<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Adam-God theory gets attention again</title>
	<atom:link href="http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/</link>
	<description>In which news, politics and religion are mixed - a potentially volatile combination</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:59:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron Brown</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-14584</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 20:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-14584</guid>
		<description>I am seeing this post for the first time, more than 2 years after it was first published.  

Tim, I don&#039;t want to be rude, but your post is a classic example of many of the traditional mistakes LDS apologists used to make in trying to explain away the historicity of the Adam-God Theory (AGT).

First rule of AGT discussions:  DO NOT CONFLATE THE HISTORICAL QUESTION WITH THE DOCTRINAL QUESTION.

Mormons confuse these two questions all the time, and you sir, are guilty of just this error here.  The question of whether the AGT is currently doctrinal (and I agree with you that it isn&#039;t) has NOTHING to do with the question of whether Brigham Young historically taught the AGT as if it was doctrinal.  You cannot use the answer to the doctrinal question as evidence in arguing the historical question. 

It&#039;s been years since I&#039;ve read Buerger carefully, but I have never seen anything that persuasively combats his basic conclusions.  And I don&#039;t expect to.

AB</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am seeing this post for the first time, more than 2 years after it was first published.  </p>
<p>Tim, I don&#8217;t want to be rude, but your post is a classic example of many of the traditional mistakes LDS apologists used to make in trying to explain away the historicity of the Adam-God Theory (AGT).</p>
<p>First rule of AGT discussions:  DO NOT CONFLATE THE HISTORICAL QUESTION WITH THE DOCTRINAL QUESTION.</p>
<p>Mormons confuse these two questions all the time, and you sir, are guilty of just this error here.  The question of whether the AGT is currently doctrinal (and I agree with you that it isn&#8217;t) has NOTHING to do with the question of whether Brigham Young historically taught the AGT as if it was doctrinal.  You cannot use the answer to the doctrinal question as evidence in arguing the historical question. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s been years since I&#8217;ve read Buerger carefully, but I have never seen anything that persuasively combats his basic conclusions.  And I don&#8217;t expect to.</p>
<p>AB</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: twitterpated</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-3601</link>
		<dc:creator>twitterpated</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-3601</guid>
		<description>Hm. This is an odd way of looking at things. I&#039;m not sure where all this uncertainty about Adam came from. We know for sure that (1) He&#039;s the archangel Michael, (2) He&#039;s the Ancient of Days, (3) He fights at the Lord&#039;s side for righteousness&#039; sake.

I don&#039;t think we have a clear understanding of everything each member of the Godhead does, but it&#039;s clear that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the God of Israel, our only Redeemer. He&#039;s the one who matters. We&#039;re not supposed to get distracted by a lot of speculation on how others support the Lord in his role as Savior. 

References to the LORD in the Bible refer to Jesus Christ. &quot;The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father&#039;s God, and I will exalt him.&quot; (Exod. 15:2) Jesus is our God and our fathers&#039; God, and he alone is our salvation.

I don&#039;t think there is the least bit of justification in saying another member of the Godhead is superior to the Lord. The Lord is head of all. He&#039;s our strength. He&#039;s the Mighty One of Jacob, the God of our salvation. &quot;The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.&quot; (Psalm 18:2) 

Therefore, I really can&#039;t agree with the chart showing the cast of characters in the Garden of Eden. It seems unscriptural to me. Rather than embellish the scripture that we have with bits and piece of hearsay, albeit supposedly from Brigham Young, I prefer to stick with scripture itself.

The scriptures say that the Lord God (Jehovah) created all things, including Adam&#039;s body. How that process is done is not specifically spelled out in detail, but I really don&#039;t think we should say the Lord isn&#039;t responsible for Adam&#039;s creation. Jesus Christ specifically said: &quot;Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.&quot; (D&amp;C 29:34)

It may be irrelevant to try to dissect how much Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit participated in creation, but one thing&#039;s for certain: Jesus Christ, the Creator of all, redeemed the workmanship of his own hands. There is no other Savior beside him.

It is important to recognize that Jesus Christ is our God, the God of our Salvation. Whether you want to go into detail on how Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit are part of the Godhead, and how Adam, &quot;one of the chief princes&quot; (Daniel. 10:13), is at the Lord&#039;s right hand helping him out, is just icing the cake. But the cake is that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Period. Nobody else gets that title ... not Heavenly Father, not the Holy Spirit, and not Adam.

I hate to be a wet blanket here on rampant theories, but scripture spells it out: Jesus is the Father of Israel. He&#039;s the God of the Bible. Just how much Heavenly Father has been involved in daily operations here on earth is not given specifically, but we do know that the LORD&#039;s hand was in everything. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace who shall rule and reign forever. He is the Lord of Hosts.

Jesus told the brother of Jared: &quot;Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.&quot; (Ether 3:14)

Jesus told Adam: &quot;I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.&quot; (Moses 6:51)

Jesus told Joseph Smith: &quot;I am the Lord thy God.&quot; (D&amp;C 132:12)

The Lord of Hosts himself is our Redeemer. He is the Stone of Israel -- a sanctuary to those who know him and a stumbling stone to those who don&#039;t.

At the risk of sounding like a repeating record, I must say that we should be wary of jumping to conclusions based on what someone wrote down who thought he had heard a prophet say something at one time or another. It&#039;s Jesus who is our God. And that&#039;s the only thing that really matters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm. This is an odd way of looking at things. I&#8217;m not sure where all this uncertainty about Adam came from. We know for sure that (1) He&#8217;s the archangel Michael, (2) He&#8217;s the Ancient of Days, (3) He fights at the Lord&#8217;s side for righteousness&#8217; sake.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think we have a clear understanding of everything each member of the Godhead does, but it&#8217;s clear that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the God of Israel, our only Redeemer. He&#8217;s the one who matters. We&#8217;re not supposed to get distracted by a lot of speculation on how others support the Lord in his role as Savior. </p>
<p>References to the LORD in the Bible refer to Jesus Christ. &#8220;The LORD is my strength and song, and he is become my salvation: he is my God, and I will prepare him an habitation; my father&#8217;s God, and I will exalt him.&#8221; (Exod. 15:2) Jesus is our God and our fathers&#8217; God, and he alone is our salvation.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think there is the least bit of justification in saying another member of the Godhead is superior to the Lord. The Lord is head of all. He&#8217;s our strength. He&#8217;s the Mighty One of Jacob, the God of our salvation. &#8220;The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.&#8221; (Psalm 18:2) </p>
<p>Therefore, I really can&#8217;t agree with the chart showing the cast of characters in the Garden of Eden. It seems unscriptural to me. Rather than embellish the scripture that we have with bits and piece of hearsay, albeit supposedly from Brigham Young, I prefer to stick with scripture itself.</p>
<p>The scriptures say that the Lord God (Jehovah) created all things, including Adam&#8217;s body. How that process is done is not specifically spelled out in detail, but I really don&#8217;t think we should say the Lord isn&#8217;t responsible for Adam&#8217;s creation. Jesus Christ specifically said: &#8220;Wherefore, verily I say unto you that all things unto me are spiritual, and not at any time have I given unto you a law which was temporal; neither any man, nor the children of men; neither Adam, your father, whom I created.&#8221; (D&amp;C 29:34)</p>
<p>It may be irrelevant to try to dissect how much Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit participated in creation, but one thing&#8217;s for certain: Jesus Christ, the Creator of all, redeemed the workmanship of his own hands. There is no other Savior beside him.</p>
<p>It is important to recognize that Jesus Christ is our God, the God of our Salvation. Whether you want to go into detail on how Heavenly Father and the Holy Spirit are part of the Godhead, and how Adam, &#8220;one of the chief princes&#8221; (Daniel. 10:13), is at the Lord&#8217;s right hand helping him out, is just icing the cake. But the cake is that Jesus Christ is Almighty God. Period. Nobody else gets that title &#8230; not Heavenly Father, not the Holy Spirit, and not Adam.</p>
<p>I hate to be a wet blanket here on rampant theories, but scripture spells it out: Jesus is the Father of Israel. He&#8217;s the God of the Bible. Just how much Heavenly Father has been involved in daily operations here on earth is not given specifically, but we do know that the LORD&#8217;s hand was in everything. The Lord Jesus Christ is the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace who shall rule and reign forever. He is the Lord of Hosts.</p>
<p>Jesus told the brother of Jared: &#8220;Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.&#8221; (Ether 3:14)</p>
<p>Jesus told Adam: &#8220;I am God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh.&#8221; (Moses 6:51)</p>
<p>Jesus told Joseph Smith: &#8220;I am the Lord thy God.&#8221; (D&amp;C 132:12)</p>
<p>The Lord of Hosts himself is our Redeemer. He is the Stone of Israel &#8212; a sanctuary to those who know him and a stumbling stone to those who don&#8217;t.</p>
<p>At the risk of sounding like a repeating record, I must say that we should be wary of jumping to conclusions based on what someone wrote down who thought he had heard a prophet say something at one time or another. It&#8217;s Jesus who is our God. And that&#8217;s the only thing that really matters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: General Authority training – advanced subjects &#124; Latter-day Commentary</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1468</link>
		<dc:creator>General Authority training – advanced subjects &#124; Latter-day Commentary</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-1468</guid>
		<description>[...] Did Brigham Young</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Did Brigham Young</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1398</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 19:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-1398</guid>
		<description>Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1, puts forth his interpretation of the Brigham quote in this way:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Adam had a celestialized, but spirit, body. Remember that when he came into physical being in the Garden of Eden he still had not fallen and therefore was in the presence of God the Father.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;He clearly was not reffering to Adam as God the Father, according to J.F.Smith, because of the fact that &#039;father adam&#039; &quot;helped&quot; to organize the world.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Adam is in a sense, a god, due to the fact that he is now an exalted being. He holds the &quot;keys of [our] salvation under the direction of the Holy One(Jesus Christ).&quot; It is through his authority that angels, and even the Lord appear to the earth(see teachings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Joe Fielding Smith). In this sense, it is him with whom we have to do. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Those who would like to read more of what Joseph Fielding Smith said on this subject should look it up.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It is the explanation that has best suited me.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyone who wants to see more on what he write</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1, puts forth his interpretation of the Brigham quote in this way:</p>
<p>Adam had a celestialized, but spirit, body. Remember that when he came into physical being in the Garden of Eden he still had not fallen and therefore was in the presence of God the Father.</p>
<p>He clearly was not reffering to Adam as God the Father, according to J.F.Smith, because of the fact that &#8216;father adam&#8217; &#8220;helped&#8221; to organize the world.</p>
<p>Adam is in a sense, a god, due to the fact that he is now an exalted being. He holds the &#8220;keys of [our] salvation under the direction of the Holy One(Jesus Christ).&#8221; It is through his authority that angels, and even the Lord appear to the earth(see teachings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Joe Fielding Smith). In this sense, it is him with whom we have to do. </p>
<p>Those who would like to read more of what Joseph Fielding Smith said on this subject should look it up.</p>
<p>It is the explanation that has best suited me.</p>
<p>Anyone who wants to see more on what he write</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-1197</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-1197</guid>
		<description>http://www.challengemin.org/gofm6.html&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;This is an article in which Brigham Young stated that &quot;Adam is our father and God&quot;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Is this article is true, and if so, what other way is there to interpret when he says &quot;our father and GOD&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.challengemin.org/gofm6.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.challengemin.org/gofm6.html</a></p>
<p>This is an article in which Brigham Young stated that &#8220;Adam is our father and God&#8221;</p>
<p>Is this article is true, and if so, what other way is there to interpret when he says &#8220;our father and GOD&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Malone</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-984</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Malone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-984</guid>
		<description>I’m not sure what to make of your comment, Jim.  I wrote this essay precisely because it comes up so often by critics who like to use it against us.  I had a very enjoyable time studying it out and coming to a better understanding – both of what I believe Brigham was actually trying to teach and what some of the early brethren thought he was trying to teach.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;So, while you are technically correct that the Adam-God theory has no place in LDS theology, what does it matter that it was not canonized?  It comes up again and again and therefore, it is a good idea of any serious student of LDS history and theology to know for themselves what all the controversy was about.  No, of course we don&#039;t believe that Adam was our God.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’m not sure what to make of your comment, Jim.  I wrote this essay precisely because it comes up so often by critics who like to use it against us.  I had a very enjoyable time studying it out and coming to a better understanding – both of what I believe Brigham was actually trying to teach and what some of the early brethren thought he was trying to teach.</p>
<p>So, while you are technically correct that the Adam-God theory has no place in LDS theology, what does it matter that it was not canonized?  It comes up again and again and therefore, it is a good idea of any serious student of LDS history and theology to know for themselves what all the controversy was about.  No, of course we don&#8217;t believe that Adam was our God.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-979</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2008 09:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-979</guid>
		<description>The Adam - God theory has no place in Mormon theology, as it was spoken by Mormon prophets but not made a part of any of the Four Standard Works.  Therefore, any critics must realize that any Mormon will not accept this theory as part of their theology.  General Authorities may say whatever they wish, but the only statements that must be defended are those accepted by the church as part of the Four Standard Works.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Adam &#8211; God theory has no place in Mormon theology, as it was spoken by Mormon prophets but not made a part of any of the Four Standard Works.  Therefore, any critics must realize that any Mormon will not accept this theory as part of their theology.  General Authorities may say whatever they wish, but the only statements that must be defended are those accepted by the church as part of the Four Standard Works.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Malone</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-800</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Malone</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 01:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-800</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure what you were looking for.  I put several days worth of study into this so that I could explain it to my own satisfaction.  What I learned from Elden Watson works for me.  I have read enough other essays and papers on the Adam-God theory to have realized that most people just don&#039;t get it.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;But then, I think we&#039;ll just have to wait until we meet Brigham to be able to ask him what he was really trying to teach.  No intentional cop-out Kalvin.  Let me know what didn&#039;t work for you and if you are interested in additional dialog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure what you were looking for.  I put several days worth of study into this so that I could explain it to my own satisfaction.  What I learned from Elden Watson works for me.  I have read enough other essays and papers on the Adam-God theory to have realized that most people just don&#8217;t get it.</p>
<p>But then, I think we&#8217;ll just have to wait until we meet Brigham to be able to ask him what he was really trying to teach.  No intentional cop-out Kalvin.  Let me know what didn&#8217;t work for you and if you are interested in additional dialog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kalvin</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-793</link>
		<dc:creator>Kalvin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 07:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-793</guid>
		<description>This was yet another cop out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This was yet another cop out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: P.A Olavarria</title>
		<link>http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/index.php/adam-god-theory-gets-attention-again/comment-page-1/#comment-761</link>
		<dc:creator>P.A Olavarria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:41:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://latterdaycommentary.com/blog/?p=130#comment-761</guid>
		<description>I appears to me that the problem with the AG theory, as espoused by fundamentalists, is that people focus more on what it says about God than what it says about themselves and the nature of godhood.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&quot;Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species.&quot;&lt;br/&gt;Brigham Young;JD 4:217. &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;http://nephimormon.blogspot.com/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appears to me that the problem with the AG theory, as espoused by fundamentalists, is that people focus more on what it says about God than what it says about themselves and the nature of godhood.</p>
<p>&#8220;Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider Our Heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species.&#8221;<br />Brigham Young;JD 4:217. </p>
<p><a href="http://nephimormon.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://nephimormon.blogspot.com/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

