What is the "Adam-God theory"?

The Adam-God theory (also called the Adam-God doctrine) arose from words by Brigham Young that were interpreted by some of his contemporaries to mean that Adam is the God the Father. On April 9, 1852, the official transcript of a talk given by Young says that Adam "is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." (1 J.D. 50-51). (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-God_theory)

The Adam-God theory has been rejected as false doctrine by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But what do Mormons make of Brigham's sermon?

Noted LDS apologist Jeff Lindsay has this to say about the Adam-God theory:

quote:

---

But we still don't really know what Brigham was trying to say in the puzzling "Adam-God" quotes. Some seem to contradict his own clear and plain teachings about the Godhead and about Adam. Many of these can be resolved by an appeal to confusing grammar and to the concept of Adam being a title (First Father). But in a lecture given in the St. George Temple, for example, he apparently taught the confusing idea that Adam was an immortal, resurrected being who became mortal again in the garden of Eden. If he has been correctly quoted, it just doesn't fit with basic teachings of the Church and the scriptures and of President Young himself on other occasions. Whatever he had in mind, he did not require others to teach such doctrine as official LDS doctrine (e.g., as canonized doctrine) nor put it into official Church materials nor ever present it for consideration as canonized doctrine. In expressing his opinions on this matter, he may have been misunderstood or he may simply have been wrong. Since he never attempted to canonize his theories, however strongly he may have felt about them, we are under no obligation to defend them. If Brigham Young had a wild theory that was inconsistent with canonized doctrine, we can shrug our shoulders and move on. Prophets, like all mortals, can be wrong and make mistakes. But we expect that official, canonized doctrines - those in the scriptures and teachings presented for sustaining votes by the general authorities and membership of the Church - can be relied on.

www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#adam

---

But is this really an acceptable response? Just one man's opinion? Nothing more to see here? Just let's move along and forget about it?

Pause for a moment.

Young was the prophet, seer and revelator. He was the only man on earth, according to Mormon doctrine, authorized to exercise all of the keys of the priesthood, the only man on earth authorized to deliver messages and commandments to the world on behalf of god. And Young didn't know who his god was??!

He instructed his followers to worship as god--the only god they should worship--a being who wasn't really entitled to such worship. He instructed his followers to believe that Adam was the father of Jesus.

Young, in short, misidentified god. The Mormon prophet thought he was worshipping Adam, while subsequent prophets claim that it was another being that should have been worshipped. If a Mormon prophet, presiding as god's mouthpiece over the Church for about 30 years cannot even accurately identify the god whom Mormons worship, what possible value is there in having a prophet?

Mormon children are taught the following song in Sunday school:

quote:

---

Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Don't go astray!
Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
Follow the prophet,
He knows the way.

---

Does he really? If an LDS prophet can never lead his people astray, then Brigham was no prophet. But he was.

The typical "error of man" defense really does not seem like it can apply here. This issue is too fundamental. Young was supposed to be closer to God than any other man on earth, and yet he didn't not even know who his god was? The error of man defense does not wash.

This really could not be more clear. Brigham Young was not a prophet of the most high God.


Finally, if you are interested, here are Brigham Young's exact words:

quote:

---

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, and thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.51, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

---

So, what is the LDS response on this topic? I know Young is one of the giants of the church. Was Young wrong, or what is the story?

quote:

---

The Adam-God theory has been rejected as false doctrine by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Modern apologists and other Latter-day Saints commonly interpret Young's statements in ways that are consistent with modern mainstream Latter-day Saint doctrines. The most popular explanation is that Adam was a god (not the God) prior to this earth's creation, that he helped God the Father create the earth, and that Adam and Eve "fell" to a state of mortality so that they could have children. Latter-day Saints believe that Adam, as the patriarch of the entire human family, has responsibility for the keys of the priesthood held on this earth, with accountability to Christ and God, and that all priesthood leaders are accountable to him. Adam will receive these keys back one day and will then deliver them up to Jesus Christ and God the Father. Other modern apologists dismiss Young's recorded statements as attributable to erroneous transcriptions of what Young actually said on the subject. For example, just prior to the statement that "He helped to make and organize this world," there is an omission in the Watt transcription of this discourse. At this point Young gave some instruction which is not recorded by Watt, but which was summarized by at least two other reporters, Wilford Woodruff and Samuel Rogers. These omitted instructions concern the actual physical process used by The Father to provide physical bodies for His spirit children, Adam and Eve. As recorded by Wilford Woodruff, this process was that The Father "ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle." (4 Journal of Wilford Woodruff 127-130) Referring to God the Father and His Wife, Rogers records Young as saying that they "eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth." (2 Brigham Young Address 12; Samuel Hollister Rogers Journal 145) In the Watt version of this discourse, Young repeats this concept in the latter part of paragraph 15 when he recapitulates some of his previously expressed concepts and says that it was "from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession."

---

I got this from the wikepedia link. I think you know the answer. What is the real question. Do I believe we have living prophets? The answer is yes. This seems to be an extension of other arguments made. El Sid, I think it is fine if you don't agree that we have a living prophet. But what do you make of Amos 3:7

quote:

---

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophet

---

or Matthew 16:18-19

quote:

---

18.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it 19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdome of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be boudn in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

---

or 1 Corinthians 12:28

quote:

---

And God hath set some inthe church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

---

or Ephasians 4:11

quote:

---

And he gave some apostles; and some prophets, and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers

---

So . . . my question is where is this authority today? Who are these apostles and prophets? Catholics have an argument that it has always existed with them. This is at least a logical argument. Is this what you believe?

It's been said on here before, so I'll re-state it. Only the Catholics or the LDS have it right. One or the other, not both, and not anybody else, because nobody else even claims authority. If the Catholics have it right, then all the prot sects are necessarily heretical. If they have it wrong, then the LDS are right that a restoration was needed, and it came through them.

You are confused by your use of the term authority.

Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 12:12-14 the different parts of the body of Christ:

"The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body - whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free - and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Now the body is not made up of one part but of many."

Christians the world over, protestant and Catholic alike, have these gifts to which you refer. There are people with the gift of prophecy. I have known at least one such person. There are teachers, and we hear stories of healers, although I do not know whether there is any current healer in whom I believe. I have not seen tongues, but I know friends in Oklahoma who claim to have experienced tongues.

The Bible indicates that Peter had authority, but it designates no line of succession.

God is a personal God.

Psalm 121:1-2 says, "I lift up my eyes to the hills-where does my help come from? My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth." Ecclesiastes 2:25-26a tells us, "For to the man who pleases him God gives wisdom and knowledge and joy." We need no interceding church authorities. God wants a personal relationship with YOU!

There is one true church, but it is not one denomination! The one true church is all of those people who place their faith in Jesus Christ as God, repent of their sins and acknowledge Him as their personal Savior.

There is TRUTH, but it is not found in a particular sect. TRUTH is found in God's Word - the Holy Bible. TRUTH is found in the Holy Spirit, given to every believer - not conveyed by some priest, but rather by the Almighty Himself.

This is the Good News!

Do not search for earthly authority. Search for the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength and all your mind, and you will find Him.

quote:

---

One or the other, not both, and not anybody else, because nobody else even claims authority. If the Catholics have it right, then all the prot sects are necessarily heretical. If they have it wrong, then the LDS are right that a restoration was needed, and it came through them.

---

As a protestant, I heartily disagree. Claim of authority is not proof of God-given authority. I submit only to the divine authority of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As far as I'm concerned, any man who claims divine authority deserves the greatest and harshest possible inspection and criticism.

I don't understand the "RCC is wrong means LDS is right" argument either. I am perfectly content to believe that neither is the perfect and exclusive Church of Christ on earth.

[This message has been edited by ramblin_ag02 (edited 4/14/2006 4:09p).]

quote:

---

The Bible indicates that Peter had authority, but it designates no line of succession.

---

That's strange. . . .

quote:

---

There are teachers, and we hear stories of healers, although I do not know whether there is any current healer in whom I believe.

---

God still calls many people to be healers. He just makes some of us suffer through medical school.

Ramblin ag. That was good! LOL Are you a doctor?

Not yet, but I'm working on that.

quote:

---

That's strange. . . .

---

Why so? Can you point to where in the Bible there is granted some clear direct line of succession?

Do not look to men for your authority. Look to God. Look to God's word.

About looking to God. Yes and God has told us he will send prophets.

quote:

---

There is TRUTH, but it is not found in a particular sect. TRUTH is found in God's Word - the Holy Bible. TRUTH is found in the Holy Spirit, given to every believer - not conveyed by some priest, but rather by the Almighty Himself.

This is the Good News!

Do not search for earthly authority. Search for the Lord with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength and all your mind, and you will find Him.

---

Thanks for your concern. I'm happy to report that I have indeed found him, and hope that all men can do the same. While my path is by no means complete, I feel very confident that the Lord is pleased with where I am in our relationship.

Authority is not an earthly principle, but rather a heavenly one. It has been occasionally been assumed by earthly men, who had no right to it (see Simon's attempt to buy such a power) but it is a hallmark of God organization. He chooses representatives to act in His name. They DO NOT choose Him!

Furthermore, God is not the author of confusion. His house is a house of order, and has always been so. It's all very nice and fuzzy for everyone to say that "his Church is merely the collection of believers" and all that. This is partially true, of course. But in the collective of "believers" that you speak of, we find strife, disagreement, dissention, and at frequent points in history, outright chaos. And we're not talking our garden-variety petty disagreements, we're talking schizms, murder, w h o r edoms, and blatant denial of God's power. God does not permit such things in his Church for long. You say God's authority is not found in any denomination, and I say that God has not lost his power, nor interest in us. He has not forsaken us by sealing the heavens and stopping the flow of revelation to his annointed Prophets. To claim that he has is to deny His authority.

bizag has repeatedly brought up Amos 3:7. You have nothing to say about that? I stand by my statement that authority to act in God's name is an ESSENTIAL part of his Church. There are only two organizations that have a [mutually exclusive] rightful claim to it. If neither do, then the Bible loses it's credibility.

[This message has been edited by Liam (edited 4/14/2006 5:10p).]

quote:

---

bizag has repeatedly brought up Amos 3:7. You have nothing to say about that?

---

I have something to say about Amos 3:7.

Amo 3:7 Surely the Lord Jehovah will do nothing, except he reveal his secret unto his servants the prophets.

This passage basically says that God tells His prophets whenever he does anything. By implication, we can reasonably say that prophets must always exist. I view this in the same light as the following verses:

Jer 33:17 For thus saith Jehovah: David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt-offerings, and to burn meal-offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.

If you also want to claim that the LDS have Levite priests, then feel free to keep harping on Amos.

quote:

---

I stand by my statement that authority to act in God's name is an ESSENTIAL part of his Church. There are only two organizations that have a [mutually exclusive] rightful claim to it. If neither do, then the Bible loses it's credibility.

---

I still don't get this. You have no problem with the fact that there were no prophets or no true church for over 1500 years. If you used the same argument as above 250 years ago, then you would be undeniably endorsing the RCC. Why are things any different now? Protestants refuted this argument to our own satisfaction when the RCC first argued it over 400 years ago.

A restoration was prophesied to be necessary. If you don't agree with that, then we have nothing further to debate.

If it was a restoration carried out by the reformers (ie, Luther, ect.) then why didn't the "reformed" church resemble the original church whatsoever? If the church restored itself, then the Catholics are correct, and the authority still lies with them. If not, then it had to be done by someone else (or it must still need to take place). You can't misinterpret Amos to be saying that a prophet has to be on earth always, because it doesn't say that. It basically says that he will not take action important pertaining to our salvations without his representative letting us know about it.

So, I suppose the third possibility is that the prophesied restoration has not yet taken place. We know that it has, however.

quote:

---

So, I suppose the third possibility is that the prophesied restoration has not yet taken place. We know that it has, however.

---

Who is "we"?

This whole thing also varies depending on when you think the apostasy was or will be (in the case of the RCC).

Are those of you who raised the question of authority forgot that there were other apostles ordained fter Judas killed himself and others died? The Quorum of the Twelve was to be maintained. If you will reread Eph 4: 4,5,6,7,11,12,13 & 14 it will bring back to your memory that these were NOT temporary office for the Church in ancient times only. Pay particular attention to verses 13 & 14 for we have obviously not met the criteria yet!

quote:

---

You say God's authority is not found in any denomination, and I say that God has not lost his power, nor interest in us. He has not forsaken us by sealing the heavens and stopping the flow of revelation to his annointed Prophets. To claim that he has is to deny His authority.

---

"Authority is not found in any denomination" is NOT the same as "God has lost his power". Of course not!

Of course He has not forsaken us by sealing the heavens and stopping the flow of revelation to His annointed prophets!

I have said nothing to the contrary.

There is nothing "fuzzy" about my theology. I know that who God is and what He desires of me.

El SId,

quote:

---

Of course He has not forsaken us by sealing the heavens and stopping the flow of revelation to His annointed prophets!

---

That was my question before, who are these prophets. I promise I am not trying to trap you. If you don't know and are searching, but don't believe that they are found in the LDS church I could find this a reasonable arguement. If you know who they are why don't you share this knowledge. Also I don't believe that a book, no matter how inspired is a prophet, so if that is your argument, then this is the source of our disagreement.

BTW I hope you have a wonderful easter. I know that we both can be thankful that Jesus Christ died and was resurected for each one of us.


[This message has been edited by bizag (edited 4/14/2006 10:44p).]

I think your image of a "prophet" seems to be a some sort of all powerful all knowing figure. My view of a prophet is something different.

Prophecy is in the most general sense the foretelling of the future.

I know at least one person who has had this gift. God at times tells him what is going to happen. I know another person who can at times interpret dreams. I have seen people healed by prayer.

I think your conception of prophet is just so different than mine. Prophets never came continuously in succession in the Bible. At times, prophets lived simultaneously. Some prophets we know very little about.

They urged people to love and obey God, and they foretold the future. They interpreted dreams. Some performed signs.

I do not view prophets as singular supermen. I think many Christians are given the gift of prophecy. There may be one in Fort Stockton, Texas with the gift. There may be one in a small village in Zimbabwe. There may be one in Ruston, LA, etc.

Thanks for your Easter wishes. He is risen!!

[This message has been edited by El Sid (edited 4/14/2006 11:44p).]

El Sid,

I think most of your last post is correct. There are those that are given to prophecy as a gift of the spirit, and there were at times more than one prophet. We do however see in the bible also examples of phrophets leading the church or in the case of the Old Testament God's children. I can see how you have come to your conclusions, but do not believe that, this is all there is to phrophets. One more question. Why would have Peter been given the keys to bind on earth and heaven. . . but there was no succession?

BTW I do not view a prophet in the sense of leader of a church as a superman or more than human, but I do believe they have been called of God. I'm gone for the night.

[This message has been edited by bizag (edited 4/14/2006 11:53p).]

Hey Mormons reading this thread:

Folks trusting their eternal fate to Joseph Smith & Brigham Young mythologies will be sorry when they face the ONLY priest of the order of Melchizedek: Jesus.

Mormons on this board and those that I can find to talk about the Bible like to raise the issue of “authority”. I find their logic is made through the lens of a man-invented religion, not the lens of the Living Word of G-d. They're too eager to trust in the words and works of men (two men, actually), versus the living G-d. G-d warns us in His word to do the exact opposite.. that men’s foolish words would cause many to be led astray. Based on the words from Mormons in this thread, you are astray versus what the Bible clearly teaches. A few points I'd like to make to highlight where you are astray:

Point #1
Mormonism is a man-made religion with highly dubious foundation; it appeals to those who want to do right in the sight of G-d, but have not heard and do not understand G-d’s simple but powerful plan to reconcile sinners to Him

Joe Smith, Jr. wanted everyone who would listen to his tales including his claims that the Christian religions had become an abomination, that they no longer had a valid priesthood, and that a special priesthood – the Melchizedek priesthood – had been conferred upon him – along with Oliver Crowdery – in a forest by his house in upstate New York, by no less than the Apostles Peter, James and John. This, shortly after John the Baptist had visited him (Oliver C was there, too) to confer another priesthood – the Aaronic priesthood. And before the priesthoods being conferred, that JS was visited by an angel in his bedroom (the name of which changed between different publications of JS’ Book of Mormon…) I cover this first, so uneducated readers of this board can get a sense of some of the exaggerated claims Joseph Smith made when he started to realize that the treasure-digging past of his family (painfully well documented, including interviews of his neighbors) was probably not going to pan out without some additional creative tactics. It is also important to note that in the original Mormon Church (again, clearly documented), the ONLY officers were elders. Many offices were added later. For this reason, Doctrine & Convenants, Section 20, verses 65-67, were “corrected” from the original form in the Book of Commandments. I sure wouldn’t be trusting my eternal state or that of my family to that kind of documentary integrity.

Mormons can claim the priesthoods of Aaron & Melchizedek (as they do regularly in prospecting for converts, and on this board), but they do so contradicting the expressed teaching of the Word of G-d that they claim to respect. The priesthood claimed by Mormons is NOT the priesthood in the Scriptures. Putting aside the incredulous story of how he started his religion, Joe Smith Jr’s claims about his priesthood status are CONTRADICTORY to scripture on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start. Looking at one key verse – Hebrews 7:24 – it is VERY clear that the Melchizedek order belongs to Jesus alone. It is HIS possession:


Point #2
Joseph Smith Jr, nor any other person, has or will ever be a Melchizedek priest, regardless of what they say, or what man-made ceremony they’ve experienced.

Hebrews 7:23-26
“Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office. But because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to G-d through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them.”


The Bible is CLEAR: the Melchizedek priesthood resides in the Son of G-d by the will of the Father. The Greek reads “But he continues forever, so his priesthood is untransferable (Greek word “aparabatos” = untransferable.) So, the Bible says it is untransferable. Joe Smith Jr. says it was conferred upon him in the forest by Peter, James & John….

Sorry Joe Smith Jr.
Not sure what you encountered out there in the woods, but you sure didn’t get the priesthood that the Bible clearly states belongs ONLY to the King of the Universe.


Point #3
The church of Jesus Christ has always had a priesthood that is very clearly taught in the New Testament. One just has to READ it, and, then BELIEVE it:


Rev 1:4-6
“To Him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by His blood, and has made us to be a kingdom of PRIESTS to serve His G-d and Father – to Him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.”


1 Peter 2:9-10
“But you are a chosen people, a royal PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, a people belonging to G-d, what you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His wonderful light. Once you were not a people, but now you are the people of G-d; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”


So, the Bible says that as a believer in Yeshua, I am part of a Kingdom of priests to serve G-d, and that I am part of a chosen people, and that I am part of a Royal Priesthood. Joe Smith Jr meanwhile, claimed that my church is an abomination, and that folks must follow HIS prescription for becoming a priest.

Again, sorry Mr Smith, I’m trusting what the Bible says over you (and those that have followed you and profited at the expense of others.)

The TRUE priesthood, called a royal priesthood in the New Testament, is neither of Aaron, nor of Melchizedek; it consists of every BELIEVER in Messiah Yeshua, Jesus Christ, all the REDEEMED - those that have undergone personal regeneration in a saving encounter or experience with the one and only G-d -Man presented in Scripture: Jesus. The Christian does not need temples, secret services, rituals and mysteries. His priesthood knows no special offices or power to communicate with the dead.


Point #4
Jesus / Yeshua ushered in a new priestly order – clearly taught in the Bible – that Joseph Smith, Jr. did not understand. So, those that follow Joseph Smith’s teachings, follow different teachings versus what is presented in the Bible. I believe they do so at serious peril.

Written Mormon doctrine claims that Melchizedek & Aaronic priesthoods are but ONE priesthood without beginning of days or end of years, and that Melchizedek conferred his priesthood on Abraham when Abraham paid tithe to Melchizedek. This is another part of the maze of Mormonism.

(Note: for those reading this that may be new to Melchizedek, he is presented to us in Genesis 14 as the king of Salem and priest of G-d Most High and to whom Abram paid a tithe. While he is obviously an important figure, precious little information is presented in Scripture, and there is honest debate as to who Melchizedek was. I happen to believe He was preincarnate Messiah Yeshua.).

Regardless, the points I wish to make regarding Mormon doctrine on Melichizedek & Aaronic priesthoods:

- First, there is NO Biblical evidence that Melchizedek ever conferred his priesthood on Abraham; Mormon scholars / teachings somehow miss that...

- Second, Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are VERY different; Melchizedek order is vastly superior to Aaronic. Also, as pointed out, the Melchizedek order is held ONLY by Yeshua. But comparing the two (Melchizedek vs Aaronic), Melchizedek order is higher in:


RANK
Melchizedek accepted Abraham's worship, when Abraham's son Levi was still in his loins

LOCATION
Aaronic order WAS practiced in earthly, temporal imperfect temples; Melchizedek IS being practiced by Yeshua in a heavenly, eternal, perfect temple

EFFICACY
Levitical priests could not complete atonement; The ONE Melchizedek priest atoned one time for all eternity

CONTINUATION
Aaronic order dependent on father-to-son regulation and physical consecration; Melchizedek order is eternal, based on power of indestructible life.. it is an INFINITE priesthood.. and as explained in scripture.. held by MESSIAH YESHUA alone

STATE
Aaronic priesthood is no longer. Jesus CHANGED it... consummating the Levitical order. He has instituted his OWN priesthood, and of the Melchizedek order. He replaced earthly priesthood with a heavenly one.


So, again, folks have a clear choice. They can trust what is clearly taught in the Bible about Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, or they can follow what Joseph Smith Jr & his followers have come up with on this subject.

Hill country Ag -You are so wrong in your interptetations of the Priesthood. Do you know who Melchizedek was? Do you know what Christ meant when he told the Apostles that he conferred upon them the KEYS of the kingdom and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven, and whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. You need to go back and read how Simon tried to buy the priesthood power that Peter held and Peter told him "thy money perish with thee". Priesthood is that authority delegated to man to act in the name of God on earth. It is the power by which the world was created.

The priesthood of the believer is a myth and you delude yourself in thinking otherwise! Peter was talking to those baptised members who had had the priesthood conferred upon them. The trust that the Latter-day Saints put their trust in is the confirming witness of the Holy Ghost -something with which I am sure you are unfamiliar with.

It is so amusing to me for you to think that the hundreds of thousands of members who are converts from other churches including many, many ministers, have never studied the Bible. You could not be in greater error! It took Brigham Young a year of constant study and comparison between the Bible and the Book of Mormon before he joined the Church -and he had never met the Prophet Joseph.

You are correct that the priesthood is Christ's and only He can confer it on others who in turn can confer it on others, etc, etc. as he did with the apostles who in turn confered it on others. You error greatly when you confuse and try to retranslate "unchangeable" with un- transferrable.

I was very impressed when I was investigating the Church and was convinced that it was a fraud, that the appearance of God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ did not give Joseph the authority to start a new church; The appearance of the Angel Moroni over a dozen times did not give him the authority to start a church; A new canon of scripture -the Book of Mormon did not give him the authority to start one (and new churches had been started on much less); Only when the priesthood was conferred upon Joseph & Oliver was there authority once again to organize Christ's Church on the earth. Christ did it the first time, Joseph was called to do it the second and last time in preparation for the Lord's second coming. I truly thought that this thinking was beyond the grasp of a young, uneducated man on the edge of the western frontier. If I was going to make this story up, I would not have made it so complex and multifacted. The more complicated, the greater the chance for error. But the scripures were always there to support what he revealed, all that was required was that someone by revelation be able to connect the dots!

I am sure it is frustrating when you consider the authority (or lack there of) of your pastor who, if he claims any, does so from a school of divinity -man made. Your pastor correctly recognizes the limits of his authority, for example, when he marries someone since he also gives them their divorce. When he declares "till death do ye part" he knows that this life is the extent of his authority, unlike the apostles (and those they delegated it to)with their Melchizadek priesthood authority who could "bind on earth" and have it "bound in heaven".

For your information every Prophet of every dispensation from the time of Adam (including Adam) appeared to Joseph and conferred upon him the keys of authority that they held in their respective dispensations.

You don't have to trust Joseph Smith to know the truthfulness of what he taught. The verse in the front of the Book of Mormon tells you how you can gain your own personal witness from God of its truthfullness.(Moroni: 10:4-5)

By the way, as you claim to know and understand so much about the scriptures, tell me what YOU think John meant in Rev. 14:6-7 when he revealed: "And I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the EVERLASTING GOSPEL to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people." Now if the Gospel of Jesus Christ was on the earth in the "last days" why would God send it back? If any nation or people had it, it would be totally unnecessary. And who was the angel going to deliver the everlasting Gospel to? I declare to you the Angel Moroni delived it Joseph Smith!

I can't wait to hear your "explanation" on this passage of scripture in Revelation. You need to come on the board more often.

quote:

---

It took Brigham Young a year of constant study and comparison between the Bible and the Book of Mormon before he joined the Church -and he had never met the Prophet Joseph.

---

This has been an interesting thread, but forgive me if I want to take it back for a moment to El Sid's first post.

I have not seen any of the Saints answer the questions posed other than by one reference to Wikipedia which just throws out some theories.

Jeff Lindsay's answer appears to be that Brigham Young was wrong, but it doesn't matter. What do you think?

Hill Country - I would caution you throwing out the "humanness" and "sinfulness" as reasons not to follow a certain faith. Recall that the line of Jesus and the Saints is filled with murderers, adulterers, liars, prostitutes, etc. The heroes of the Bible are not pretty people and most would get unwelcome glances if they stepped into churches today.

That being said, I too haven't heard any responses yet to the Young quotes above - afterall, he did spend a year studying this stuff.

quote:

---

Hey Mormons

---

Hey Hill Ag People . . .

quote:

---

I'm happy to report that I have indeed found him

---

Was He lost?

Modano -I could make a joke and claim the documents have been found where Brigham Young had scratched through the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and rewrote "The Church of Adam of latter-day Saints".

Brigham was never confused about who he worshipped and who was the head of the Church. Brigham Young frequently spoke of his God as the God of Israel, the God of the Bible. His point of difference was not who is God, but rather what God might have done. If Brigham Young truly believed this, it was never presented in priesthood councils, nor did Brigham Young ever declare that this was a direct revelation from God. It was never the the unofficial or the official doctrine of the Church. We know that in the premortal world, Adam was Michael, the archangel who led the hosts of heaven against Lucifer and his followers. Even if it were his opinion, prophets are also men and they are entitled to have such, even if ithese opinions are in error for the prophets from the beginning have never been given a full and complete knowledege of God. When you read 1 Cor 13:9-12, you learn that Paul declares that their gifts of knowledge and inspired messages were only "partial" and that they were looking to the future for "perfect" knowledge and the "full revelation of God". I am sure that Paul had opinions about those things that he did not understand and which had not been revealed to him. A prophet is a man, who does not walk around and although his lips are moving, it is the words of the Lord constantly coming out. When a prophet declares "thus saith the Lord" then you know where the words are coming from.

I thought that you would enjoy reading a few of the many examples in which Biblical prophets and writers have differed regarding the acts of God:

Did the Lord cause David to number Israel? Yes-2 Sam. 24:1; No -1 Chr. 21:1

Does God justify the ungodly? Yes -Rom. 4:5; No -Ex. 23:7, Pr. 17:15

Does God repent or change? Yes -Gen. 6:6, Ex. 32:14, 1 Sam. 15:35, Jer. 26:13, Amos 7: 1-6; No -Num. 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:29, Mal. 3:6

Did the Lord deliver the law or did angels? The Lord -Ex. 20, Deu. 5; The Angels -Acts 7:53, Gal. 3:19, Heb. 2:2

The issues raised by these passage is not that these prophets and writers believed in different Gods, but rather that they differed regarding their understanding of what God "has done". Thus, it is unrealistic to expect all prophets, authors of scripture or all General Authorities to have the same understanding of what God has "done".

quote:

---

If Brigham Young truly believed this, it was never presented in priesthood councils, nor did Brigham Young ever declare that this was a direct revelation from God. It was never the the unofficial or the official doctrine of the Church.

---

This is no answer. If Brigham Young did not believe the words quoted above, then why did he preach them? Young was not questioning in his sermon. He was emphatic.

quote:

---

Even if it were his opinion, prophets are also men and they are entitled to have such, even if ithese opinions are in error for the prophets from the beginning have never been given a full and complete knowledege of God.

---

OK, now this is the Jeff Lindsay answer. You are saying, "He didn't mean it, but if he did mean it, it doesn't matter!"

This could not be more clear than the nose on the front of your face. Brigham Young was wrong - not on some inconsequential matter - but on the very essence of the identity of God. Arguing that a true prophet does not know God is like arguing that a zookeeper could mistake an elephant for a lion. Knowledge of God would be the very heart of the job for the "prophet and revelator" with "the keys."

I simply cannot buy "he didn't mean it" or "it doesn't matter." Those are terrible arguments.

Again, unless he was right and Gordon Hinkley is wrong, then Brigham Young was no prophet. If Brigham Young was right, then Gordon Hinkley is no prophet. Either way, unless there is some other answer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not what it claims to be.

IBM:
You said lots of things in your reply to my diatribe. But, you didn't address one of the most important points:

Foundational to Joseph Smith's claims is he has the Melchizedek priesthood. Hebrews 7:24 says it only belongs to Jesus, and not transferable.

How do you reconcile Joseph Smith claims in conflict with Scripture that Mormonism then claims to support?

Hebrews 7:24 "But this man, because he coninueth forever, hath an UNCHANGEABLE priesthood." Unchangeable does not mean it can not be conferred upon another, other wise the priesthood power that Christ conferred upon Peter, James and John could not have happened. Christ's Priesthood authority was "delegated" to them; Christ didn't give His up. It would be like the President of the United States authorizing you to act upon the behalf of the nation vs. just trying to act on your own and have it recognized by no one because you had no legal authority. How important or powerful was this priesthood that Jesus conferred upon his apostles -to bind things on earth and have them bound in heaven; to loose things on earth and have them loosed in heaven. That, my friend, is the very essense of Melchizadek Priesthood power. Christ is the presiding High Priest and all others who hold the Melchizadek Priesthood reign under Him.

The differences between the Levitical priests and the great High Priest is striking. They were many, he but one. They served during their "mortal" lives, he continues to plead in immortality. They (as all men are) were sinners: unholy, carnal, defiled; he (and he only) was separate from sinners: holy, harmless, undefiled.

They offered daily sacrifices of animals for their own sins and for the sins of the people; He knew no sin, but offered himself once for the sins of the world.

They had infirmities, he was perfect. They served as priests, WITHOUT an oath, under the law; theirs was the Aaronic Priesthood. But He brought the Gospel, held the Melchizadek Priesthood, and took his supreme position to intercede forever for his brethern because God swore with an oath that he should be consecrated forevermore.

In verse 25 save them to the uttermost" means to give them exaltation in the highest heaven of the celestial world, where they ALSO rule and reign as priests forever in his Father's kingdom.

Some little asides: When one receives the Melchizedek Priesthood, he does so by the laying on of hands by one who already holds it, and this line of authority can be traced all the way back to Jesus Christ. It is received with an Oath & a Convenant. Paul says it is ordained "after the power of an endless life" (Heb. 7:16) Perfection can be gained ONLY in and through and because of this priesthood. (Remember the commandment: "to be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect')

Unfortunately, "there are many called, but few are chosen." That is to say many are called to the priesthood, but few are chosen for eternal life. "And why are they not chosen? Because thir hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson --That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness." (D&C 121:34-46)

I truly hope that this helps explain things. If YOU were making this story up, would you have ever dreamed of the necessity of priesthood power to have the authority to organize a Church and preach the Gospel? And you have many times the education that this 23 year old boy had.

[This message has been edited by ibmagg (edited 4/15/2006 11:05p).]

IBM:

Joseph Smith's belief system requires - as you say - that the key word we are discussing in Heb 7:24 can mean that Jesus' priesthood is "unchangeable". Unfortunately, that is not what the word means.

Look up the word for yourself. The word is "aparabatos". Aparabatos means PERMANENT in the sense of being UNTRANSFERABLE. The Greek reads "NOT TRANSFERABLE". The verse means: "... JESUS LIVES FOREVER, HE HAS An UNTRANSFERABLE PRIESTHOOD.."

Also, besides the word under discussion, read the text! The whole point is that Jesus intercedes for Believers continually, and that there is NO NEED for a lesser priest. It is attempting to communicate why Jesus is the only way, and the only provision for reconciling man to G-d. Readers of that day would've laughed you out of the room for saying that Jesus would confer the priesthood reserved for G-D.. to mere humans.

I realize the Mormonism teaches that Mormons are on their way to becoming gods, having their own celestial kingdom, etc., and that the Jesus of Mormonism is more like a big brother showing you the way to godhood. But Christians view him as G-d Almighty. To say that humans can hold His titles is an abomination. That is why you see my message with so much invective. Giving Jesus' title to others is offensive!

So, you should not try to leverage THIS word or THIS passage.. it exists to describe the unique, preeminent, and permanent role of the Messiah as the ONLY priest of the order of Melchizedek.. and why there will NEVER be another, or the NEED for another such priest. Praise G-d. Read it!

Satan's plan is to interfere with the simple message that Jesus is IT...all that any person needs to live eternally with G-d. From the beginning he has tried to use whatever device, including man-made religion to add to, or delete from God's plain message. Getting people off the path that God wants us following closely.

So, going back to our word: aparabatos

It means NOT TRANSFERABLE.


Your argument is with the Word of G-d.... and not just with this verse, but on many, many other fronts. I realize Joseph Smith and Brigham Young have told you that you and your family better get busy and be able to check all the boxes they've dreamed up. But that is opposite of G-d's plan as presented in His Word. Meanwhile, G-d's Word communicates that there is nothing we can do to earn our way to Him. G-d did the work through Messiah. We can access its benefit by receiving it, believing in HIS role as G-d, and giving up our claims to pride, sin and going it our way. He wants us to recognizes we are completely dependent on Him, nothing of ourselves. Thank goodness!

I laugh every time I see Anti-Mormon's talk about the Adam God theory. Discourses of Brigham Young was not and never will be church doctrine.

Most people don't even know how they came about.

The discourses were created by several scribes following around Brigaham and literally writing down every word that came out of his mouth. There are lots of things in those writings that were taken out of context.

What most Anti-Mormons don't realize is that Prophets can have their own opinions that are wrong and still be Prophets.

God chooses men as his Prophet not machines, men who are just as mortal as anyone on this forum, only a lot less aggieish.

The truth about the so called Adam-God-theory is this:

Heaven is a place of Order, and God's kindom on earth is a place of order. The order of authority is as follows.

Heavenly Father
Jesus Christ
Holy Ghost
Adam
And so on down to each prophet that has ever lived and carried the mantle as God's mouthpiece.

Think in terms of an Army, how often does a private get to stand in the presents of the commander and chief? Yet he might work with captians, to generals all the time. Jesus Christ is the Commander and Chief while Adam is the General. This is strickly a Priesthood Authority issue and has nothing to do with our salvation.

Mormon's still believe and each person will one day stand before God to be judged of our lives.

Like I've said, it's a non-issue for anyone who actually understands it.

Hank Hill, did you even read any of the thread?

"It's not doctrine" is no answer.

Since you didn't read it, I will repeat what I wrote above:

Brigham Young was wrong - not on some inconsequential matter - but on the very essence of the identity of God. Arguing that a true prophet does not know God is like arguing that a zookeeper could mistake an elephant for a lion. Knowledge of God would be the very heart of the job for the "prophet and revelator" with "the keys."

Actually sid, Brigaham knew God very well, more than you or I ever will. The Adam God theory has nothing to do with God but rather Priesthood order. Like I said you trying to say that it is LDS doctrine is laughable on the level of a total stranger coming into your home and rearranging the furniture without your permission.

The real problem is that you can't accept that God can reveal new things to a Prophet today unless it is already revealed in the Bible.

Your view of God is narrow minded and ignorant.