Adam and Eve: Obscuring a Plain and Precious Truth?
by Jared* on July 24th, 2005The LDS doctrine of God differs from that of others in a number of ways. Probably the most prominent difference is our belief that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, presumably similar to the resurrected Jesus. This gives added meaning to our belief in Jesus’s divine Sonship. Church doctrine also teaches that we are all the spirit children of God. A more obscure doctrine concerns the relationship of Adam and Eve (and by extension, all of us) to God–that Adam and Eve are physical children of God. I say “obscure” because I was unaware of it until three-fourths of the way through my mission. It is beyond the scope of this post to give a thorough historical tracing of this doctrine. Rather, I want to provide an overview of the support for this doctrine and some of my own observations. (I have touched on this topic before, here.)
Background
I do not know exactly when this doctrine originated. Some cite this statement of Joseph Smith in support of the doctrine:
“Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.” (TPJS, p. 373)
The idea that Adam was a physical son of God is a reasonable extension of this statement, but technically this statement was about the plurality of gods, not Adam’s creation. Brigham Young was probably more responsible for bringing this doctrine out into the open. He denied that Adam was literally made of dust and insisted that Adam had a physical father, which was intimately tied into Brigham’s Adam-God teachings.
It appears that in the decades following Brigham Young’s death, the teaching that Adam was a physical child of God was retained by stripping it away from, and discarding, Adam-God. A 1910 Church manual stated:
Man has descended from God: In fact, he is of the same race as the Gods. His descent has not been from a lower form of life, but from the Highest Form of Life; in other words, man is, in the most literal sense, a child of God. This is not only true of the spirit of man, but of his body also. There never was a time, probably, in all the eternities of the past, when there was not men or children of God. This world is only one of many worlds which have been created by the Father through His Only Begotten. (Church Manual, Course of Study for Priests, 1910, under the subject “The Creation of Man”)
Joseph F. Smith made this statement in 1913:
I know that my Redeemer liveth; . . . I know that God is a being with body, parts, and passions and that His Son is in His own likeness, and that man is created in the image of God. The Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, His Father grow and develop to the Supreme Being that He now is. Man was born of woman; Christ the Savior, was born of woman and God, the Father, was born of woman. Adam, our early parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I. (Deseret Evening News, Dec. 27, 1913, Sec. III, p. 7. Also quoted in Deseret News: Church Section, Sep. 19, 1936, pp. 2,8 )
In a 1912 letter to a mission president that dealt with a controversial speech by Brigham Young, the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith included this statement:
But President Young went on to show that our father Adam, — that is, our earthly father, — the progenitor of the race of man, stands at our head, being “Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days,” and that he was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but “begotten by his Father in Heaven.” Adam is called in the Bible “the son of God” (Luke 3:38). (James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.4, 265-267)
Further support might be drawn from the 1909 First Presidency statement, “Origin of Man” (also under Joseph F. Smith). This document affirms our spiritual relationship with God, but also contains statements that could easily be interpreted as supporting a physical relationship as well. (This document is available on the sidebar as part of the BYU Evolution Packet.)
Perhaps the most influential proponent in modern times has been Elder Bruce R. McConkie who wrote:
Father Adam, the first man, is also a son of God (Luke 3:38; Moses 6:22), a fact that does not change the great truth that Christ is the Only Begotten in the flesh, for Adam’s entrance into this world was in immortality. He came here before death had its beginning, with its consequent mortal or flesh-status of existence. (”Son of God” in Mormon Doctrine)
This does not represent an exhaustive list of statements by Church leaders or publications that support this doctrine, but these are probably the most prominent.
Scriptural Support
As should be clear from the above discussion, the chief scriptural support for this concept comes from the New Testament and the Pearl of Great Price. A listing of Jesus’s genealogy in Luke states, “Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3:38, italics in KJV and indicate wording inserted by the translators.) In his commentary on the New Testament, Elder McConkie affirmed that these words meant what they said. This scripture was also cited by the First Presidency in the letter quoted above. Also in the context of genealogy, the Book of Moses states, “And this is the genealogy of the sons of Adam, who was the son of God, with whom God, himself, conversed” (Moses 6:22). No doubt some see the statement in the Book of Moses as the restoration of a “plain and precious” truth, yet there are facts that would seem to obscure its plainess.
The Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price is taken from Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Joseph translated Genesis 1-17 (maybe even through 24) and then switched to work exclusively on the New Testament. After finishing the New Testament, the Old Testament was then completed. The JST corresponding to Luke 3:38 alters the words “Adam, who was the son of God” to read “Adam, who was formed of God, and the first man upon the earth.” Since Joseph’s alteration of Luke occured after he wrote Moses 6:22, it seems reasonable to question whether he intended the literal interpretation that some have made of these verses.
Chapter 6 of the Book of Moses, itself, suggests a figurative interpretation because after Adam is baptized he is told “Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons. Amen.” (Moses 6:68) Here, Adam’s sonship is equated with the sonship (or daughterhood) that is offered to all of us. In a number of places, the scriptures refer to the status of a “son of God” as something one becomes through the Atonement (see John 1:12, 11:30, 34:3, and 45:8, for one example). A counter-argument to this might be that while Moses 6:22 has reference to Adam’s physical relationship to God the Father, the other scriptures have reference to becoming a son of Christ, as explained by King Benjamin in the Book of Mormon.
Another scripture cited in support of this doctrine is Moses 6:8 which says, “Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God.” Again, the term “children of God” is usually used in scripture to refer to God’s covenant people. Some also equate the word “firstborn” with Adam’s physical birth in Abraham 1:3, but other readings seem equally legitimate.
Interestingly, there is at least one scripture that contradicts this doctrine. Speaking of Christ, D&C 93:10 says, “The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.” Since God the Father is the father of our spirits, in what sense did Jesus make men if Adam is a physical son of God? Elder McConkie’s solution to this scripture is to invoke the principle of divine investiture of authority–the actions and words of the Father can be attributed to the Son, and vice versa. (The Promised Messiah, p.63. Elder McConkie also gives an extended treatment to how one becomes a son of God. One is first adopted into the family of Christ, and then into the family of Elohim. See chapter 20.)
Current Treatment
Although this doctrine has appeared in talks and Church publications from time to time, it seems to be almost absent from current Church teaching. “The Family: A Proclamation on the Family,” and Church manuals such as True to the Faith and Gospel Principles emphasize our spiritual relationship with God but say nothing of any physical relationship.
You are a literal child of God, spiritually begotten in the premortal life. As His child, you can be assured that you have divine, eternal potential and that He will help you in your sincere efforts to reach that potential. (”God the Father” in True to the Faith, p.74)
In fact, none of the Church Educational System (CES) Institute student manuals dealing with the Old Testament, New Testament, Pearl of Great Price, nor the more general “Doctrines of the Gospel” manual, contain commentary on Luke 3:38 or Moses 6:22 affirming the doctrine. (In most cases there is not any commentary on these scriptures at all.)
A search of the Ensign reveals only a handful of references to Luke 3:38 or Moses 6:22, none of which are contained in an article or talk by a General Authority. As far as I can determine, there have not been any General Conference statements in at least the last 25 years supporting the doctrine either. In the October 1980 conference, Elder Mark E. Petersen gave a talk in which he specifically criticized Adam-God. In the course of the talk he said:
Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ. Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous! Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are. Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh.
This is one example of an Apostle emphasizing Adam’s (and by extension, our) spiritual relationship with God, but leaving any physical relationship untouched (or in this case apparently denied.)
Conclusion
The concept that Adam and Eve were physically born of Heavenly Parents is a natural extrapolation of our mortal experience and fits reasonably well within the overall structure of Mormon theology. It has been believed and taught by some of the best men of this dispensation. However, although I am not aware that the doctrine has ever been specifically repudiated, the dearth of support for it from LDS leaders for almost a generation leads me to conclude that it is considered an unsettled, and perhaps speculative, matter by current leadership.
[Update: In his 1976 book, Adam: Who Is He?, Elder Mark E. Petersen refers to Luke 3:38 in three places (pages 5, 13, 59), although without much elaboration. His 1980 talk notwithstanding, it is possible that he believed the doctrine.]
I think on some matters the Lord simply has asked those who know not to comment. Personally I think that the creation account is much more naturalistic and anthropological than some think. That is, far closer to Brigham Young than to Orson Pratt or our Protestant friends. But at the same time I think it safe to say that Brigham pushed things further than was probably justified.
It’ll be interesting to see what the truth is.
Posted by Clark
Clark, your comment more nearly expresses my view of the matter than anything else I have seen. Shortly after joining the Church in 1963 I read the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Discourses of Brigham Young. It revolutionized my understanding of doctrine, particularly those concerning the origin of Adam. In fact, it was this doctrine that led to my final rejection of evolution as that term is understood in the popular culture. I wish I knew why this doctrine has not been taught more in recent decades. If it was ever true, it is still true regardless of whether it was ever “official” Church doctrine.
So why is the current generation of living prophets downplaying it? Are they afraid that the membership will defect to the polygamist cults if it is taught? Or are they afraid that traditional Christian denominations won’t accept us as genuinely Christian?
Jared, thank you for this post. It is one of the most informative I have ever seen on this topic. Tell me, did the Brigham Young manual we recently used in PH/RS touch on this? I know that most of that manual was lifted straight out of Widtsoe’s Discourses of Brigham Young, but I suspect that this particular teaching is one of those that was edited out of the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual.
Posted by John W. Redelfs
It should be noted that God tells Adam in Moses 6 that he (Adam) was born of flesh, water and spirit. This naturally leads one to ask “Born of who?” Moses also says, as you pointed out, “Born of God.” It’s a weak argument, but the most straightforward reading.
Posted by Jeffrey Giliam
Jeff,
Actually that scripture poses more of a problem.
“58 Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying:
59 That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye [Adam, or his children, or both?] were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;
60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;”
If these verses are about Adam then they are saying he had blood before the fall. Since these are things he is supposed to teach his children, the pronoun “ye” could refer to Adam’s posterity, but not Adam himself. If it does refer to Adam (which is suggested by the reference to becoming a living soul from dust), then we have to ask about what the talk of being born with blood is all about.
These verses provide nice symbolism regarding the atonement, but add confusion to the issue of Adam’s creation.
Good point.
Posted by Jeffrey Giliam
I don’t think they necessarily entail he had blood before the fall. The question is more what was involved with the fall and how much it parallels our fall.
Clark,
I tend to agree with you. I’m just making the point that you can run into problems when you squeeze meaning out of these scriptures by reading them too literally.
John,
I flipped through the Brigham Young manual. The index isn’t very good (I heard they had to produce the thing in a hurry), and nothing in the TOC looked promising. The searches I refer to in my post include those done on lds.org where I chose “all documents,” so I should have picked it up if it was there. But then, that assumes I searched using the right terms.
Posted by Jared
Of course Adam, according to the temple, was born before he went into the Garde, which I take to mean an immortal existence. Maybe he was born with blood after all on the world which this new world was patterned after.
Posted by Jeffrey Giliam
your blog is great! i wish more people in the church would educate themselves about evolution rather than just accepting the idea that it “goes against God” and so mustn’t be true. my husband and i are both scientists and see evolution as a beautiful method whereby He can bring about His purposes. my belief regarding adam being created from “the dust of the earth” has always been to think of the dust of his ancestors — there’s no reason we can’t have evolved from lesser species and been granted awareness, consciousness, spirit and soul with the arrival of adam. evolution dictates that through slow, gradual changes, one species becomes another — is there any reason why adam could not have been the first of us to arrive after many years of evolutionary changes to the human form? i don’t think so. here’s an article you might find interesting…http://bioagnews.byu.edu/newsrelease.asp?id=119
keep up the good work!!!
Great post, Jared. I think a prominent endorsement of the doctrine of a procreating God that is just beyond your 25-year line, but still rather recent, is the talk Our Great Potential by President Kimball in the April 1977 General Conference priesthood meeting.
Regarding the view of the current leadership, I’ll recall this post of mine.
Posted by Christian Y. Cardall
I couldn’t find any statment in the Kimball ‘77 talk about Adam being the physical offspring of God, but maybe I missed it. This was the closest thing I found, and it doesn’t really say that:
“Then he proceeded to create a world for them and sent them as spirits to obtain a mortal body, for which he made preparation.”
Seemed like the major point being emphasized was the ability to create a spirit…
Posted by Anonymous
Anonymous, consider the following quote from that talk:
One way to read this quote is that procreation of both spirits and (physical) bodies will continue in eternity. Presumably the reason to retain the power to procreate physical as well as spirit bodies would be to procreate ‘Adams and Eves’ to start races on new worlds.
Regarding Adam being born of Heavenly Parents (I think it’s accurate to use parents here) or whether he was created from actual earth paritlces is an interesting topic.
I sat in an intitute class in 2004 in which my instructor read about 6 or 7 seven quotes, most from former 1st presidencies of the church in which they clearly state that there is only one way anyone arrives to be.
That is, one must be born. Simple. They also make quite clear that the only way one can be born is by the powers inherintly possess by both male and female together.
In fact, these quotes go on to say that Elohim abode on this earth and cosumed of its resources and hence when Adam was born, he was figureatively born “of the dust” because this material (the vegetation) was now flowing through the body of Elohim. It’s pretty deep stuff, but very natural to me. God has a body–we believe this doctrine.
Is it possible that God (and his wife) walked this earth while it was in its celestial state and it is possible that they actually ate fruits and vegetables? Christ ate when he was on earth and even after his resurrection.
I am in the process of getting these quotes emailed to me with souces included.
It was by far the “deepest doctrined” institute class I had ever been to. But it actually made sense to me. It is very logical once contemplated. God works by natural laws–some we don’t know yet–but he still acts in accordance with the laws of the universe.
To think that God took some dust and “poof” Adam was there is harder to believe than Adam actually being born.
What this does mean to me is that my body is even more connected to the Father than I ever thought it was. When stretch out my arm and look at my physical hand on the end of it, I stare in amazement and wonder. Adam is a direct descendant of God. I am a direct descendant from Adam. That means, I am a direct descendant from God. I have power to do more than I ever dreamed. Although my body is “fallen”, it is nonetheless in someway physically connected to Elohim. And could it be any other way, for he created man in his likeness and he created man that he might have joy !
RB
RB,
Thanks for your comments. I hope you’ll return and give your references when you get them. Most likely the business of God eating fruit from this earth comes from Brigham Young.
That you had not heard of this before is part of the point of my post and why I question whether it has authoritiative status.
Coincidentally, I have been working on a new post that touches on some of your comments. Keep an eye out for it–within the next week probably.
Count me skeptical to the ‘preponderance of enlightened opinion’ theory of Church doctrine. A revelation needs to be published and accepted by the Church as such before it becomes a part of the Canon.
Time and time again, the Church has denied that these type of speculations, inspirations, or whatever are authoritative. In fact quite often they get declared to be heresies, sometimes even official heresies (Adam-God). Sometimes, the basics become part of accepted Church doctrine, generally by being published in Church manuals. Otherwise, most languish in the category of non-doctrine.
Most particularly, short of a direct revelation to the Quorum as a whole, what evidence do we have that the doctrinal speculation of an Apostle, or sometimes even the President of the Church is more reliable than that of any other reasonably well informed member?
As far as I can tell, none. The rule of the Church is that it is the consensus of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve that governs - no consensus is prima facie evidence of no revelation.
Everything the Church does is supposed to be by consensus of the leadership - that is a pretty conservative rule, but it largely filters out wild speculations and other controversial theological positions from getting promoted as the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Iwas speaking with a friend of mine,a member of the church and reasoned with him that why does everyone suppose that Adam was born on another earth when this earth would have sufficed? Some say that Adam was really Heavenly Father,Elohim. So Elohim after he created Adam or Himself, said to himself Adam or in otherwords, Elohim, awake!That is creepy! period! Some have said that adam being literally created from the dust was just figurative. Yet we know that the body does return to the earth upon the process of death, decay,etc. etc. It does so literally, we know this for a solid fact. But now we have the statement: Man’s body literally returns to dust from which he was figuratively taken!That seems to propose a discrepency. Why is it so hard to believe that Adam was literally created from the sacred, sanctified soils of the earth at that time?Just because Jesus, us, were born through the process we know as sexual intercourse, does not mean:therfore,anything that is created or exists, exists because of sexual intercourse or can only exist through sexual intercourse. Says who? It is easy to mortalize everything we don’t know into a way in which we can comprehend it. But what about the resurrection? The bodies comming forth,literally from the dust or the earth?If the bodies, which are basically bones and dust,can “come” together again, then why is it so difficult to imagine them created from the earth? have to go but will return
I’m back again. Now to continue: Now the Lord commanded Adam to teach HIS CHILDREN saying: , (now the “saying:” part obviously tells us that the Lord is giving to Adam at that time , basically a rehersed speech), “That BY REASON OF TRANSGRESSION COMMETH THE FALL… ” okay the Lord is telling them that because of the fall, which NOW has caused blood to form in Adam’s body that wasn’t there before the fall, that the fall naturally brings death. “…ye are born into the world by water, blood and the spirit, which I have made…” made what? to what is the Lord refering to when He says,”which I have made”?Why He is refering to the spirit of man.”…and so become of the dust a living soul”. Is it possible that the word “dust” that the Lord used in this last setence was literally Adam? Or in other words: “…and so become of Adam a living soul” ? and then goes on to tell them that they need a new birth unto life and not unto death.
Is it possible that the Father took His seed as well as our Heavenly Mother’s egg and mingled them with the sacred, sanctified soils of the earth at that time and thus created the tabernacles?We know of incubative systems as well as life support systems today, so it’s not beyond our imaginations to ponder. Also consider the modern day experiments with bmp and bmp-4. Moreover consider what we have from the earth! I mean really think about it! We forget that everything we have didn’t come from some giant 18 wheeler parked behind the moon. No it came right from the soil , the elements of this earth. Our cell phones,computers,dvd’s, T.V’s,vcr’s, microwave ovens, refridgerators, our homes, cars! etc. etc. etc! Here then is the Glory of God: to modernize the raw, crude,base elements of our earthly soils unto Glory.How fitting that man could also be created from the soil also, which would obviusly be the greatest of all the creations of the earth! A self contained planet from which every need could be met. This also shows an example of the conservation of energy and mass.That is the glory of all!
Again, here is the Glory of God: To modernize to the finest form of use and existance. And now the greatest thing we all could do- is to be exceedingly kind and benevolent and most gracious to one another;both sinner and saint- toremember these things one to another, even as the Lord has rememered them to us unworthy creatures and thus become modernized in spirit, even unto the Glory of God!
One point to recognize is that the name of Adam properly belongs to the first man of all men. Another is that Adam was many. A third is that Adam and Eve could not have children before the Fall, nor was there any death. The upshot of course is that the Garden was not 6,000 years ago more like 600 million years ago, and probably not even on this planet. It is much easier to reconcile the science when you look at it that way.
Why do members of the church believe that the garden of Eden, the natural and not the spiritual, resided on another planet? Why was this planet not meet for it ?There simply is no scientific evidence that Adam and Eve didn’t “fall” 6000 plus years ago. The Prophet Joseph Smith gave a somewhat insight to passages in the Book of Revelations. It is reasonable from that insight that it has been approx. 6000 years or so since Adam and Eve fell into mortallity. Whether or not the “spiritual” Garden of Eden was 6,000,000 years ago really doesn’t matter now, because things are not the same. And apparently some people are never who they say they are. It seems to me that some people want to be original, to be had before their fellow man as unique, new,exciting, different, refreshingly new and insightive.But we have to stay with the truth and not get itching ears or souls, no matter hard it gets boring. Science has alot to learn. The impatient ones want us to believe that we found all the answeres in this life. How typically anglo. Oh White man, bring hither down thine upturned nose that you may see where you are going before all. Do we really think that God has given us, in this life, the knowledge of the beginning of the Universe when He told Moses,”..of the account of this earth and the inhabitants thereof only give I unto you…” ? And has not Elder Maxwell,a true genius indeed, made mention that there exists in the galaxies a most capable security system, to keep out destroyers? A Galactic security system? And yet our scientists tell us as of recent that we now through their celestial efforts can confirm scientific assurety of knowledge unto truth as to how the so called “big-bang began? Let alone how the beginning really occured?
Hi Larry,
Some scientific knowledge is better established than other. But it is interesting to me that those (LDS members) who enthusiastically point out the limited knowledge of scientists can so easily forget that we don’t have all of the religious answers either–that our history contains instances of new understanding that contradicted old ideas, and that one of our articles of faith holds out the expectation of more such things.
Yes, scientists have much to learn. So also, I believe, do the Saints.
Okay I am going to go out on a limb and say,”alright now, why is it that our prophets cannot see eye to eye on this subject? The creation that is?
Iknow that no one wants to say to their soul,”Dear Brother Brigham was wrong this time.” Or the gentleman Brother Joseph F. was wrong as well. But, of course I never new Moses, or Nephi, or Isaiah, or King Benjiman,or Peter,James and John etc. So how can I determine what Heavenly Father’s allowances were for his righteous sons, the Prophets? Our good brothers? It doesn’t matter a hill of beans to me if Heavenly Father in these last days, allowed his sons to make mistakes,as to their own oppinons, concerning their perspectives on certain events ago, just so long as I know that when I’m around them, they won’t cast me down to hell, but will be a least willing to extend the arm of friendship to me, even if with a rebuke. To me, concerning them, all is well.
As to the conception of Mary, the scriptuers say that she would be overshadowed by the power of the Most High and not the Most High. Does it seem reasonable to all that Heavenly Father abides in Celestial law Himself as to Marriage? Is it reasonable to suppose that He was very pitiful and Most Gracious to the feelings of righteous Joseph concerning his betrothed? Does it sit well to suppose that the process of high-tech artficial insemmenation could have been used especially when Heavenly Father has the power to do so? Else why would He have need to have sexual intercourse with Mary? To prove a point? To prove who’s the boss? To not miss out on a pure virgin?, according to the natural pride of the natural man? I know that the Lord has not pride like unto the natural man, nor is encumbered by the affliction of carnal lust and sexual greed and immaturity,as man is. Neither is He wearied by a short-sighted mind or self righteousness,as man.
I would like to comment on self righteousness.Oh how destuctive it is! How adversarile it is! How many people there are that would have come to the church had a few members not supposed that they were better than others! How many people there are now that hate the Mormons simply because a certain amount of members can’t wipe that snot- nosed look off ther face! Why are you so self righteous? Is it because you are jealous of the sinner? You secretly admire the sinner because he or she had the guts to do want you don’t have the guts to do yourselves? That you wish you did? Should we suppose that our sins are more righteous than anothers?All sin, great or small is sin. Sin is the sting of spiritual death and death has no honor.
Now Joseph Smith said that if you have a “gut”feeling about someone,a revelation that someone has done this or that,to never the less keep it to yourselves and to not look for iniquity in one another. Because, he said that if we do that God would withhold our Endowments from us. Our Wedding Invitation. And that we would have to take our place with the five foolish virgin, who could not obtain the invitation from those who had ones, because an Endowment is not meant to be divyed up or shared, but is for you and you alone, and each must obtain his and her own. So do you believe that?Should we find out?The self righteous are not so righteous as they may suppose. They may be alot like the scribes and pharisees but hardly righteous. Righteousness has to do with love, kindness, benevolence,pity,mercy,good will towards others in the exact same amount as we want for ourselves. You need people to show these attributes to. But the self righteous distance themselves through the councils of satan,usually from those that would do them the most good.and vice versa. Self righteousness comes from places like hollywood. People there are cut-throat, like their brother and leader, satan. We cannot serve two masters. No one can ever truly recieve a clear concious, let alone maintain one so long as they act cut-throat, or try to shun new comers with cut throat mentality. How can then, these ever recieve santification? I suppose that “born in the covenant” members naturally think that they are some how more blessed than converts. But I know one thing, and that is that the Lord never told you that.The devil did, period. I personally think that some ” born into..” members are jealous that they may have to watch Heavenly Father bless converts with blessings equal to or greater than their own, or that even worse, they may have to watch Heavenly Father love them just as much as He loves them. I know because I was victim to this myself. One day the Lord whispered to me,concerning the self righteous,”This is not of Me,and those that do that,behold,they are not my desciples”.
Larry S.,
Paragraphs that long are so 1890s. They went out of style because they are practically unreadable.
Dear Jared, Yes indeed do we saints have much to learn, but this much I can tell you: All those who refuse to arrouse in their own hearts, that goodly, free-feeling, summer day-like good will towards God, their fellow man, as well as themselves as much as lies within the faculties of their own souls, as often as they have the ability to do so, no further insights will be given, collectively, to the church as far as the knowledge of the creation and events thereof, to the degree we so much desire. Individually speaking, I would simply say,” Let it be according to your faith”.
Dear Brother Mark, grow some balls man!
Bro Butler, what is so out dated about solid principles of polite behaviour towards others? What would you hear the Saviour tell you today? In 1890, man was stirred up to his national duty and honor. In 2006, man makes excuses not to. He finds reason to scoff and demean. Say goodbye to your country!
i personally observed the comment from Larry S, whom I have known f or a number of years. He h as some strong opinions about the afore-mentioned letter, but I like to refer to it as “The Gospel of Jesus Christ” and I do not really know if any of us finite individuals have any authority to make comments. I’m a convert, and happy to say that is how I came to know about the “true church” and I very much respect it’s teachings, and leave it there. God is the same today, yesterday and forever, and what He says will stand throughout all eternity.
All,
If you look at the dates you’ll see that this thread was originally posted over a year ago, and if you look at the archives you’ll see that a lot of topics have been discussed on this blog. Over time the main participants here have gotten a little tired, formed opinions, and become distracted with other interests. I don’t have stats, but I doubt this site gets much traffic right now. This is not to say that the blog is necessarily finished–it’s just rather slow right now.
Please forgive us for not reading new comments with fresh eyes. I hope you’ll look through the archives, if you have not already.
Dear “25″ I’m sorry but I don’t recognize you at first. But I would like to make something very clear, and that is, that I don’t speak what I said as one with authority, but according to that which has been written. I simply take what has been written and then “search the scriptures”. I can’t be held responsible for what others have written. And that is just that: what others have written. Joseph F. Smith says that when Adam partook of the fruit of the forbidden tre, he injested the elements of the earth and thus became earthly. Yet Lehi says that in the garden of Eden, two trees were planted, one being sweet and the other bitter. Okay, at first one would be inclined to say well doesn’t the tree of life also absorb the same elements of the earth as the other one? That is of itself very interesting. I’ve recently spoken to a Bishop in the church who told me that Adam and Eve were made of the earth and not born of other people. So, you know this whole thing is up for inspection. Once you declare something, it’s natural for it to be proven by available means, if those means are available and can either agree with or disagree with the statement. But I myself prefer to keep it on a friendly level if possible. I consider debates as interesting and friendly. Of course not everyone is going to agree with me as I won’t with them but even so, I prefer to keep it civil. I appreciate everyone’s comments. they’re all possible when you think about it. Nevertheless I hope I didn’t offend anyone as I would certainly appologize for doing so. But I do so enjoy a good healthy debate of ideas. Now if Pres. Hinkley were to say tommorrow that Adam and Eve were born of a man and woman on another earth and declared it as “thus saith the Lord”, then from that moment on I would advocate it I hope to visit again,so hang tough all.