all over the place on it and his ideas are not the churches and even states there is not teaching on his theory, so my questions are fair.

If you have a LDS teaching link on Adam sr and jr, that you agree with, please provide the link.

I have to use BY as the baseline in trying to sort through your theory, especially when like here you refuse to answer simple questions.

BY taught that Adam was created on another earth, and then came here with one of his wives. With this and other teachings by BY, and understanding basic LDS theology that only exalted people can marry…then we can safely assume, that this character Adam jr was a exalted man, and therefore a God.

BY also taught that Adam was the father of Christ, this I assume is the character you refer to Adam sr…who would obviously be a exalted man and a God.

So my point is, why do you take offense when I say God set 1, and God set 2?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
It is not like there is a LDS teaching I can go to that teaches anything remotely on this, I’ve searched exhaustively,
I've already explained it. Just use your head.
you are the single source of this as far as I know.
Nope. This is standard LDS doctrine. Resurrected man have children not spirits. It's quite simple. Brigham Young taught it. It's LDS doctrine. :rolleyes:
Watson is all over the place on it and his ideas are not the churches and even states there is not teaching on his theory, so my questions are fair.
I didn't say it question was unfair. Read my post. I said it was absurdly simple. I answered it already. "It should be Adam set 1 who is God and a resurrected being and Adam set 2, who has not yet been born."

There's no Watson here, [This note rises from my discovery of who Watson was. I don't know if your comment, "Watson is all over the place on it" is about that individual or not. I didn't know who he was until just now. I thought your reference was to Sherlock Holmes' Watson] there's just you being intentionally difficult. This is how absurd this is, I give a person a stone to hold in his left hand and one to hold in his right hand and ask him, "how many stones do you have"? The answer is obvious, but the way this is going, you would find a way to not recognize the obvious answer, "That depends on which hand you're talking about". :rolleyes:

This goes for @RiJoRi as well. If the answer is in the post I just left, asking questions that were addressed in that post are absurd.
If you have a LDS teaching link on Adam sr and jr, that you agree with, please provide the link.
I don't. You offered the idea that someone tried to address Brigham Young's statements from the perspective of Adam Sr and Jr, Not me. That happens to fit what Brigham Young said and so I started using those terms. When you mentioned this connection, that I'm unaware of, you also mentioned that it was refuted. If you have a link to that information, please provide a link.

(note: doing research on another point in this thread, I came across some notes by Elden Watson (on eldonwatson dot net) concerning Adam God that does make reference to Adam Sr and Adam Jr, though I haven't read the whole thing. It's not long, but comes from that site)

Why didn't Brigham Young just say so?
We return now to the question raised earlier: If it is this simple, why didn't Brigham Young just say so? As was pointed out previously, there is some indication that he did try to make the distinction between Adam Sr. and Adam Jr., but that doesn't sufficiently answer the question. After years of working with Brigham Young's discourses, it has become apparent that Brigham Young avoided the topic of Adam God unless he was prodded in that direction. There were brethren among the General Authorities of the church who occasionally taught wrong doctrine on the subject, and Brigham Young seldom broached the topic except in those instances when there had been some incorrect information taught, either in discourses or in writings by the Church leaders. On those occasions, Brigham Young generally got up, said what he had to say in order to correct the false information, and then either quit speaking or switched to another topic. He did not try to make the concept crystal clear, nor did he ever attempt to establish it as a Church doctrine.
I just want to make a note here that I only became aware of Elden Watson just now. All of my conclusions have been drawn from Brigham Young's discourses and have not been influenced by anyone else.
BY taught that Adam was created on another earth, and then came here with one of his wives.
No. He didn't. Brigham Young taught that he brought one of his wives to this earth and ate the fruit to make another Adam. That would be the Adam set 1 who came to this earth to make Adam set 2. Or, in the vernacular above, Adam Sr who was born on another earth came to this earth to eat the fruit and make Adam Jr.
With this and other teachings by BY, and understanding basic LDS theology that only exalted people can marry
False. You have it backward. Only married people can be exalted.
then we can safely assume, that this character Adam jr was a exalted man, and therefore a God.
So, you're aware of my statement and now you're trying to make it say something I didn't say and that Brigham Young didn't say. One cannot be exalted until after one is resurrected and then only if they are already married.
BY also taught that Adam was the father of Christ, this I assume is the character you refer to Adam sr…who would obviously be a exalted man and a God.
That all depends on who you think Adam Sr is. Let's just say for now, that the person addressing Adam Jr in the Garden is not the Father of Adam Jr. He is Christ's Father. We have never met, heard of or discussed Adam Sr, the father of Adam Jr except in his role as the one who made the first man on this earth. God the Father, who spoke to Adam Jr, is also an Adam but he is not Adam's father.

Brigham Young taught that "the first of the human family" was the father of Christ. You all assume that he meant Adam Jr (or our Adam) but I don't believe that's who he meant. The first of the human family, IMO, is the progenitor of Adam Jr as indicated in Brigham Young's opening statement on the subject, "When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden he came into it with a celestial body". Where did he get his body? It was "begotten by his father in heaven..." How was it begotten? "after the same manner, as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve". These all come from the April 1852 Conference

You read it one way. I read it another.
 

Markk

Active member
about that individual or not. I didn't know who he was until just now. I thought your reference was to Sherlock Holmes' Watson] there's just you being intentionally difficult. This is how absurd this is, I give a person a stone to hold in his left hand and one to hold in his right hand and ask him, "how many stones do you have"? The answer is obvious, but the way this is going, you would find a way to not recognize the obvious answer, "That depends on which hand you're talking about". :rolleyes:
LOL sure!!
 

Markk

Active member
I didn't say it question was unfair. Read my post. I said it was absurdly simple. I answered it already. "It should be Adam set 1 who is God and a resurrected being and Adam set 2, who has not yet been born."

Okay, great…Adam set 1 is a God, so it is a God set. we can put that in a established column in you theory.

So no to Adam set 2…

BY wrote…

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation. Have we the knowledge to do this? We have. Who gave us this knowledge? Our Father who made us; for he is the only wise God, and to him we owe allegiance; to him we owe our lives. He has brought us forth and taught us all we know. We are not indebted to any other power or God for all our great blessings. JD 7:285


So BY certainly disagrees with you. And you even disagree with yourself BoJ!. In another thread you told me Adam set 2 were exalted, have you changed your mind? You are not moving the goal posts, your theory is changing, which is okay, I am just trying to pin down th exchanges.

I'm not sure where Matthew gets the idea that this is referring to Adam and his wives. The men Brigham Young is referring to are those that have been exalted. So these men who have been exalted after they propagate their species in spirit, later organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles [for those spirits]. Have they to go that that earth? Yes, AN Adam will have to go there. Clearly, this Adam is one of these exalted men, be in Joseph or one who has gone before. And while I disagree with the process of eating fruit of a corrupted world to diffuse their celestial bodies (another indication that this Adam is one of these exalted men) to enable them to produce mortal tabernacles, it does lend credence to more than one Adam.” Becoming Worthy” Thread post 337 https://forums.carm.org/threads/becoming-worthy.4359/page-17#post-306276
BY as taught this, which you cited in post 330 of the same thread...
"After men have got their exaltations and their crowns — have become Gods, even the sons of God — are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, anAdam will have to go there, anil he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corrupted world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children."

BoJ, BY again, clearly teaches the second Adam set was indeed already born, and that they were exalted. One of your specific arguments has been that Adam set 2 were exalted beings and because of that “could not spiritually die.”

So, my question in post 3 of this thread stands as a fair assumption and question based on what you have been telling me and arguing.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So no to Adam set 2…

BY wrote…

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle worlds devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth, comfort, and consolation. Have we the knowledge to do this? We have. Who gave us this knowledge? Our Father who made us; for he is the only wise God, and to him we owe allegiance; to him we owe our lives. He has brought us forth and taught us all we know. We are not indebted to any other power or God for all our great blessings. JD 7:285


So BY certainly disagrees with you.
What do you think you have here? Nothing. So what if the parents of mankind were brought here from another planet? What do you think that proves in your case?
And you even disagree with yourself BoJ!.
If you believe that, then you clearly don't understand what I've said.
In another thread you told me Adam set 2 were exalted, have you changed your mind?
Nope. Never said that. Again, proof that you clearly don't understand the argument.
You are not moving the goal posts, your theory is changing, which is okay, I am just trying to pin down th exchanges.
Nope.
BoJ, BY again, clearly teaches the second Adam set was indeed already born, and that they were exalted.
Nope.
One of your specific arguments has been that Adam set 2 were exalted beings and because of that “could not spiritually die.”
Nope.
So, my question in post 3 of this thread stands as a fair assumption and question based on what you have been telling me and arguing.
I never said it wasn't fair. I just said it was absurd and so is your reasoning here. You are completely lost.
 

Markk

Active member
Your last responses are a perfect example of deflection, but anyways….
What do you think you have here? Nothing. So what if the parents of mankind were brought here from another planet? What do you think that proves in your case

Your latest position on Adam set 2, was that they were not exalted. Yet in our previous conversations you demanded that Adam set 2 were indeed exalted.

In regards to your question…what we see from BY’s statement is that they (Adam and Eve) were born on another planet, and that contradicts what you wrote here in post 7 that they … “Adam set 2, who has not yet been born” (Bold yours, driving this point).

We also see that BY’s theory is clearly teaching 1 set of Adams, which most all other LDS scholarship and commentary believe and concede. And that they were exalted beings (Gods), which is why the theory is called The Adam God Theory…it is never called the “Adam Gods Theory.”

If one try’s to force a 2 Adam theory into that quote, either way both Adams would be exalted men, and would be a Adam Gods theory so to speak.

BoJ, why are you being so defensive with what you believe? Just lay it out, and we can establish a clear understanding of it, and then see if what you believe compliments LDS thought and doctrine, either past or current.

I never said it wasn't fair. I just said it was absurd and so is your reasoning here. You are completely lost.

Well, I believe any objective interested reader would see my points and questions are valid, and that your position/s contradicts themself. And, that your deflecting is obvious and hurts any position you are trying to assert.

Can you explain, keeping in mind in a LDS context, how a married couple, or soon to be married couple (you stated in a post that they were married on this earth), that were born on another planet, and brought to this planet, would not somehow be exalted? Does a God take un-exalted children, from one planet, and export them to another planet… in-order to as BY coins it…” propagate their species ?”
 

Markk

Active member
Can someone make a YouTube video, draw a diagram and talk me through it? My head is spinning.
LOL…I feel your pain.

BoJ has a self belief, understanding, theory, or what ever word you choose on what BY meant in his Adam God sermons.

There was a member, Eldon Watson, that came up with a scenario where BY was teaching that there are two Adams for each planet. One is referred to as HF, and the other as the father of that particular planet. This theory was discussed and presented at the early FAIR boards by a few brave posters, yet pooped out and never gained any speed in that one has to ignor, change, deny, and alike most of BY‘s statements on the theory. Chief among, he never said a word about two Adams. The folks that tried to assert Walton’s theory were totally destroyed by LDS TBM members, and critics of the church alike.

BoJ is now committed and married to defending Watson’s theory, in which he even conceded it has no support from any LDS teachers or GA.

Here is Watson’s theory ….take a look at it and let me know what you think?

 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Your latest position on Adam set 2, was that they were not exalted.
Ok. Let's see what you have.
Yet in our previous conversations you demanded that Adam set 2 were indeed exalted.
I did not. But, let me remind you that you didn't refer to my previous post, you quoted Brigham Young. My question still stands, so what? How does what Brigham Young said support your argument?
In regards to your question…what we see from BY’s statement is that they (Adam and Eve) were born on another planet,
It doesn't say that. It says that the parents are from another planet. I can see that this puzzle is too complicated for you.
and that contradicts what you wrote here in post 7 that they … “Adam set 2, who has not yet been born” (Bold yours, driving this point).
:ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: Are you saying that that's not what I meant? Are you trying to fix my statement? Why can't you just follow it. They were not born yet. And if they were not born, my point that I was driving was, they cannot possibly be exalted. Why are you insisting that I said something I nor Brigham Young said.

The quote from Oct 9, 1859 that you presented is in alignment, not contradictory of his talk in 1854, "Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he, with his wife Eve, partook of the fruit of this earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children."

Adam who planted the Garden of Eden is from set 1. He is God the Father. He then begat Adam from set 2 on this earth from the "dust of the earth" as the fruit came from this earth. The parents came from another earth. The offspring were born here, according to Brigham Young. I disagree with him about the location, but I don't think where it occurred is important. That it occurred and through whom it occurred fits perfectly with LDS Theology.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
We also see that BY’s theory is clearly teaching 1 set of Adams,
That's what you see. That's not what's there.
which most all other LDS scholarship and commentary believe and concede.
No. That's obviously false.
And that they were exalted beings (Gods), which is why the theory is called The Adam God Theory…it is never called the “Adam Gods Theory.”
It is called the Adam God theory by apostates and anti-Mormon critics. When we refer to it, we are referring to your misinterpretation that Brigham Young was saying that Adam is the God and Father of Jesus. That's not what Brigham Young said.
If one try’s to force a 2 Adam theory into that quote, either way both Adams would be exalted men, and would be a Adam Gods theory so to speak.
No force is needed.
BoJ, why are you being so defensive with what you believe? Just lay it out, and we can establish a clear understanding of it, and then see if what you believe compliments LDS thought and doctrine, either past or current.
I've laid it out. Brigham Young laid it out. Your interpretation is wrong. That's why I'm defending mine. ;)
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Well, I believe any objective interested reader would see my points and questions are valid
Well, I believe that any objective interested reader would see my points and answers are clear.
Can you explain, keeping in mind in a LDS context, how a married couple, or soon to be married couple (you stated in a post that they were married on this earth), that were born on another planet
I never said that.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Can someone make a YouTube video, draw a diagram and talk me through it? My head is spinning.
It's really simple. Resurrected beings who are exalted, being married, produce children through sexual relations that are physical beings like Adam and Eve who then become Adam and Eve. The offspring of Adam and Eve then become resurrected beings who are exalted.... and it continues around and around and around forever.

How hard is that to understand?
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
The folks that tried to assert Walton’s theory were totally destroyed by LDS TBM members, and critics of the church alike.
That doesn't mean Eldon was wrong. I've arrived at a similar conclusion entirely on my own and unlike Eldon, I've never participated in developing church curriculum materials.
BoJ is now committed and married to defending Watson’s theory
Actually, it's what Brigham Young taught and it fits perfectly in LDS theology.
in which he even conceded it has no support from any LDS teachers or GA.
I didn't concede any such thing. It's supported by the scriptures and common sense. And, of course, you must have forgotten about Brigham Young. Then we have BRM who is reported by RCDJr as saying "it was a true doctrine that God the Father, Eloheim, a divine resurrected being came down to this earth after its creation, with a wife and produced in the natural way of sexual intercourse, a child who grew up and became known as ADAM. They did the same and brought forth a girl who grew up and became EVE. They had bodies of flesh and bone etc., but were not mortal (not till they fell). They (Adam and Eve) were not resurrected and not translated beings. God really did create their bodies on this earth. They were not transported here (only their spirits).". BRM went on to say, that JFS taught a great deal about it and that BRM's father-in-law also said it was correct but that it was "too deep now for most saints".

So, now I have a list of 4 GAs who all agree that there are two Adams, one a resurrected and exalted being who came to this earth and had sex to produce Adam jr.
 

Markk

Active member
I did not. But, let me remind you that you didn't refer to my previous post, you quoted Brigham Young. My question still stands, so what? How does what Brigham Young said support your argument?
Actually I compared two of your posts, on that reads “Adam set 2 exalted, and your latest that said they were not born yet…which men’s they were not exalted.

The former…

I'm not sure where Matthew gets the idea that this is referring to Adam and his wives. The men Brigham Young is referring to are those that have been exalted. So these men who have been exalted after they propagate their species in spirit, later organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles [for those spirits]. Have they to go that that earth? Yes, AN Adam will have to go there. Clearly, this Adam is one of these exalted men, be in Joseph or one who has gone before. And while I disagree with the process of eating fruit of a corrupted world to diffuse their celestial bodies (another indication that this Adam is one of these exalted men) to enable them to produce mortal tabernacles, it does lend credence to more than one Adam.” Becoming Worthy” Thread post 337 https://forums.carm.org/threads/becoming-worthy.4359/page-17#post-306276

The latter… post 7

I didn't say it question was unfair. Read my post. I said it was absurdly simple. I answered it already. "It should be Adam set 1 who is God and a resurrected being and Adam set 2, who has not yet been born." (Bold yours)

So to answer your question “so what?” What BY says compliments your stating “Clearly, this Adam is one of these exalted men”, and clearly contradicts you stating … “ and Adam set 2, who has not yet been born." (Bold yours).

If anything, my argument here is you have no understanding of LDS theology, and apparently what even you might personally believe. It would also be BY’s Adam God theory teaches only 1 Adam on this world, and in the CK of this World….being both God, and the Adam in the garden.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
It's really simple. Resurrected beings who are exalted, being married, produce children through sexual relations that are physical beings like Adam and Eve who then become Adam and Eve. The offspring of Adam and Eve then become resurrected beings who are exalted.... and it continues around and around and around forever.

How hard is that to understand?
I was just confused on the two "God sets" thing.
So, to be clear, just re-phrasing to make sure I understand: If we become celestial, we will have a set of children: Adam and Eve, and set them in the Garden of Eden. Will we also have our own Savior to atone for our children?
 
Top