Brigham Young was Right!??!?!!?

[Cerebrum123]

In another thread I had been told this.

Adam is not God the Father. I know that Brigham Young taught it but he was wrong. But direct revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith revealed that Adam is Michael the archangel or The Ancient of Days.

Doctrine and Covenants 27:11

11 And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;

Doctrine and Covenants 107:54

54 And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel.

The name means "Like unto God". It is a second name given to Adam.

On this earth those who will eventually be exalted are a little lower than those angels who reside in the presence of God in the celestial kingdom. But when the receive their exaltation, they will pass by the angels and be over them. We on this earth are lower than them because we have not received our eternal status. These angels of the celestial kingdom have already been judged worthy of that kingdom and are of a higher status than we are in this telestial like earth. Only when those on this earth receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom will they be exalted above the angels who inherit the same kingdom.

Please give me references in the bible that show that angels are not the same species as man.

Two angels in Gen 19:1 were sent to home of Lot. But the perverse men of the city who were homosexuals came to the house as said:


5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

141, inadvertently admitted here(obviously not knowing it) that Brigham Young was right about Adam being God, and my evidence is right there in black and white in LDS "scriptures". Here you have Joseph Smith calling both Micheal and Adam "the ancient of days", which was one of GOD'S titles. Here are the relevant Biblical verses.

Isaiah 43:12-14
New International Version (NIV)
12 I have revealed and saved and proclaimed—
I, and not some foreign god among you.
You are my witnesses, ” declares the Lord, “that I am God.
13 Yes, and from ancient days I am he.
No one can deliver out of my hand.
When I act, who can reverse it?”

Daniel 7:8-10
New International Version (NIV)
8 “While I was thinking about the horns, there before me was another horn, a little one, which came up among them; and three of the first horns were uprooted before it. This horn had eyes like the eyes of a human being and a mouth that spoke boastfully.

9 “As I looked,

“thrones were set in place,
and the Ancient of Days took his seat.
His clothing was as white as snow;
the hair of his head was white like wool.
His throne was flaming with fire,
and its wheels were all ablaze.
10 A river of fire was flowing,
coming out from before him.
Thousands upon thousands attended him;
ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.
The court was seated,
and the books were opened.

Daniel 7:12-14
New International Version (NIV)
12 (The other beasts had been stripped of their authority, but were allowed to live for a period of time.)

13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Daniel 7:21-23
New International Version (NIV)
21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the holy people and defeating them, 22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the holy people of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

23 “He gave me this explanation: ‘The fourth beast is a fourth kingdom that will appear on earth. It will be different from all the other kingdoms and will devour the whole earth, trampling it down and crushing it.

So, according to LDS "scriptures" Brigham Young was RIGHT to say that Adam was God(of course technically he was wrong, but so was Joseph Smith, and the entire LDS church). You hear that, you don't have to "throw him under the bus" anymore, your own "scriptures" support him. So, is this a GOOD thing, or a BAD thing?

[Sparko]

oopsie.

[Cow Poke]

Brum,
Have you come across the Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine? It has some pretty interesting info in it, written by a Mormon Professor of History.

The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh,
revealed himself in Jesus Chr ist (Abinidi’s sermon to King Noah in Mosiah chapters 13-14 is a good
example). The first issue of the Evening and Morning Star published a similar description of God, the
“Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” which was the Church’s first statement of faith and
practice. With som e addition s, the “Arti cles” became section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Joseph Smith’s 1 832 acc ount of th e First V ision spoke only of one personage and did not make the
explicit separation of G od and Ch rist found in the 1838 version. The B ook of Morm on declared that Mary
“is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,” which as James Allen and Richard Howard have
pointed out was changed in 1837 to “mother of the Son of God.”

[Cerebrum123]

Brum,
Have you come across the Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine? It has some pretty interesting info in it, written by a Mormon Professor of History.

The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh,
revealed himself in Jesus Chr ist (Abinidi’s sermon to King Noah in Mosiah chapters 13-14 is a good
example). The first issue of the Evening and Morning Star published a similar description of God, the
“Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” which was the Church’s first statement of faith and
practice. With som e addition s, the “Arti cles” became section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Joseph Smith’s 1 832 acc ount of th e First V ision spoke only of one personage and did not make the
explicit separation of G od and Ch rist found in the 1838 version. The B ook of Morm on declared that Mary
“is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,” which as James Allen and Richard Howard have
pointed out was changed in 1837 to “mother of the Son of God.”

No, I had not come across that. Also, I notice that not a single Mormon has posted. Which, to me, seems kind of odd.

[OtherCheek]

LDS doctrine does not claim that Adam and God the Father are the same being.

However, LDS doctrine does present a broader, more expansive view of Adam and his role than do orthodox Christians. The title "Ancient of Days" in LDS doctrine applies to more than just the Father. Just like the term "son of man" doesn't always refer to the same personality in the Bible.

I notice that not a single Mormon has posted. Which, to me, seems kind of odd.

I'm not going to be here as frequently as I have in the past.

[Cerebrum123]

LDS doctrine does not claim that Adam and God the Father are the same being.

However, LDS doctrine does present a broader, more expansive view of Adam and his role than do orthodox Christians. The title "Ancient of Days" in LDS doctrine applies to more than just the Father. Just like the term "son of man" doesn't always refer to the same personality in the Bible.


I'm not going to be here as frequently as I have in the past.

Can you give an example of anyone else being called "the son of man" in the Bible?

EDIT: Can you also give an example of "Ancient of Days" being used for anyone other than God in the Bible?
That should say can you give an example of anyone having the title of "Son of man"(which is a direct reference to the prophecy in Daniel).

[Cow Poke]

No, I had not come across that. Also, I notice that not a single Mormon has posted. Which, to me, seems kind of odd.

This is STILL true! (OC is not single )

[OtherCheek]

This is STILL true! (OC is not single )

CORRECT!! I am quadruple.