50 Answers to 50 Mormon Answers to 50 Anti-Mormon Questions

Notice the little picture above. It is an Oriborus. I really think it symbolizes Mormon theology, because if you share the truth with a Mormon long enough, their theology will start to eat itself.

Tower To Truth Question:

24. If the Adam-God doctrine isn't true, how come D. & C. 27:11 calls Adam the Ancient of Days which is clearly a title for God in Daniel Chapter 7?

-------------------------------

FAIR Answer:

The real question should be how do LDS justify their interpretation of Ancient of Days as Adam. LDS are not dependent upon biblical interpretation for a complete understanding of the meaning of this or any other term. Since LDS have a more expanded idea of Adam's role, it is not surprising that they interpret some verses differently.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism notes:

For Latter-day Saints, Adam stands as one of the noblest and greatest of all men. Information found in the scriptures and in declarations of latter-day apostles and prophets reveals details about Adam and his important roles in the pre-earth life, in Eden, in mortality, and in his postmortal life. They identify Adam by such names and titles as Michael (D&C 27:11; D&C 29:26), archangel (D&C 88:112), and Ancient of Days (D&C 138:38).

Joseph Smith is one source for this view of Adam:

"‘Ancient of Days’ appears to be his title because he is ‘the first and oldest of all.'"

The critics are also perhaps too confident in their ability to definitively interpret an isolated verse of scripture. This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days" (attiq yômîn) as one non-LDS source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, only God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts. Latter-day Saints are pleased to have a more expanded view through the addition of revelatory insights.

Like many other Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that D&C 27:11 associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.

This does not mean, however, that Adam and God are the same being, merely that they can ultimately share the same divine nature. Such a reading would be strange to creedal Christians who see God as completely different from His creation. Once again, the theological preconceptions with which we approach the Biblical text affects how we read it.

To learn more:Adam wiki articles
To learn more:Ancient of Days

------------------------------

My Response:

Now, wait a minute. I thought the Mormon church never taught Adam-God! OK, let's work through this one point at a time.

The critics are also perhaps too confident in their ability to definitively interpret an isolated verse of scripture. This section of Daniel is written in Aramaic, while the rest of the Old Testament is in Hebrew. The phrase translated "Ancient of Days" (attiq yômîn) as one non-LDS source notes, "in reference to God...is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts." Thus, reading this phrase as referring to God (and, in the critics' reading, only God) relies on parallels from Canaanite myth and Baal imagery in, for example, the Ugaritic texts.

Um...yeah. No kidding! Just like interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream in Daniel 2 relies on interpreting history. The reference to Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible (the "one non-LDS souce." Why don't they ever tell you what the non-LDS sources are?) is another of those "skimming the surface" type answers FAIR likes to give. Here is the full entry:

Such a term in reference to God, presumably the referent here, is unprecedented in the Hebrew texts, although associations with Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6 have been suggested. The most likely source of the imagery is Canaanite myth since El, the head of the heavenly pantheon, is referred to as the "Father of Years" and often portrayed on a throne with heavenly attendants. The association of El with age generally is also notabble in Canaanite mythology. The context of the phrase, occuring in proximity to "One like a son of man," which draws clearly on Baal imagery, further supports this association.

Unfortunately, FAIR gets caught up in the details, and gets distracted in trying to deal with Aramaic, so much so that they miss the clear words of the Scriptures.

Daniel 7:9-10--"I watched till thrones were put in place, and the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, its wheels a burning fire; a fiery stream issued and came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, and the books were opened."

Let's see. One sat on a throne. Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him, books were opened. These are some of the images we read about in Revelation referring to the Father and Christ. Then skip down to Daniel 7:13-14--

"I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed."

The Son of Man coming on the clouds of Heaven. To Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom. His is an everlasting kingdom. If FAIR can show how any of these things do not refer to the Father and the Son, please show me. Next!

Like many other Christians, the LDS see many parallels between Christ (who is God) and Adam. Christ is even called, on occasion, the "second Adam." It is thus not surprising that D&C 27:11 associates Adam with a divine title or status when resurrected and exalted—after all, LDS theology anticipates human deification, so God and Adam are not seen as totally "other" or "different" from each other. LDS would have no problem, then, in seeing Adam granted a type of divine title or epithet—they do not see this as necessarily an either/or situation.

LDS theology anticipates human deification? Really? Try getting a Mormon to tell you that! Well, it is surprising that the D&C gives a divine title to Adam, since none is ever given to him in the Bible. And basically, FAIR is saying here that Adam is like God. Look at what they said: "God and Adam are not seen as "different" from each other." Now, I may not always be the brightest bulb in the chandelier, but I do know a thing or two about the English language (although I have never studied Reformed Egyptian). If two things are not "different" from one another, does that not, by default, mean that they are "the same"? So, are they not saying that Adam is LIKE GOD?

So, in a nutshel, since I'm sure by now you feel like something that rhymes with "Tetzel," is FAIR's answer to this question...........................yeah, I'm trying to figure it out, too. Once again, they don't answer the question. They do a little song-and-dance, change the subject, and leave the reader confused enough to believe they know something more than they really do.

Are Mormons Christians? Part 3

Many times, when you point out a faulty doctrine or teaching in the Mormon church, the answer you get is, "Well, that's just what that one person taught. It was never official Mormon doctrine." But how can they say that when that doctrine/teaching has been perpetuated by one president/prophet after another. And these men are supposed to be speaking with authority from GOD.

Now, while I may differ in some beliefs as the leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention--and even my pastor sometimes--I know, and they know, that we do not speak as though we are prophets on the order of Isaiah, Ezekial, Obadiah, etc. We are reading the Word of GOD, and interpreting it as best we can according to what is written. We do not stand and proclaim that what we teach is superior to what GOD has already revealed.

If a man does claim to speak on the authority of GOD, and as a prophet on the order of Isaiah, Ezekial, Obadiah, etc., and if he is going to claim that what he speaks is from GOD, then that word must be truth. And since GOD does not change--what He accepts or rejects today, He will accept or reject tomorrow; He is not the author of confusion--then what that man who claims to be a prophet teaches must be consistent with the nature of GOD.

That said, let us take a look at a man who claimed to be speaking truth that came from GOD's lips to his ears: Brigham Young. Young was the second president/prophet of the LDS church. He led the Saints out to Utah, and was so hightly revered by them that they named their university after him. But, how true were his teachings? Let's take a look at one in particular: The so-called "Adam-God Doctrine." As I said at the outset, Mormons will tell you this was never Mormon doctrine. Is that true? Not really. Here is what Young said:

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... (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp.50-51.)

"But," the Mormon will say, "The Journal of Discourses is not official Mormon scripture!" Well, that really depends on whether or not the teaching in that particular issue makes the LDS church look good or bad. Much the same as it is with anything current or former LDS presidents/prophets have said.

So, was this "Adam-God Doctrine" official? Well, it was thought of highly enough that the LDS church published it in the Millennial Star [November 26, 1853 (vol.15, pp.769-70)], an official publication of the LDS church, and the forerunner to Ensign. And, when objections were raised by the LDS saints in England, they received this reply from the church elders:

"Concerning the item of doctrine alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz., that Adam is our Father and God, I have to say do not trouble yourselves, neither let the Saints be troubled about this matter.... If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for the objection to be removed, tell such, the Prophet and Apostle Brigham Young has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord" (Millennial Star, vol. 16, p.534).

Now, your Mormon friend may tell you that it was simply something Brigham Young said one time, and was quickly forgotten. Not so fast. The first time he said it was 1852. But, in 1873--some 21 years later--he was still putting forth that doctrine:

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God.... Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, ... he and his companions came here. He brought one of his wives with him.... Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth.... We say that Father Adam came here and helped to made the earth. Who is he? He is Michael.... He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state..." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

Was this the point at which this doctrine ended? Brigham Young died in 1877. Did he take this teaching to the grave with him? No. In 1889--12 years after his death--it was still being taught in the LDS church:

"Jesus Christ is Jehovah...Adam is His Father and our God" (Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, vol. 11, p.39)

So, was Brigham Young bringing forth a word from GOD, or was this simply the idea of one man, foisted upon the LDS saints? And if this doctrine was the idea of Brigham Young alone, then does it not cast doubt upon everything else he said?

Well, in 1981--after denying for almost 130 years Brigham Young ever taught the "Adam-GOD Doctrine"--Apostle Brucke McKonkie finally fessed-up that, yeah, he said it:

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. [How convenient--Ed.] Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. . . . Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists [non-Mormons--Ed.] ascribe to him. This [Brigham Young's teaching on Adam], however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.(Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982.)

In other words, when he (or any other LDS "prophet") says something that doesn't line up, then he's not speaking "as a prophet." It's kinda like their "get out of jail free" card. But, this begs the question: How is one supposed to know whether the "prophet" is speaking the word of the Lord, and when he's not? Does he have some "on/off" switch that he flips, and shifts from "prophet" to "not a prophet"?

Listen to what GOD said in Jeremiah 1:4-5--"Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." Before Jeremiah was even conceived, GOD told him he would be a prophet. For life. Not "on" one day, and "off" the next. A prophet of GOD is always a prophet of GOD. This is just one more reason to beware of any organization calling themselves "God's channel", etc. and saying they have a "living prophet." And one more piece of evidence that Mormonism is a false religion.