If you can visit one of the Mormon historical sites, I recommend it. I went to palmyra to the site of the alleged first vision and the tour guide was spewing all the church doctrine that we’re now debunking but like you guys I was not taken in. I mostly enjoyed the early 1800s way of life and architecture. Yes I agree super fascinating.
@@Gunzo9978 OMG, the festival they used to hold up there was sooooooo horrible. We went up for a youth trip, the steak president wanted to flex 😂 paid for everything. Glad we didn't have to, one highlight though, the sound system got struck by lightning and blew everything out... a sign perhaps? 😂
@@ericreed4535 mmmmmhhh UNBELIEF ! Adam-ondi-Ahman (/ædəm ɑːndaɪ ɑːmən/, sometimes clipped to Diahman) is a historic site in Daviess County, Missouri, about five miles south of Jameson. It is located along the east bluffs above the Grand River. According to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), it is the site where Adam and Eve lived after being expelled from the Garden of Eden. It teaches that the place will be a gathering spot for a meeting of the priesthood leadership, including prophets of all ages and other righteous people, prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
@@J_a_s_o_n Neanderthals, Denisovans? No global flood, etc. Believe what you want but don't expect others to buy off on it, especially without evidence.
These are things I've been trying to explain to friends and family members for years. Thank you "Mike" for organizing this information and laying it out so clearly. It's definitely needed to help understand ourselves better and evolve as human beings together.
This is my favorite video to watch each week. Thank you John and Mike for making these. This is so eye opening on how vast, deep, and interconnected Mormonism's truth problems are.
Hopefully Mike is getting paid for all of this, he is amazing and comes off as just what he seems to be, a genuine humble truth seeker. Thanks Mike, don't stop!
IMO - Many of the world's ancient cultures held similar beliefs. The bible was not the first reference to such a story. The one part that annoys me, to know end, is the role of Eve. I am not submitting to anyone by God. And, I don't need another flawed human being to find me guilty or worthy. I steer drive my own car (if you know what I mean).
When I went to my bishop six months ago to ask for my records to be removed from the church that was my first encounter with this new progressive Mormonism. I was so surprised to be told that the things that I felt concerned about within the church weren’t necessary for my salvation so if I wanted to stay in the church with these doubts it would be fine. I grew up with true believing Mormon parents that took every piece of doctrine literal it was the biggest culture shock of my life hearing that my concerns weren’t necessary for my salvation.
I realized in the temple how necessary a literal belief in Adam and Eve is in the church. It effects every single thing. Because of my interest in prehistory this troubled me, yet my bishop stake president, and mission president told me the same thing: belief in Noah and Adam as the founding figures of humanity is not necessary in the church.
@@phrog849 that makes no sense, because then they throw away the church's ordinances and authority in the process. It has to be literal in order for its doctrine and theology to be sound.
I had a similar experience at the time of my divorce in 2002. I'm now having a similar experience in trying to leave catholicism When will I learn? I sure hope this is the end of my foolish searching but only God knows
I love Mike's gentle delivery of the truth; however, as a never-Mo, John's analogies (LOTR, etc.) are super helpful in my understanding of some of the nuanced concepts. Can't wait for the rest of the series!
What is a "Never Mormon?" And why do so many people in these comments refer to themselves with this label? As opposed to simply saying they are "not a Mormon"?
It’s a different experience to have grown up as someone who was never influenced by the church’s culture, dogma, and doctrines in their upbringing vs. someone who did vs. someone who converted
@@lawpenner I know this is old, but for anyone who is wondering the sane, I’ll give my perspective. I’m not a Mormon. I was raised Mormon though. So, I once was. I removed myself from the records a decade or so ago. Some people want to clarify that they are not former members, this the never mo descriptor came about.
I love this channel. I’m technically a Mormon but I’m redefining my spiritual practices, based on what feels humane. Sounds funny I know, but leaving the church would cause more harm than good at this present moment. My husband’s Mormon faith means a lot to him. But, at least I can come here with my questions and get facts. No need for the shelf anymore 😉 we have autistic children, and aren’t very “ devout” compared to our peers. That was our first wake up call. We do right by our children and have decided to scrap missions and most weekly activities. 🤷🏻♀️
This series is AMAZING! Funny how John kinda steps away from his usual softer side in this one, and connects with some edgier criticisms. Spicy, I like it. I feel like a quote from the episode with PD applies here "You have GOT to make light of these things or they WILL destroy you." --PD
This series is so great. I am happy with the quick-fire format, but I found myself asking “where’s Poochy” whenever he wasn’t on screen, except it was Gerardo commenting and helping me process all of this info that I missed. Great stuff and thanks for all of the hard work.
Another great LDS discussions episode. Loved this one. Adam and Eve and the fall and the simple contradiction to evolution and science was strangely what kicked off my shelf breaking. I saw through the contradiction of a literal Adam and Eve and couldn’t come up with any scenario that made sense with science and real tangible things we know in the physical world. From there the next stop was church history and everything make sense. The Bible is fiction just like the BOM and D&C.
And God doesn’t exist, good and evil don’t exist, there is no death, no life after death, no eternal justice, no creation nor creator, etc.. yeah let’s rely on scientists for our eternal salvation, great idea! Good luck with that. I respect science but I’m aware of it’s limitations and the importance to believe in God however complicated that may be.
@@FFM115 but made up religions are better lol? Let’s just agree to worship and follow the credence of aade ip character like Thanos then instead lol. Or Santa clause.
@@FFM115 Just because someone does not believe in Mormonism, Christianity, or any other organized religion, does not automatically mean they believe in nihilism. If you can't comprehend that, then I understand why you defend organized religion.
I love to hear about Adam and Eve... Mike is so Awesome, I love his devotion to these subjects and his diligence in conveying these things! Thanks Mormon Stories!
At age 35 I went to the natural history museum. I was always taught evolution was false by my parents but the evidence I saw there was irrefutable. I stewed on this for months until I was able to justify it by believing that Adam and Eve were just the first humans God chose to start his church with now that we had evolved enough to be able to receive it. I now see the hoop I was jumping through to try to hold onto a belief that had lots of holes in it. We do what we can to hold onto our sanity.
I love these episodes and Mike is so Witty! I love his saying, 'Joseph Smirh's Book of Mormon...a Love Letter to America!' Brilliant Research with Comedy!
I've wondered along with John Dehlin about the Church demanding a literal belief in Sméagol and Mordor rather than stressing the salvatory power of destroying the One Ring. Elder Oaks would cause too much trouble to the LGBTQ community if he found the ring.
Loving these episodes! One point, that I believe needs more emphasis with the Adam and Eve story, is the LDS teachings that death/mortality is a direct result of the Fall of Adam and Eve. That before the Fall, there was no death in the world. I believe this was briefly mentioned in one of the quotes in this episode and I think it should be emphasized more because, according to LDS theology, death/mortality in the world and the Adam and Eve story are inextricably linked together. This causes another problem with all the evidence of plants, animals, and humans living and dying for millions of years before, during, and after the supposed Fall of Adam and Eve around 4,000 BC. “Two kinds of death are spoken of in the scriptures. One is the death of the body, which is caused by the separation of the body from the spirit; 'The body without the spirit is dead' (James 2:26). The other is spiritual death, which is to die as pertaining to, or to be separated from, righteousness-to be alienated from the things of God (Alma 12:16, 32; 40:26). Both of these deaths were introduced into the world by the Fall of Adam...Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).” (Death, LDS Bible Dictionary) “God prepared this earth as a home for His children. Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34; 4:26). Their part in our Father’s plan was to bring mortality into the world. They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:54-56.)...Adam and Eve were foreordained to become our first parents. (Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve, Gospel Principles) “There is, of course, no conflict between revealed religion as it has been restored in our day and those scientific realities which have been established as ultimate truth...If, for example, a student accepts the untrue theory that death has been present on the earth for scores of thousands or millions of years, he must reject the revealed truth that there was no death either for man or animals or plants or any form of life until some 6000 years ago when Adam fell.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 3:95-96; Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., pg. 681) “I will quote a few passages that have been accepted as doctrine by the body of the Church. [Moses 3:7 quoted to show Adam as first man. D&C 77:6 quoted to show that the earth has a temporal or temporary fallen existence wherein time is measured for only 7000 years including the millennium. Abraham 5:13 is referred to, showing that the earth was on Kolob’s time until the fall, therefore 1 ‘day’ with God is 1000 of our years and the creation took 7 ‘days,’ or 7000 years. 2 Ne 2:22-25 quoted, showing that things would have remained in their created state with no change, there was no death for any living thing until after the fall.] According to this [2 Ne 2:22-25]-and it must have been approved by the Lord or it would not be in the Book of Mormon-there was no death of any living creature before the fall of Adam!...Anything contrary to this doctrine is diametrically opposed to the doctrines revealed to the Church! If there was any creature increasing by propagation before the fall, then throw away the Book of Mormon, deny your faith, the Book of Abraham and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 5:7) “Luke 3:38. Adam, which was the son of God] This statement, found also in Moses 6:22, has profound significance and also means what it says. Father Adam came, as indicated, to the sphere, gaining an immortal body, because death had not yet entered the world. (2 Ne. 2:22.) Jesus, on the other hand, was the Only Begotten in the flesh, meaning into a world of mortality where death already reigned. I. V. Luke 3:45. The first man upon the earth] There were no so-called pre-Adamites. When deity ‘formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,’ that noble personage, thereafter to be named Adam, ‘became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.’ (Moses 3:7; 1:34; 6:45; Abra. 1:3; D. & C. 84:16; 1 Ne. 5:11; 1 Cor. 15:45.) Adam was the first man from the standpoint of ancestry, lineage, pre-eminence, power, and position; he was the first flesh meaning the first mortal flesh. All things were first created in immortality, in a state devoid of death; then after Adam fell, the effects of his transgression passed upon the earth and all life thereon. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 249-250, 262.)” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol I, The Gospels, p 95)
@LDS Discussions I am sure you are already aware but for others that may not be aware, James E. Talmage tried to teach that death was present prior to an Adam and Eve Fall in 4,000 BC but his teachings do not seem to have been corroborated by the other Q15, nor is it supported by current Church teachings: “The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits, and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (James E. Talmage, The Earth and Man, Deseret News, 21 November 1931 & Millennial Star Dec 31, 1931, p. 850 & THE EARTH AND MAN: Address Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday, August 9, 1931, by DR. JAMES E. TALMAGE of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Cumorah’s Southern Cross, vol 6, no 1, January 1932, p. 2 & Sunday School Lesson, Second Sunday, March 10, 1935, Lesson 8. The Curtain Rises---Creation, The Instructor, 1935, p. 22 & The Earth and Man by the late Dr. James E. Talmage of the Council of the Twelve, The Instructor, 1965, p. 475) He also said, “a declaration made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, [that] a certain pile of stones at Adam-ondi-Ahman, Spring Hill, Mo., is really part of the altar on which Adam offered sacrifices, and that I [James E. Talmage] had personally examined those stones and found them to be fossiliferous, so that if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam’s times”. (James E. Talmage letter to Sterling Talmage, 21 May 1931, S. Talmage Papers, quoted in The Search for Harmony by Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, chapter 6 & James E. Talmage letter to Sterling Talmage, 21 May 1931, S. Talmage Papers, quoted in Discussion Continued: The Sequel to the roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair by Jeffery E. Keller, Dialogue Journal, vol 15, Spring 1982, p 83)
Just to show how clearly the Adam narrative is taught literally: I was so convinced that Adam and Eve was literal history (from all the seminary and Sunday school classes) that it wasn't until I was in an endowment session at the temple and thinking about the details of the movie that I had the "inspiration" that it was all just an allegory for human existence.
Similar feeling here. My biggest thought after first going through the temple was: “am I supposed to believe this actually happened?” And with temple stuff being not talked about like usual, I haven’t ever really gotten to see what others thoughts were. Either we (LDS) have the craziest Garden of Eden beliefs, or this definitely is an allegory of sorts. I personally went with the allegory route, which kept expanding until I could only view all scriptures as metaphor.
@@OuttaMyMind911 I know, right? We're supposed to believe that Peter, James and John appeared to Adam and gave him all the temple secrets! That never made any sense to me, the timing was all impossible. That's what made me think it wasn't literal, that Adam was supposed to represent humanity in general.
You didn't have a revelation. The beginning of all of that says as far as the story of the man and woman are concerned it's figurative. The temple is an allegory to teach us to how to get back to Christ. And what covenants we can make to do that. Do you see anything wrong with the Covenant of sacrifice and chastity.
@@randydouglass8872 I said "inspiration" not "revelation" (though, to be fair, I could have just as easily called it a "revelation.") Nowhere in the temple ceremony (not any of the ones I sat through) did they ever say anything about it being figurative. Unless that's a recent addition? Also, the LDS scriptures are very clear about Adam and Eve being literal. About sacrifice and chastity: yes, I do see some potential problems with covenanting those things. Sacrificing one's time, talents and money to a church that is founded on lies and false history is not a good thing. Chastity is fine as long as it's something the person actually wants. It can lead to problems when choosing a spouse if neither one has any sexual experience (especially if you're promising eternal sexual fidelity).
@@thereddalek6513 Is your ironic tone supposed to suggest that we should just discount all the scientific evidence showing that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
I’m only just listening to this on Wednesday 22 November 2023. And I heard you were saying, that Tarot cards stupid, I don’t agree, I have been reading Tarot for 15 years. And they work ! I was a Mormon for lots of years, and served as a missionary in California in 1980 - 1982. But going back to Tarot, I strongly believe it works. And I’ve seen it work. Tarot is really popular these days. Since I started over 15 years ago. It can be very spiritual, or it can blow you away. I don’t know what I’m going to say, before I lay the cards down, and I don’t ask what they want to hear. I just lay the cards down on the table, and read from the pictures, that speaks to me. And the person will tell me if that fits them in their life at the moment. It’s not a cult, it’s not religious, it’s not fake, it is real. I’ve had people cry while I’m reading their cards. Some people want to pay me, and and some don’t, but that’s fine. I just want to help people. And they come to me for it. . I left the church in 1986. I got a book from the tanners. “ Mormonism shadow or reality “ what a book it was. And “3,000 Changes in the Book of Mormon “ while on my mission, I read the “ Book of Mormon “ 24 times. I did start to see some strange things about it. Such things early in the book , about Jesus coming to the earth, and in the Americans. I thought that was strange. And people being baptised, before Jesus comes. But I just put that behind me. And just finished my whole mission. I had a new friend who came into the church, and he was into everything about Egyptian ology , he was tell me about the book of Abraham. That it was a fake. And he opened my eyes. And that started me of in a mission to find out more lies. I read about the “ Adam and god doctrine “ that all led me to leave the church. Only this year I’ve gone back into seeing how the church is doing today, and I could believe that they changed things in the temple. I was gobsmacked. I found your channel on TH-cam a few weeks ago. Thanks for sharing
Like much in the occult, Tarot cards "work"...but the power thereof does not come from God. Listen to some exwitches and Satanists who became Christians and find out that you're on the wrong path.
I thought it was hilariously funny in a weird sort of way when in 2014, mitochondrial DNA researchers were able to establish all modern humans can be tied together via mitochondrial DNA to a single woman who lived on the African Continent between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. She was not the first woman or even alone, but eventually all other mitochondrial DNA sequences were no longer passed on. More frightening to them were the number of times humans were nearly extinct. There have been bottlenecks throughout human history but three times the bottleneck almost choked us out. The scientific community even dubbed her “Mitochondrial Eve” as an olive branch to the faithful believers they weren’t trying to pick a fight between science and religion but nary a one of the high demand faiths stepped up for a cage match. So no scientific DNA Adam, but no prehistoric courts to chase child support either. 🤪🤪👍❤️🤷♀️
@@teresapitman1659 Mitochondrial DNA tracks maternal lineage. It also has a slight benefit of being less fragile to the effects of time and environment
There is a Y-chromosome Adam, but he didn't live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve. When you think about the Borjigid-Y situation where the y-chromosome from Genghis Khan's family dominates Eurasia, it's entirely possible that, had the Mongol expansion continued, he might have ended up as our Y-Adam.😂
It’s weird how fascinating I find all this. I am not even remotely open minded about religion. If the past is any indicator of what’s possible in the name of god, I’m very afraid. 😳
adam and eve's story is beautiful. it discusses humanity's understanding as to why we struggle with good and evil. at some point, humanity confronted the notion that we have the capacity to discern.
All Christian churches that claim the New Testament is true must accept Adam as a literal story and a literal man. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
I remember being surprised when I was at institute and gospel principles that I was joined by a Mormon archeologist that rejected evolution, then I learned about how there's plenty of LDS that go to higher academics for apologetics like Gee. In Catholicism we only are obligated to believe monogenesis--that all humans of our species descend from one couple, beyond that theistic evolution, old earth creation, and that the story is allegorical are all within orthodoxy. I was told by Jews that some believe in polygenesis--multiple first couples. Some early Christians and Jews read that Adam was a hermaphrodite before God split the sexes with extracting the side of Eve. Eves name is also very symbolic--living, and other note the name in Aramaic and Arabic means serpent. Imo much of the first chapter of Genesis are de-paganizing ancient stories. Some of the names and lines in Genesis are pagan. The name of Abram's God in the Bible resembles the name of the mountain God in ancient southern Turkey. The ancient Jews would have known all this I think from language and culture
26:30 The Catholic Church does not require Catholics to believe that the creation account in Genesis is either a literal telling of history or a metaphorical story. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (official collection of Catholic teachings) affirms in paragraph 390 that Genesis uses figurative language, but that it teaches theological truths about human nature being marked by original sin. Many early Catholic writers had lively discussions about which parts of Scripture were literal historical accounts and which had symbolic elements that taught theological truths. Some examples include Origen (early 200s), Gregory of Nyssa (300s) and Augustine of Hippo (early 400s, widely considered one of the most influential Catholic theologians). Indeed, even Jewish writers like Philo (1st century AD) recognized symbolic elements to Genesis. More recently, the 1590 publication Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII teaches that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (which includes the creation, the fall, the great flood, and the Tower of Babel) are not "history" in the sense that we use the term now, but state "principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation" (para 38). The same letter concedes that the writers of Genesis could have borrowed from preexisting creation accounts, but that this does not diminish the truths taught by the account. The letter also permits (without requiring) Catholics to believe in evolution so far as the scientific evidence shows it as the source of the human body, but obliges belief that the human soul is created by God and not evolved (para 36). So, to summarize: all the problems with a literal Adam and Eve (and also with the Flood and the Tower of Babel which you'll get to in the next two episodes) were known about by the Jews and the earliest Christians thousands of years before Joseph Smith. The Catholic Church permits Catholics to believe either way, but clearly recognizes symbolic elements in Genesis. That Mormonism mandates a literalist interpretation is another 19th century anachronism that Joseph Smith imported from his fundamentalist Protestant surroundings.
Mike makes a good point that BY was documenting the endowment so there is a single script from which all members comply. But to clarify a point that Mike makes about Adam-God being taught in the endowment, it was only taught in the St George temple.
I just never understand the literal belief in Adam and Eve. Are we all a product of inbreeding? I can understand Adam and Eve as a moral tale, but literal??
There has to be an original though. There has to be a start point. You make it as if we humans are not all the same species lol, we have to be related to even be able to procreate
I'm planning on doing a 23 and Me soon and based on your slide on Neanderthal DNA, I'm expecting to have a high dose of that as well. Those four traits are totally me.
Hey John why call our dilemma a faith crisis? When ultimately what ALL of us have found is THEIR doctrine collapsed themselves. That's how it happened for me. I did mental and spiritual gymnastics until I couldn't play that game and GOD gave me enough strength of character to be honest to the spirit within myself. Also I'm also a non believing member.
You’re young broadcaster guest doesn’t have his name splashed about, or I would use it and say well said. And thank you John for letting your responses not fall off the rails! I’m sure glad I’m not in your position because I’m not a podcaster without a script I have a script I read from a script on my podcast so I appreciate your successes!
Get two anatolian guard dog: one grown one. The lgs are for barking and alerting not fighting. No chasing. Put the fowl in a very secure building 2 hours before dusk and keep them in a little longer. Invest in some really good external perimitor fencing that shows your dogs where to mark and keeps them in if they do run after the cayotes.
Members are permitted to take things metaphorically? So, tithing can be taken 'metaphorically?' No tithes necessary, right? Just voluntary donations required. Allowing the church or members to take thing less literally it to stop the bleeding and the tithing. As a believer, this should be an undeniable red flag that the faith is not defensible. No divine inspiration involved
The Adam and Eve Myth is also, by the way, one of the most offensive. It was written entirely to solidify the Patriarchy. Personally, I am fond of “Changing Woman” of the Dine (Navajo.)
Mike: at about 31 minutes in, on the slide, "If Adam's not literal," you quote a segment of D&C 137 which includes Adam AND Michael, which shocked me, because I thought I'd have caught that myself, back when I was TBM. But, when I reviewed my scriptures to see how I missed it, it only says, "I saw Father Adam and Abraham." There is no mention of Michael. I wondered if the church changed it once they saw the problem, so I looked at my scriptures from 1977; but in that D&C, it only goes up to section 136. Please inform me where you saw that Michael was mentioned along with Adam. Enjoying these podcasts! Very informative.
The current online D&C 137 omits Michael. But the original written by Joseph Smith which is on the church website under the Joseph Smith papers lists seeing both Adam and Michael at the same time.
Very similar to the first vision. How many people were there and who? Depends on which version you're reading. I think it's really cool that Adam can split himself into two separate people with different names.
This episode makes a lot of assumptions: That science is greater than God (who is the creator of the need for science), that prophets are perfect, that there can be no more than one God, to name a few. But as a believer, I still think it was interesting!
The idea that the Pentateuch is not a document dictated to Moses by God but a selection of texts of uncertain origin and age was widely accepted by leading Jewish scholars in the 17th century and by Christian scholars in the 18th. So it's not because of the time the Book of Mormon was written but who it was written by that explains the mistake of carelessly assuming people in 600 BC would have had all of the Old Testament at hand. Smith would've benefitted from careful study of his subject matter as tends to be the case with all literature.
As an ex-Catholic I keep finding more things in common with you guys than with exvangelicals (even though the theology might be different) maybe because of the authoritarian hierarchies both churches have, strange as it sounds this is actually what broke my shelf in not just Catholicism but also Christianity in general nearly four years ago because although the former may not take Genesis absolutely literally as Joseph Smith did I found out that they still need the Fall to be literal in some form because otherwise where did Original Sin come from, and without that what did Jesus die for then? If Adam is a metaphor as I used to believe does that mean Jesus died horribly for a metaphor? I know Mormons don't believe in Original Sin (and what do they say what was the reason for the Atonement then?) but this doctrine is absolutely crucial for Catholicism to function so our equivalent to FAIR, Catholic Answers, has some creationist leanings in their articles regarding this and they insist Adam and Eve were literal in some way even though they also claim to accept evolution in some way, as another ex-Catholic put it we were basically old earth creationists who allowed evolution for animals but I would've denied that at the time (however I went to a community which was very close to being the Catholic equivalent to the FLDS minus the polygamy and there I found out many of my friends were creationists and hostile to science in general for some reason), as usual thank you for this episode.
@57:22 As far as smoking gun ... Adam is used ALOT to claim authority from, but moreso because the church used also Noah and Abraham. They both are used for claiming authority and are weird and out of interpretation. @59:09 If Jeffery R. Holland said that 30 years ago, he would've been scolded harshly, demoted and if it was said in conference he more than likely would've been excommunicated. The church rested alot on the Adamic language as with the substance of faith in Adam. The adamic language was hailed as being the language of Heavenly Father, the pre-existence, and the words of power in the Priesthood to form and create the Earth, and the language of the celestial kingdom. (See my Ondi-Ahman comment) Discrediting Adam in that passage the church would've hemorrhaged a large following and a large chunk of their authority as this notion of belief was very strong. All of the old black/white conferences were all set in the propaganda of Adam/Eve as the basis of Mormonism and later used alot of race belief. The church not only uses Adam, but they also use the notion of Priesthood and practice in Priesthood with Adam as well. Taking out Adam, pretty much creates a Titanic large iceberg for the church's belief in Priesthood to become disavowed.
Reference D&C 137: Apparently FARMS has spoken on the Adam/Michael issue--something I knew nothing about until it was mentioned by Mike in this podcast. No need to guess about the apologetics with respect to JS seeing Adam and Michael as different personages. I believe [one of the writers] in the Joseph Smith Papers goes to great length to explain how JS dictated even personal letters. People can guess all day about what might have happened, but apologetics on this issue requires no guess work--not that there isn't more than one explanation out there. I stopped at one.
I wish you would have gotten into more details on why pre-Adamites not having a soul is problematic. Usually you guys do a better job about showing the implications of faulty thinking but you guys just appeal to emotion by saying it’s offensive and therefore it’s wrong. I would just like to see better arguments against it than stooping to the Mormon level of using fallacious arguments such as appeal to emotion.
In the Tanakh the word "Adam" means both mankind and the name of the original man Adam. It's apparent because in one instance it's being preficed by "the" to signal that it's a general tirm, and in another it's both literaly and contextually speciffic to the created man character.
In B.H. Roberts book The Truth, The Way The Life, he discusses pre-Adamites. Thom Roberts and Leonard Arrington both contributed forwards to it. This book was controversial partly due to his raising the existence of people prior to Adam. Did Joseph see Adam? Was it all a ruse? Who can know? Psychologist Julian Jaynes wrote a book titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind. In this book he introduces the "theory" that ancient man had more of a visionary aspect in which he heard the voice of god and visualized those things beyond the veil of mortality. Many mystery religions like The Golden Dawn give gradual and systematic instructions through their ritual on how to conjure spirits to materialize through the portals of the metaphysical sphere outside of mortality. In The Goetia methodology is established to conjure demons for the Faustian use of the magician or sorcerer. With the capacity of the neuroplastic neocortex to possibly have the capacity to actually have visionary and auditory experiences that seem real is an aspect of this issue that causes one pause. I seems possible that Joseph seeing Adam or Michael...or whoever seems possible given his environment and the mind warping patterned ways of the occult world view of his parents and society in general had blossoming within him. Either way, the question is weather it is real or illusory. This is where Mike has done a brilliant job to bring evidence forward that speaks to the rational critical thinking skills of the objective and unbiased mind that needs to be cultivated. Listen to everything. Read everything. Believe nothing until the evidence is sufficient to understand in reality that which is.
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bce It's an academic way to not have to mention Christ when dating human history, since many don't believe in Christ or put him at their center.
I never liked the Jesus fella and I thought I was going to hell had nightmares about burning in hell for not believing in Jesus. I spent my teenage years trying to understand and have a testimony of Jesus but he was a White man, had no connection with him. I am a native South African, my tribe is the Xhosa tribe. It was a battle for me to be against a Savior whom everyone I know adored as the son of God (the infiltrated religious programming in my community), but it didn't make sense because, we Africans have an unpleasant history with invaders, who came with this Bible to subdue our minds( as if we didn't have a spiritual system), it could have not been to save us from sin though they killed many of our ancestors who rejected their missionaries. Fast forward I majored in Psychology and Sociology added a few Philosophy modules and I got my answers. I did further research and I am happy with the evidence I got proving religion to be bogus and a money making scheme. It is Really sad and evil what people will do for power and dominance, instilling fear to many of God's children and cheating them on a chance to develop and gain wisdom of who they are in relation to the Divine creator. Adam and Eve didn't make sense to me the Bible events were inconsistent. Then I realized they were just metaphoric stories and some scripture manipulated to fulfill a corrupt agenda. Thank you so much for these podcasts they saved my family because my husband didn't believe me he thought I was crazy or had lost my faith. I genuinely thank you both, continue the work it is truly life saving and eye opening. 🙏🏿
Wow. Hasn't anyone studied Ancienty History/Mythology/Mysthery? Yes, indeed. The Adam and Eve Story is a late Creation Myth. By the way . . .that snake? That would have to do with a Goddess who holds snakes in her hands. The Minoan Goddess on Crete would be a good example . . . a snake in each hand. Therefore the snake is in league with Eve . . . the early Christian Church had a problem with a woman being a diety.
Could you please clarify your dates for Gilgamesh and the Adam and Eve story? Wouldn’t the BCE dating you gave make Gilgamesh after the Adam and Eve story? 1800 BCE would be after the 6th and 5th century BCE.
I have a relative that claimed the Adam and Eve altar in the Garden of Eden was on his property. He gave all his 1000's of acres of land to JS and the church. JS felt bad and wrote him a check for $50.00 A copy of this is in My Family Search records
Some observations: 1. Even the Quran incorporates Christian heresies (contemporary to the hearing/ writing of it) in order to refute them. It's sad to think that if Mohammed (s) was more knowledgeable about orthodox Christian theology (again, as far as it was developed at that time), he might (heavy on the might) not have started Islam. I wonder if Joseph (the sponge) got into arguments with people of other religions (especially people who were mostly ignorant of the true theological underpinnings. Y'know, most people.), and used his ideas regarding those altercations in his "revelations." 2. As early as Saint Augustine, Catholic theologians believed Genesis was not meant to be taken as a literal history. Current Catholic teaching goes along with this, even while admitting that a literal Adam and Eve creates some minor issues with some later New Testament scriptural references (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:22), and, obviously, the concept of original sin and what follows thereof. 3. Some people do believe that Lilith was Adam's first wife, and Eve was his second, so it's completely possible that Joseph came into contact with such an idea to boost his ideas about polygamy.
Yeah...those data points are like astrology and tarot cards. Tons of people are likely to have those 4 data points - same can be done with horoscopes and blood type personality traits.
Oh Adam and Eve were real, but they weren't the first humans, the authors of Genesis tried to hide that fact but left the part where Cain goes to the land of Nod to find a wife. And they definitely weren't here 6000 years ago but longer than that. But the fact that Brigham Young should NOT have known about any of that in the 1800s while being a murderous racist is the bone chilling revelation that made me think this Church is something very dark and sinister and cannot be from a loving God.
The book of Mormon does say one thing that blows me away still, and that's that prophets are homegrown in their own countries. How can God raise up just one man through whom he speaks? He did and that's jesus, but other than him God calls prophets in every nation. Why? Because think about how oppressive it gets when all of your culture has to be filtered through translation and cultural barriers? God wouldn't be able to effectively reach anyone. That disconnect of American exceptionalism occurs when Mormons ignore their own scripture. Unfortunately, the book of Mormon will never be a message unto itself, so that all things good virtuous and praiseworthy only should prove the church is true. All truth exists to prove Joseph Smith and his successors are prophets. That's how messed up the Mormon church is. So at the end of the day, I don't know what the hell I believe in as a member of the church.
I don’t understand, can you help? I don’t get what you said about Adam and Eve not being mentioned in the Old Testament… the story of Adam of Eve is in the first book - Genesis… right?
Yes, obviously they are there in genesis, the problem is that they don’t get mentioned by Old Testament writers anywhere after this point. As if they simply weren’t aware of this concept. It was mentioned that at other points in the Old Testament that some older people get mentioned by later writers, such as Abraham, Moses, or David, so referencing is a thing there, but not Adam. It’s basically a hint that the whole creation story was a later addition to the Old Testament, but placed at the front to try and look chronological. That’s the reasoning I took from Mike’s explanation in the video here.
The Epic of Gilgamesh was written on cuneiform tablets dating back to cir. 2,700 BCE. Anthropologist agree that the story was orally passed down prior to that date. The cuneiform tablets were not translated until the 1870’s by George Smith (no relation) in the British Museum. Joseph Smith would not have known of this book.
44:10 I keep hearing you guys say there is no Melchizedek priesthood in the Book of Mormon. I'm pretty sure Alma 13 is all about the Melchizedek priesthood, even naming it by name.
It's also difficult explaining to someone who sees the Bible as being a transliteral Book and then trying to explain to them that it's more like a compilation of myths, systems of thought, some basis of morals rendered to a specific culture's way of life, politics, and etc. Bible is more like a truncated time capsule than it is a history lesson, eventually people will insert their own wisdom to smooth out the influence exuded from the book. The Bible itself is a combination of 6-8 different main civilizations, each don't worship the same God. A few are monotheistic and quite a few others are polytheistic. Older proto-Judaism didn't even worship a Monotheistic God. They borrowed from their surrounding environment and reshaped those references to make their own religion to fit their substance to ways of life and culture. Proto-Judaism borrowed off of Canaanite, Hittite, and a lot of their stories borrowed from Zoroastrianism. From Zoroastrianism did you really get a God more like the God Christianity borrowed, refined, and embellished, Ahura Mazda - The God of Resurrection, Good conscience doing, etc + The concept of the Holy Ghost but it was compared to a flame that wells within & Angra Mainyu - The God of Plagues, Sickness, ill Doing etc The attributes that each God was tagged with, still are worshiped and reverenced by Christianity today. Some Mormonism tried to use some of this reference in the last 20 years, but they propagandize it to their own conspiracy/tall tale value to try to make other notions of the faith more valid. They later evolved to more of a single deity, Elohim. But Elohim was more of a War God, Chieftain (More like the Greek God Jupiter), than a God people worship now as a 'Heavenly Father'. Then again in Judaism 'Tzedik' has many meanings and references back to the planet Jupiter as a sort of God/ symbol when Judaism believed in their own sense of astronomy/astrology more waaay back. Bible gets a little weirder because Elyon El (Elohim) is worshipped more during that whole incident with the Ba'al (The God of thunder, sky, etc) sacrifice and dumping water on the altar in a compete for who's God is more superior. The God Ba'al is actually the same Belief System of the Canaanites as the God El (Elohim). The Israelites cherry picked their own God and their culture developed around that. If Canaanites saw the Israelites they would've seen them as being sorta hickish or a bit bruised for having their Gods being culturally appropriated. I wouldn't be surprised if conflict ensued over the years for the same reason and matter. One's people's Gods is no light matter, as it affects their politics and way of life. Yahweh and El eventually got merged by the Israelites as 2 Canaanite Gods to become one God to the the Israelites, but used the distinguish as a different Alias or Holy Name of God. Also the Bible is not exactly the Bible per se, many books used to make up for the Bible, but quite a few of those books were very looney and too mythical. Others made up the Apocrypha and other compiled works. Also the Bible even the KJ Bible doesn't have the Books in order of its own conception from time. Christians and Mormons do the same thing, they presume everything is by some sort of chronological order. It's not. A few books are not even from cultural dialogue but exoteric groups trying to perceive their own kind and politics boiled down to a mystical belief of some whimsical conclusion to imagination or some more like 'hedging bets'. The Bible is nearly hogwash if the reader doesn't know the people it came from along with not knowing their culture, their politics, their socio-economic issues, and the direction of their mind to why they think a certain way etc. However a Christian or other religion will read the Bible as how they will interpret and pull from their imagination to believe one is more 'holy' or more right. The thing with imagination or empowered imagination, is one's Ego will always make someone right, even if they are a imaginative, bias to their own supposal to collect, or if they are a lunatic. There are some wisdoms in the Bible, but not all wisdoms apply to people and some wisdoms just don't work as one's life may be differing from the norm from such a time point. People are somewhat predictable with their habits and same behavioral probability to causality to behave a certain way, but to pull something even more from meaning is still whimsical at best. One can proport one's imagination into ideological dialogue to make it convey grater meaning, but it's more like a roll of the dice than it is likely. I wish the Bible did a better job at keeping better mental bookmarks and challenging the reader/populous to shape their own causality with better strength, courage, and fortitude rather than always look for a Doomsday finality.
The so called LDS prophets made up belief and practice according to personal whim. Anyone who buys into LDS religious belief and practice is seriously deluded.
Jessy Lee Peterson's podcast, and John DeLorean podcast on this issue . I'll come on with the peer reviewed science. Don't worry I'll make the connections.
I enjoy listing to your discussions. I have been perplexed at how many former Mormons are now atheist. I am a bible believer and believer in God. I was surprised at how strongly the Theory of evolution is promoted, it is a THEORY and not a good one. There are a lot of problems with it. There are also a lot of bible evidences that are discounted. anyway, do you have a forum that allows for civil rebuttal?
Do you know what a theory is? In the scientific world it has a different definition than the casual use. In science it is a well established explanation of all the facts and experiments of a scientific principle and nothing becomes a theory until there is a lot of proof to support the idea over any other explanation. Saying something is "just" a theory shows you are using the word as the casual use which is more like a scientific hypothesis. We never assign something as a theory unless we are pretty sure it is right. Also, the theory of evolution is one of our most confident theories with so much evidence and ability to predict what we should find that it is doubtful we will find any evidence to overthrow it.
@39:15 ONDI-AHMAN Ondi-Ahman, the fabled Adamic Language is no more than early Canaanite. That Ancient Language Book Joseph Smith used to 'win' authority and mysticism points with his followers worked, but it's another total anachronism. The church builds 'their own language' to assume they know the language, but it's all chicken scratch. Ondi-Ahman , supposedly not known to be translatable as claimed by the Church... in Canaanite is 'On high, Throne' or 'Throne of the On high' Those titles were given to ancient province lords... I can't remember the exact dynasty off the top of my head, it's one of the first 4 rulers or so toward the beginning of the Canaanites. Adam-Ondi-Ahman would've translated to 'Adam who sits on his throne on high'. The Church's devotion and worship of the Adamic language is also a bit nuts. I've seen people throw away their ENTIRE lives or have their life in complete devotion to the church's imagination engines to suppose this language was a holy language spoken by God in the garden and from Adam to Noah. This language was used, but it wasn't a holy language, this was a people and they were certainly not Adamic. People still worship the Adamic language to this day in the temple. They worship that as like a manifestation of attaining Godhood or hoping to speak in tongues and speak prophecy. The OLD 'Mormon Doctrine' (The one, that was as thick as the novel Dune) , explained Sons Ahman, Ahman, and his thoughts of what Ahman was as to the nature of God. That was all to McConkie's imaginative reach / I suppose you can call revelation. But, in reality, had known that Ahman just meant the word Throne, I'm sure his 'years of work' explanation would've changed very fast. The church had used Adam-Ondi-Ahman in association with the Abraham facsimile like they are both related to the Adamic language. This is lunacy comparing or attributing both to each other... Trying to connect Ancient Egypt to Canaanite from two different time periods. It would be like comparing Navajo with Aztec and say that both are related because they are from the same general region and you call them Native Americans. And then they are 2 different separate cultures from different time periods and their politics were separate in themselves. Ouch. If anything one would be hyping it's ancient, but when down to reality, one shows their complete moron side to come out and people believe it anyways because of the authority that is being implied (sadly this reminds me a lot of how our dumber, flakey, and impulsive US populations works). Brigham Young supposedly embellished the fable of the Adamic language and used the name Ein Sof (In Brigham Young Discourses) to claim that was the true name of Elohim, his followers believed in him more for it. However Ein Sof, is a bit anachronistic and misapplied. Ein Sof was more of a Kabbalist name to describe God and the essence of God than is it a name. Of course Mormonism and LDS would believe otherwise as their leader postured it a different way and with their self righteousness, they believe that they are more right than the culture that uses and conceives those concepts. It's comical. Like a game of ego to prove self-right, when one is really out in the middle of no where and haven't got a clue with the groups they cherry pick from, only to assume one can invent or claim to create a God. I think what won Brigham Young more approval for his spirituality to be comparable to Joseph Smith, was when he invented that infernal code of wingdings that he called the language of Deseret. No grammar structures, just a complete replace of English alphabet for his own symbols. He certainly had his own ego waaay up there. @45:00 The invention of the Priesthood is messy. It's pretty much an invention with 4-5 different revisions in Kirtland and playing around with theories of roles (Borrowing from the structure and role from Jewish Mystiscm/ Kabbalism - Where he got Elder, High Priest, how they function, quite a few other offices), including dividing out the Priesthood of Jacob and the Priesthood of Enoch on a few. This was about the same time Joseph Smith turned his movement and side hobby in a full fledged religion independent in its own divine power and Priesthood autonomy. (Joseph Smith was attending the Presbateryian faith more with his wife before this divide. His Church of Christ was more of a side project/side show money scheme before then like a traveling preacher) Then the church later revises the Priesthood in the future (Date unknown, but it appears there are chunks edited and removed from Church history. History jumps around very oddly like a few pages were ripped out.. Local missionary claims that the Priesthood came directly from God until that regional belief became its own fable, which later became a collective assumption of authority in that fable. With the strong notion of belief there, the church revised their own history and appeased their followers to the 'revealed' belief of being bestowed the Priesthood to its respective beliefs now: the Aaronic from John the Baptist & the Melizedick from Peter, James, & John.
At about minute 54 where it says Jesus is Father Adam's the only begotten of the flesh... in that case where exactly did Cain and Abel and presumably the numerous others of Adam and Eve's children come from, especially considering he was the only man in existence to impregnate her? 😅
This is one of the single most important videos i have ever watched for my philosophical well being.
I am not a Mormon, nor do I believe in anything supernatural. I find all of this endlessly fascinating!
😂 You and your rational logic and intellectual honesty preventing you from joining all the fun!! I'm cut from the same cloth as you.
If you can visit one of the Mormon historical sites, I recommend it. I went to palmyra to the site of the alleged first vision and the tour guide was spewing all the church doctrine that we’re now debunking but like you guys I was not taken in. I mostly enjoyed the early 1800s way of life and architecture. Yes I agree super fascinating.
@@Gunzo9978 OMG, the festival they used to hold up there was sooooooo horrible. We went up for a youth trip, the steak president wanted to flex 😂 paid for everything. Glad we didn't have to, one highlight though, the sound system got struck by lightning and blew everything out... a sign perhaps? 😂
@@ericreed4535 mmmmmhhh UNBELIEF !
Adam-ondi-Ahman (/ædəm ɑːndaɪ ɑːmən/, sometimes clipped to Diahman) is a historic site in Daviess County, Missouri, about five miles south of Jameson. It is located along the east bluffs above the Grand River. According to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), it is the site where Adam and Eve lived after being expelled from the Garden of Eden. It teaches that the place will be a gathering spot for a meeting of the priesthood leadership, including prophets of all ages and other righteous people, prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
@@J_a_s_o_n Neanderthals, Denisovans? No global flood, etc. Believe what you want but don't expect others to buy off on it, especially without evidence.
Mike, I appreciate your sensitivity with these issues. It really shows how much you care. These discussions are priceless. Thank you. ❤
I am a Never Mo but just fascinated by this history! Thank you for all your hard work, Mike and John.
These are things I've been trying to explain to friends and family members for years. Thank you "Mike" for organizing this information and laying it out so clearly. It's definitely needed to help understand ourselves better and evolve as human beings together.
This is my favorite video to watch each week. Thank you John and Mike for making these. This is so eye opening on how vast, deep, and interconnected Mormonism's truth problems are.
Hopefully Mike is getting paid for all of this, he is amazing and comes off as just what he seems to be, a genuine humble truth seeker.
Thanks Mike, don't stop!
I’m not a Mormon but Adam and Eve is not a origin problem they teach in college biology classes that we descended from a few people 4400 years ago
IMO - Many of the world's ancient cultures held similar beliefs. The bible was not the first reference to such a story. The one part that annoys me, to know end, is the role of Eve. I am not submitting to anyone by God. And, I don't need another flawed human being to find me guilty or worthy. I steer drive my own car (if you know what I mean).
@LDSDiscussions That is an amazingly principled position in this age of monetizing everything. Thanks for your work.
When I went to my bishop six months ago to ask for my records to be removed from the church that was my first encounter with this new progressive Mormonism. I was so surprised to be told that the things that I felt concerned about within the church weren’t necessary for my salvation so if I wanted to stay in the church with these doubts it would be fine. I grew up with true believing Mormon parents that took every piece of doctrine literal it was the biggest culture shock of my life hearing that my concerns weren’t necessary for my salvation.
I realized in the temple how necessary a literal belief in Adam and Eve is in the church. It effects every single thing. Because of my interest in prehistory this troubled me, yet my bishop stake president, and mission president told me the same thing: belief in Noah and Adam as the founding figures of humanity is not necessary in the church.
@@phrog849 that makes no sense, because then they throw away the church's ordinances and authority in the process. It has to be literal in order for its doctrine and theology to be sound.
@@randyjordan5521 You
I had a similar experience at the time of my divorce in 2002. I'm now having a similar experience in trying to leave catholicism
When will I learn? I sure hope this is the end of my foolish searching but only God knows
John, your comment likening belief in Mormonism to believing in the Easter Bunny was spot on! Thanks for not backing away from that.
I love Mike's gentle delivery of the truth; however, as a never-Mo, John's analogies (LOTR, etc.) are super helpful in my understanding of some of the nuanced concepts. Can't wait for the rest of the series!
What is a "Never Mormon?" And why do so many people in these comments refer to themselves with this label? As opposed to simply saying they are "not a Mormon"?
It’s a different experience to have grown up as someone who was never influenced by the church’s culture, dogma, and doctrines in their upbringing vs. someone who did vs. someone who converted
@@lawpenner
I know this is old, but for anyone who is wondering the sane, I’ll give my perspective.
I’m not a Mormon. I was raised Mormon though. So, I once was. I removed myself from the records a decade or so ago. Some people want to clarify that they are not former members, this the never mo descriptor came about.
Very happy to be here
I love this series! I'm always excited every week when I see the new installment drop
I love this channel. I’m technically a Mormon but I’m redefining my spiritual practices, based on what feels humane. Sounds funny I know, but leaving the church would cause more harm than good at this present moment. My husband’s Mormon faith means a lot to him. But, at least I can come here with my questions and get facts. No need for the shelf anymore 😉 we have autistic children, and aren’t very “ devout” compared to our peers. That was our first wake up call. We do right by our children and have decided to scrap missions and most weekly activities. 🤷🏻♀️
This series is AMAZING!
Funny how John kinda steps away from his usual softer side in this one, and connects with some edgier criticisms. Spicy, I like it.
I feel like a quote from the episode with PD applies here "You have GOT to make light of these things or they WILL destroy you." --PD
That was such an articulate and concise summation of the issue. Thank you for the video. I look forward to watching the rest of this series!
This series is so great. I am happy with the quick-fire format, but I found myself asking “where’s Poochy” whenever he wasn’t on screen, except it was Gerardo commenting and helping me process all of this info that I missed. Great stuff and thanks for all of the hard work.
Seriously loving this series. A few inaccuracies but still respect what you guys are trying to do.
Gross inaccuracies pertaining to the historicity of the Bible, though.
Another great LDS discussions episode. Loved this one. Adam and Eve and the fall and the simple contradiction to evolution and science was strangely what kicked off my shelf breaking. I saw through the contradiction of a literal Adam and Eve and couldn’t come up with any scenario that made sense with science and real tangible things we know in the physical world. From there the next stop was church history and everything make sense. The Bible is fiction just like the BOM and D&C.
And God doesn’t exist, good and evil don’t exist, there is no death, no life after death, no eternal justice, no creation nor creator, etc.. yeah let’s rely on scientists for our eternal salvation, great idea! Good luck with that. I respect science but I’m aware of it’s limitations and the importance to believe in God however complicated that may be.
@@FFM115 but made up religions are better lol? Let’s just agree to worship and follow the credence of aade ip character like Thanos then instead lol. Or Santa clause.
@@FFM115 Just because someone does not believe in Mormonism, Christianity, or any other organized religion, does not automatically mean they believe in nihilism. If you can't comprehend that, then I understand why you defend organized religion.
@@johnhorner1969 you got a point
@@adamholloway7963 I’m not defending any religious institution, I’m pointing out the contrast of not believing in God and general principles.
I'm glad yall have found the Epic of Gilgamesh!
Its criminal that the prophet doesnt come on this show to disprove these things!! Everyone have a great day!!
I love to hear about Adam and Eve...
Mike is so Awesome, I love his devotion to these subjects and his diligence in conveying these things!
Thanks Mormon Stories!
At age 35 I went to the natural history museum. I was always taught evolution was false by my parents but the evidence I saw there was irrefutable. I stewed on this for months until I was able to justify it by believing that Adam and Eve were just the first humans God chose to start his church with now that we had evolved enough to be able to receive it. I now see the hoop I was jumping through to try to hold onto a belief that had lots of holes in it. We do what we can to hold onto our sanity.
John, you have the easiest job in the world... All you do is get to research things, and say "Told ya so"... AWESOME
I love these episodes and Mike is so Witty! I love his saying, 'Joseph Smirh's Book of Mormon...a Love Letter to America!'
Brilliant Research with Comedy!
You mean Zelph didn't ride into the Oaxacan city of Zarahemla on a tapir? That's really shocking.
Such a good episode. I had no idea of the similarities with Gilgamesh. Going to look into it.
I've wondered along with John Dehlin about the Church demanding a literal belief in Sméagol and Mordor rather than stressing the salvatory power of destroying the One Ring. Elder Oaks would cause too much trouble to the LGBTQ community if he found the ring.
You do know that Lord of the Rings was written by Token,As a Christian story
Honestly LOTR is more interesting anyway… just my opinion though.
Loving these episodes!
One point, that I believe needs more emphasis with the Adam and Eve story, is the LDS teachings that death/mortality is a direct result of the Fall of Adam and Eve. That before the Fall, there was no death in the world. I believe this was briefly mentioned in one of the quotes in this episode and I think it should be emphasized more because, according to LDS theology, death/mortality in the world and the Adam and Eve story are inextricably linked together. This causes another problem with all the evidence of plants, animals, and humans living and dying for millions of years before, during, and after the supposed Fall of Adam and Eve around 4,000 BC.
“Two kinds of death are spoken of in the scriptures. One is the death of the body, which is caused by the separation of the body from the spirit; 'The body without the spirit is dead' (James 2:26). The other is spiritual death, which is to die as pertaining to, or to be separated from, righteousness-to be alienated from the things of God (Alma 12:16, 32; 40:26). Both of these deaths were introduced into the world by the Fall of Adam...Latter-day revelation teaches that there was no death on this earth before the Fall of Adam. Indeed, death entered the world as a direct result of the Fall (2 Ne. 2:22; Moses 6:48).” (Death, LDS Bible Dictionary)
“God prepared this earth as a home for His children. Adam and Eve were chosen to be the first people to live on the earth (see Moses 1:34; 4:26). Their part in our Father’s plan was to bring mortality into the world. They were to be the first parents. (See D&C 107:54-56.)...Adam and Eve were foreordained to become our first parents. (Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve, Gospel Principles)
“There is, of course, no conflict between revealed religion as it has been restored in our day and those scientific realities which have been established as ultimate truth...If, for example, a student accepts the untrue theory that death has been present on the earth for scores of thousands or millions of years, he must reject the revealed truth that there was no death either for man or animals or plants or any form of life until some 6000 years ago when Adam fell.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 3:95-96; Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., pg. 681)
“I will quote a few passages that have been accepted as doctrine by the body of the Church. [Moses 3:7 quoted to show Adam as first man. D&C 77:6 quoted to show that the earth has a temporal or temporary fallen existence wherein time is measured for only 7000 years including the millennium. Abraham 5:13 is referred to, showing that the earth was on Kolob’s time until the fall, therefore 1 ‘day’ with God is 1000 of our years and the creation took 7 ‘days,’ or 7000 years. 2 Ne 2:22-25 quoted, showing that things would have remained in their created state with no change, there was no death for any living thing until after the fall.] According to this [2 Ne 2:22-25]-and it must have been approved by the Lord or it would not be in the Book of Mormon-there was no death of any living creature before the fall of Adam!...Anything contrary to this doctrine is diametrically opposed to the doctrines revealed to the Church! If there was any creature increasing by propagation before the fall, then throw away the Book of Mormon, deny your faith, the Book of Abraham and the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants!” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 5:7)
“Luke 3:38. Adam, which was the son of God] This statement, found also in Moses 6:22, has profound significance and also means what it says. Father Adam came, as indicated, to the sphere, gaining an immortal body, because death had not yet entered the world. (2 Ne. 2:22.) Jesus, on the other hand, was the Only Begotten in the flesh, meaning into a world of mortality where death already reigned.
I. V. Luke 3:45. The first man upon the earth] There were no so-called pre-Adamites. When deity ‘formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,’ that noble personage, thereafter to be named Adam, ‘became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also.’ (Moses 3:7; 1:34; 6:45; Abra. 1:3; D. & C. 84:16; 1 Ne. 5:11; 1 Cor. 15:45.) Adam was the first man from the standpoint of ancestry, lineage, pre-eminence, power, and position; he was the first flesh meaning the first mortal flesh. All things were first created in immortality, in a state devoid of death; then after Adam fell, the effects of his transgression passed upon the earth and all life thereon. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 249-250, 262.)” (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol I, The Gospels, p 95)
@LDS Discussions I am sure you are already aware but for others that may not be aware, James E. Talmage tried to teach that death was present prior to an Adam and Eve Fall in 4,000 BC but his teachings do not seem to have been corroborated by the other Q15, nor is it supported by current Church teachings:
“The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. The whole series of chalk deposits, and many of our deep-sea limestones contain the skeletal remains of animals. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.” (James E. Talmage, The Earth and Man, Deseret News, 21 November 1931 & Millennial Star Dec 31, 1931, p. 850 & THE EARTH AND MAN: Address Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, Sunday, August 9, 1931, by DR. JAMES E. TALMAGE of the Council of the Twelve Apostles, Cumorah’s Southern Cross, vol 6, no 1, January 1932, p. 2 & Sunday School Lesson, Second Sunday, March 10, 1935, Lesson 8. The Curtain Rises---Creation, The Instructor, 1935, p. 22 & The Earth and Man by the late Dr. James E. Talmage of the Council of the Twelve, The Instructor, 1965, p. 475)
He also said, “a declaration made by the Prophet Joseph Smith, [that] a certain pile of stones at Adam-ondi-Ahman, Spring Hill, Mo., is really part of the altar on which Adam offered sacrifices, and that I [James E. Talmage] had personally examined those stones and found them to be fossiliferous, so that if those stones be part of the first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam’s times”. (James E. Talmage letter to Sterling Talmage, 21 May 1931, S. Talmage Papers, quoted in The Search for Harmony by Gene A. Sessions and Craig J. Oberg, chapter 6 & James E. Talmage letter to Sterling Talmage, 21 May 1931, S. Talmage Papers, quoted in Discussion Continued: The Sequel to the roberts/Smith/Talmage Affair by Jeffery E. Keller, Dialogue Journal, vol 15, Spring 1982, p 83)
I think this was discussed in the episode about the flood with the geologist when discussing fossil records.
The doctrine of the Fall is what first led me to question the church
Just to show how clearly the Adam narrative is taught literally: I was so convinced that Adam and Eve was literal history (from all the seminary and Sunday school classes) that it wasn't until I was in an endowment session at the temple and thinking about the details of the movie that I had the "inspiration" that it was all just an allegory for human existence.
Similar feeling here. My biggest thought after first going through the temple was: “am I supposed to believe this actually happened?” And with temple stuff being not talked about like usual, I haven’t ever really gotten to see what others thoughts were. Either we (LDS) have the craziest Garden of Eden beliefs, or this definitely is an allegory of sorts. I personally went with the allegory route, which kept expanding until I could only view all scriptures as metaphor.
@@OuttaMyMind911 I know, right? We're supposed to believe that Peter, James and John appeared to Adam and gave him all the temple secrets! That never made any sense to me, the timing was all impossible. That's what made me think it wasn't literal, that Adam was supposed to represent humanity in general.
You didn't have a revelation. The beginning of all of that says as far as the story of the man and woman are concerned it's figurative. The temple is an allegory to teach us to how to get back to Christ. And what covenants we can make to do that. Do you see anything wrong with the Covenant of sacrifice and chastity.
@@randydouglass8872 I said "inspiration" not "revelation" (though, to be fair, I could have just as easily called it a "revelation.") Nowhere in the temple ceremony (not any of the ones I sat through) did they ever say anything about it being figurative. Unless that's a recent addition? Also, the LDS scriptures are very clear about Adam and Eve being literal.
About sacrifice and chastity: yes, I do see some potential problems with covenanting those things. Sacrificing one's time, talents and money to a church that is founded on lies and false history is not a good thing. Chastity is fine as long as it's something the person actually wants. It can lead to problems when choosing a spouse if neither one has any sexual experience (especially if you're promising eternal sexual fidelity).
@@thereddalek6513 Is your ironic tone supposed to suggest that we should just discount all the scientific evidence showing that humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
I’m only just listening to this on Wednesday 22 November 2023. And I heard you were saying, that Tarot cards stupid, I don’t agree, I have been reading Tarot for 15 years. And they work ! I was a Mormon for lots of years, and served as a missionary in California in 1980 - 1982. But going back to Tarot, I strongly believe it works. And I’ve seen it work. Tarot is really popular these days. Since I started over 15 years ago. It can be very spiritual, or it can blow you away. I don’t know what I’m going to say, before I lay the cards down, and I don’t ask what they want to hear. I just lay the cards down on the table, and read from the pictures, that speaks to me. And the person will tell me if that fits them in their life at the moment. It’s not a cult, it’s not religious, it’s not fake, it is real. I’ve had people cry while I’m reading their cards. Some people want to pay me, and and some don’t, but that’s fine. I just want to help people. And they come to me for it. .
I left the church in 1986. I got a book from the tanners. “ Mormonism shadow or reality “ what a book it was. And “3,000 Changes in the Book of Mormon “ while on my mission, I read the “ Book of Mormon “ 24 times. I did start to see some strange things about it. Such things early in the book , about Jesus coming to the earth, and in the Americans. I thought that was strange. And people being baptised, before Jesus comes. But I just put that behind me. And just finished my whole mission. I had a new friend who came into the church, and he was into everything about Egyptian ology , he was tell me about the book of Abraham. That it was a fake. And he opened my eyes. And that started me of in a mission to find out more lies. I read about the “ Adam and god doctrine “ that all led me to leave the church. Only this year I’ve gone back into seeing how the church is doing today, and I could believe that they changed things in the temple. I was gobsmacked. I found your channel on TH-cam a few weeks ago. Thanks for sharing
Like much in the occult, Tarot cards "work"...but the power thereof does not come from God. Listen to some exwitches and Satanists who became Christians and find out that you're on the wrong path.
Thank you John for the comparison with the shire, as a non mormon I appreciate something to anchor this world with🎉 1:13:22
I thought it was hilariously funny in a weird sort of way when in 2014, mitochondrial DNA researchers were able to establish all modern humans can be tied together via mitochondrial DNA to a single woman who lived on the African Continent between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago. She was not the first woman or even alone, but eventually all other mitochondrial DNA sequences were no longer passed on. More frightening to them were the number of times humans were nearly extinct. There have been bottlenecks throughout human history but three times the bottleneck almost choked us out. The scientific community even dubbed her “Mitochondrial Eve” as an olive branch to the faithful believers they weren’t trying to pick a fight between science and religion but nary a one of the high demand faiths stepped up for a cage match. So no scientific DNA Adam, but no prehistoric
courts to chase child support either. 🤪🤪👍❤️🤷♀️
My understanding is that mitochondrial DNA is only passed down from the mother, so that's why it can be traced back.
@@teresapitman1659 Mitochondrial DNA tracks maternal lineage. It also has a slight benefit of being less fragile to the effects of time and environment
There is a Y-chromosome Adam, but he didn't live at the same time as mitochondrial Eve.
When you think about the Borjigid-Y situation where the y-chromosome from Genghis Khan's family dominates Eurasia, it's entirely possible that, had the Mongol expansion continued, he might have ended up as our Y-Adam.😂
I can’t believe I didn’t see this before. Again THANKS!
It’s weird how fascinating I find all this. I am not even remotely open minded about religion. If the past is any indicator of what’s possible in the name of god, I’m very afraid. 😳
adam and eve's story is beautiful. it discusses humanity's understanding as to why we struggle with good and evil. at some point, humanity confronted the notion that we have the capacity to discern.
All Christian churches that claim the New Testament is true must accept Adam as a literal story and a literal man. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22: For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
I remember being surprised when I was at institute and gospel principles that I was joined by a Mormon archeologist that rejected evolution, then I learned about how there's plenty of LDS that go to higher academics for apologetics like Gee.
In Catholicism we only are obligated to believe monogenesis--that all humans of our species descend from one couple, beyond that theistic evolution, old earth creation, and that the story is allegorical are all within orthodoxy. I was told by Jews that some believe in polygenesis--multiple first couples. Some early Christians and Jews read that Adam was a hermaphrodite before God split the sexes with extracting the side of Eve. Eves name is also very symbolic--living, and other note the name in Aramaic and Arabic means serpent.
Imo much of the first chapter of Genesis are de-paganizing ancient stories. Some of the names and lines in Genesis are pagan. The name of Abram's God in the Bible resembles the name of the mountain God in ancient southern Turkey. The ancient Jews would have known all this I think from language and culture
This information is fabulous thank you so much
26:30 The Catholic Church does not require Catholics to believe that the creation account in Genesis is either a literal telling of history or a metaphorical story. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (official collection of Catholic teachings) affirms in paragraph 390 that Genesis uses figurative language, but that it teaches theological truths about human nature being marked by original sin.
Many early Catholic writers had lively discussions about which parts of Scripture were literal historical accounts and which had symbolic elements that taught theological truths. Some examples include Origen (early 200s), Gregory of Nyssa (300s) and Augustine of Hippo (early 400s, widely considered one of the most influential Catholic theologians). Indeed, even Jewish writers like Philo (1st century AD) recognized symbolic elements to Genesis.
More recently, the 1590 publication Humani Generis by Pope Pius XII teaches that the first 11 chapters of Genesis (which includes the creation, the fall, the great flood, and the Tower of Babel) are not "history" in the sense that we use the term now, but state "principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation" (para 38). The same letter concedes that the writers of Genesis could have borrowed from preexisting creation accounts, but that this does not diminish the truths taught by the account. The letter also permits (without requiring) Catholics to believe in evolution so far as the scientific evidence shows it as the source of the human body, but obliges belief that the human soul is created by God and not evolved (para 36).
So, to summarize: all the problems with a literal Adam and Eve (and also with the Flood and the Tower of Babel which you'll get to in the next two episodes) were known about by the Jews and the earliest Christians thousands of years before Joseph Smith. The Catholic Church permits Catholics to believe either way, but clearly recognizes symbolic elements in Genesis. That Mormonism mandates a literalist interpretation is another 19th century anachronism that Joseph Smith imported from his fundamentalist Protestant surroundings.
Mike makes a good point that BY was documenting the endowment so there is a single script from which all members comply. But to clarify a point that Mike makes about Adam-God being taught in the endowment, it was only taught in the St George temple.
I just never understand the literal belief in Adam and Eve. Are we all a product of inbreeding? I can understand Adam and Eve as a moral tale, but literal??
There has to be an original though. There has to be a start point.
You make it as if we humans are not all the same species lol, we have to be related to even be able to procreate
I'm planning on doing a 23 and Me soon and based on your slide on Neanderthal DNA, I'm expecting to have a high dose of that as well. Those four traits are totally me.
Hey John why call our dilemma a faith crisis? When ultimately what ALL of us have found is THEIR doctrine collapsed themselves. That's how it happened for me. I did mental and spiritual gymnastics until I couldn't play that game and GOD gave me enough strength of character to be honest to the spirit within myself. Also I'm also a non believing member.
Mike - you are a darling. Such a lovely person. Thank yiun
You’re young broadcaster guest doesn’t have his name splashed about, or I would use it and say well said. And thank you John for letting your responses not fall off the rails! I’m sure glad I’m not in your position because I’m not a podcaster without a script I have a script I read from a script on my podcast so I appreciate your successes!
I love this.
D&C 137 didn't mention Michael. Is this another example of a later revision?
Get two anatolian guard dog: one grown one. The lgs are for barking and alerting not fighting. No chasing. Put the fowl in a very secure building 2 hours before dusk and keep them in a little longer. Invest in some really good external perimitor fencing that shows your dogs where to mark and keeps them in if they do run after the cayotes.
Thanks!
Members are permitted to take things metaphorically? So, tithing can be taken 'metaphorically?' No tithes necessary, right? Just voluntary donations required. Allowing the church or members to take thing less literally it to stop the bleeding and the tithing. As a believer, this should be an undeniable red flag that the faith is not defensible. No divine inspiration involved
The Adam and Eve Myth is also, by the way, one of the most offensive. It was written entirely to solidify the Patriarchy. Personally, I am fond of “Changing Woman” of the Dine (Navajo.)
Mike: at about 31 minutes in, on the slide, "If Adam's not literal," you quote a segment of D&C 137 which includes Adam AND Michael, which shocked me, because I thought I'd have caught that myself, back when I was TBM. But, when I reviewed my scriptures to see how I missed it, it only says, "I saw Father Adam and Abraham." There is no mention of Michael. I wondered if the church changed it once they saw the problem, so I looked at my scriptures from 1977; but in that D&C, it only goes up to section 136. Please inform me where you saw that Michael was mentioned along with Adam. Enjoying these podcasts! Very informative.
The current online D&C 137 omits Michael. But the original written by Joseph Smith which is on the church website under the Joseph Smith papers lists seeing both Adam and Michael at the same time.
Very similar to the first vision. How many people were there and who? Depends on which version you're reading. I think it's really cool that Adam can split himself into two separate people with different names.
Dave Allen has a great explanation on Adam and Eve on TH-cam.
This episode makes a lot of assumptions: That science is greater than God (who is the creator of the need for science), that prophets are perfect, that there can be no more than one God, to name a few. But as a believer, I still think it was interesting!
The idea that the Pentateuch is not a document dictated to Moses by God but a selection of texts of uncertain origin and age was widely accepted by leading Jewish scholars in the 17th century and by Christian scholars in the 18th. So it's not because of the time the Book of Mormon was written but who it was written by that explains the mistake of carelessly assuming people in 600 BC would have had all of the Old Testament at hand. Smith would've benefitted from careful study of his subject matter as tends to be the case with all literature.
As an ex-Catholic I keep finding more things in common with you guys than with exvangelicals (even though the theology might be different) maybe because of the authoritarian hierarchies both churches have, strange as it sounds this is actually what broke my shelf in not just Catholicism but also Christianity in general nearly four years ago because although the former may not take Genesis absolutely literally as Joseph Smith did I found out that they still need the Fall to be literal in some form because otherwise where did Original Sin come from, and without that what did Jesus die for then? If Adam is a metaphor as I used to believe does that mean Jesus died horribly for a metaphor?
I know Mormons don't believe in Original Sin (and what do they say what was the reason for the Atonement then?) but this doctrine is absolutely crucial for Catholicism to function so our equivalent to FAIR, Catholic Answers, has some creationist leanings in their articles regarding this and they insist Adam and Eve were literal in some way even though they also claim to accept evolution in some way, as another ex-Catholic put it we were basically old earth creationists who allowed evolution for animals but I would've denied that at the time (however I went to a community which was very close to being the Catholic equivalent to the FLDS minus the polygamy and there I found out many of my friends were creationists and hostile to science in general for some reason), as usual thank you for this episode.
Why is the part about Eve being made from Adam's rib meant to be metaphoric? What the heck is it a metaphor for?? Metaphors have to have some meaning.
A metaphor to support Patriarchy.
OMG! Ether transpires around 2200 BCE...Yet "Jew" wasn't used till after 600 BCE.
The story of adam and eve would also be problematic for the Qur'an, wouldn't it?
@57:22 As far as smoking gun ... Adam is used ALOT to claim authority from, but moreso because the church used also Noah and Abraham. They both are used for claiming authority and are weird and out of interpretation.
@59:09 If Jeffery R. Holland said that 30 years ago, he would've been scolded harshly, demoted and if it was said in conference he more than likely would've been excommunicated.
The church rested alot on the Adamic language as with the substance of faith in Adam.
The adamic language was hailed as being the language of Heavenly Father, the pre-existence, and the words of power in the Priesthood to form and create the Earth, and the language of the celestial kingdom. (See my Ondi-Ahman comment)
Discrediting Adam in that passage the church would've hemorrhaged a large following and a large chunk of their authority as this notion of belief was very strong. All of the old black/white conferences were all set in the propaganda of Adam/Eve as the basis of Mormonism and later used alot of race belief.
The church not only uses Adam, but they also use the notion of Priesthood and practice in Priesthood with Adam as well. Taking out Adam, pretty much creates a Titanic large iceberg for the church's belief in Priesthood to become disavowed.
I am not religious but I also don't swallow the theory of evolution
Reference D&C 137: Apparently FARMS has spoken on the Adam/Michael issue--something I knew nothing about until it was mentioned by Mike in this podcast. No need to guess about the apologetics with respect to JS seeing Adam and Michael as different personages. I believe [one of the writers] in the Joseph Smith Papers goes to great length to explain how JS dictated even personal letters. People can guess all day about what might have happened, but apologetics on this issue requires no guess work--not that there isn't more than one explanation out there. I stopped at one.
When the Mormon church tells members to "stay in the boat" the church is careful not to disclose that the name of the boat is the Titanic.
I wish you would have gotten into more details on why pre-Adamites not having a soul is problematic. Usually you guys do a better job about showing the implications of faulty thinking but you guys just appeal to emotion by saying it’s offensive and therefore it’s wrong. I would just like to see better arguments against it than stooping to the Mormon level of using fallacious arguments such as appeal to emotion.
Bow-no-bows
In the Tanakh the word "Adam" means both mankind and the name of the original man Adam. It's apparent because in one instance it's being preficed by "the" to signal that it's a general tirm, and in another it's both literaly and contextually speciffic to the created man character.
Is one instance enough to prove usage? Sincerely asking. Or is it a hypothesis that needs other contemporary works that also use it the same way?
@@kirielbranson4843 Sorry, wish I could answer, but I don't remember what the context was for my comment, as it was more than a year ago.
@@NoaMakhervaxyeah, I get that. I'll do some googling about this. Thanks. Thought this was really interesting.
In B.H. Roberts book The Truth, The Way The Life, he discusses pre-Adamites. Thom Roberts and Leonard Arrington both contributed forwards to it. This book was controversial partly due to his raising the existence of people prior to Adam. Did Joseph see Adam? Was it all a ruse? Who can know? Psychologist Julian Jaynes wrote a book titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind. In this book he introduces the "theory" that ancient man had more of a visionary aspect in which he heard the voice of god and visualized those things beyond the veil of mortality. Many mystery religions like The Golden Dawn give gradual and systematic instructions through their ritual on how to conjure spirits to materialize through the portals of the metaphysical sphere outside of mortality. In The Goetia methodology is established to conjure demons for the Faustian use of the magician or sorcerer. With the capacity of the neuroplastic neocortex to possibly have the capacity to actually have visionary and auditory experiences that seem real is an aspect of this issue that causes one pause. I seems possible that Joseph seeing Adam or Michael...or whoever seems possible given his environment and the mind warping patterned ways of the occult world view of his parents and society in general had blossoming within him. Either way, the question is weather it is real or illusory. This is where Mike has done a brilliant job to bring evidence forward that speaks to the rational critical thinking skills of the objective and unbiased mind that needs to be cultivated. Listen to everything. Read everything. Believe nothing until the evidence is sufficient to understand in reality that which is.
I checked D&C 137 and do not see Michael anywhere in it.
Nationalism and religious fanaticism aren’t far apart
What is the E in BCE? Not aware of this ever.
dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/bce
It's an academic way to not have to mention Christ when dating human history, since many don't believe in Christ or put him at their center.
I never liked the Jesus fella and I thought I was going to hell had nightmares about burning in hell for not believing in Jesus. I spent my teenage years trying to understand and have a testimony of Jesus but he was a White man, had no connection with him. I am a native South African, my tribe is the Xhosa tribe. It was a battle for me to be against a Savior whom everyone I know adored as the son of God (the infiltrated religious programming in my community), but it didn't make sense because, we Africans have an unpleasant history with invaders, who came with this Bible to subdue our minds( as if we didn't have a spiritual system), it could have not been to save us from sin though they killed many of our ancestors who rejected their missionaries. Fast forward I majored in Psychology and Sociology added a few Philosophy modules and I got my answers. I did further research and I am happy with the evidence I got proving religion to be bogus and a money making scheme. It is Really sad and evil what people will do for power and dominance, instilling fear to many of God's children and cheating them on a chance to develop and gain wisdom of who they are in relation to the Divine creator.
Adam and Eve didn't make sense to me the Bible events were inconsistent. Then I realized they were just metaphoric stories and some scripture manipulated to fulfill a corrupt agenda.
Thank you so much for these podcasts they saved my family because my husband didn't believe me he thought I was crazy or had lost my faith. I genuinely thank you both, continue the work it is truly life saving and eye opening. 🙏🏿
Wow. Hasn't anyone studied Ancienty History/Mythology/Mysthery? Yes, indeed. The Adam and Eve Story is a late Creation Myth. By the way . . .that snake? That would have to do with a Goddess who holds snakes in her hands. The Minoan Goddess on Crete would be a good example . . . a snake in each hand. Therefore the snake is in league with Eve . . . the early Christian Church had a problem with a woman being a diety.
Could you please clarify your dates for Gilgamesh and the Adam and Eve story? Wouldn’t the BCE dating you gave make Gilgamesh after the Adam and Eve story? 1800 BCE would be after the 6th and 5th century BCE.
1800 BCE is before 600 BCE
@@mormonstories Of course it is. My brain was thinking 6000 not 600. Thanks! Love your podcast!
I have a relative that claimed the Adam and Eve altar in the Garden of Eden was on his property. He gave all his 1000's of acres of land to JS and the church. JS felt bad and wrote him a check for $50.00 A copy of this is in My Family Search records
What is JS?
Some observations:
1. Even the Quran incorporates Christian heresies (contemporary to the hearing/ writing of it) in order to refute them. It's sad to think that if Mohammed (s) was more knowledgeable about orthodox Christian theology (again, as far as it was developed at that time), he might (heavy on the might) not have started Islam. I wonder if Joseph (the sponge) got into arguments with people of other religions (especially people who were mostly ignorant of the true theological underpinnings. Y'know, most people.), and used his ideas regarding those altercations in his "revelations."
2. As early as Saint Augustine, Catholic theologians believed Genesis was not meant to be taken as a literal history. Current Catholic teaching goes along with this, even while admitting that a literal Adam and Eve creates some minor issues with some later New Testament scriptural references (i.e. 1 Corinthians 15:22), and, obviously, the concept of original sin and what follows thereof.
3. Some people do believe that Lilith was Adam's first wife, and Eve was his second, so it's completely possible that Joseph came into contact with such an idea to boost his ideas about polygamy.
Does FAIR not defend the teaching that there was no death before the fall?
Yeah...those data points are like astrology and tarot cards.
Tons of people are likely to have those 4 data points - same can be done with horoscopes and blood type personality traits.
@LDS Discussions
No. Because everyone who believes in astrology and tarot cards say exactly the same thing - "That matched me perfectly."
Oh Adam and Eve were real, but they weren't the first humans, the authors of Genesis tried to hide that fact but left the part where Cain goes to the land of Nod to find a wife. And they definitely weren't here 6000 years ago but longer than that. But the fact that Brigham Young should NOT have known about any of that in the 1800s while being a murderous racist is the bone chilling revelation that made me think this Church is something very dark and sinister and cannot be from a loving God.
The book of Mormon does say one thing that blows me away still, and that's that prophets are homegrown in their own countries. How can God raise up just one man through whom he speaks? He did and that's jesus, but other than him God calls prophets in every nation. Why? Because think about how oppressive it gets when all of your culture has to be filtered through translation and cultural barriers? God wouldn't be able to effectively reach anyone. That disconnect of American exceptionalism occurs when Mormons ignore their own scripture. Unfortunately, the book of Mormon will never be a message unto itself, so that all things good virtuous and praiseworthy only should prove the church is true. All truth exists to prove Joseph Smith and his successors are prophets. That's how messed up the Mormon church is. So at the end of the day, I don't know what the hell I believe in as a member of the church.
Pronunciation: Enkidu (In-kee-Due), Shamhat (shahm-'aT)
Wrong.
I don’t understand, can you help? I don’t get what you said about Adam and Eve not being mentioned in the Old Testament… the story of Adam of Eve is in the first book - Genesis… right?
Yes, obviously they are there in genesis, the problem is that they don’t get mentioned by Old Testament writers anywhere after this point. As if they simply weren’t aware of this concept. It was mentioned that at other points in the Old Testament that some older people get mentioned by later writers, such as Abraham, Moses, or David, so referencing is a thing there, but not Adam. It’s basically a hint that the whole creation story was a later addition to the Old Testament, but placed at the front to try and look chronological. That’s the reasoning I took from Mike’s explanation in the video here.
The Epic of Gilgamesh was written on cuneiform tablets dating back to cir. 2,700 BCE. Anthropologist agree that the story was orally passed down prior to that date. The cuneiform tablets were not translated until the 1870’s by George Smith (no relation) in the British Museum. Joseph Smith would not have known of this book.
44:10 I keep hearing you guys say there is no Melchizedek priesthood in the Book of Mormon. I'm pretty sure Alma 13 is all about the Melchizedek priesthood, even naming it by name.
@LDS Discussions Melchizedek is Jesus, listen to what Jesus said ( John 8:56-58,) Genesis 14:18-19) this is what Jesus is talking about
Catholic Church does not take the Creation story as literal.
It's also difficult explaining to someone who sees the Bible as being a transliteral Book and then trying to explain to them that it's more like a compilation of myths, systems of thought, some basis of morals rendered to a specific culture's way of life, politics, and etc. Bible is more like a truncated time capsule than it is a history lesson, eventually people will insert their own wisdom to smooth out the influence exuded from the book. The Bible itself is a combination of 6-8 different main civilizations, each don't worship the same God. A few are monotheistic and quite a few others are polytheistic.
Older proto-Judaism didn't even worship a Monotheistic God. They borrowed from their surrounding environment and reshaped those references to make their own religion to fit their substance to ways of life and culture. Proto-Judaism borrowed off of Canaanite, Hittite, and a lot of their stories borrowed from Zoroastrianism.
From Zoroastrianism did you really get a God more like the God Christianity borrowed, refined, and embellished, Ahura Mazda - The God of Resurrection, Good conscience doing, etc + The concept of the Holy Ghost but it was compared to a flame that wells within & Angra Mainyu - The God of Plagues, Sickness, ill Doing etc The attributes that each God was tagged with, still are worshiped and reverenced by Christianity today. Some Mormonism tried to use some of this reference in the last 20 years, but they propagandize it to their own conspiracy/tall tale value to try to make other notions of the faith more valid.
They later evolved to more of a single deity, Elohim. But Elohim was more of a War God, Chieftain (More like the Greek God Jupiter), than a God people worship now as a 'Heavenly Father'. Then again in Judaism 'Tzedik' has many meanings and references back to the planet Jupiter as a sort of God/ symbol when Judaism believed in their own sense of astronomy/astrology more waaay back.
Bible gets a little weirder because Elyon El (Elohim) is worshipped more during that whole incident with the Ba'al (The God of thunder, sky, etc) sacrifice and dumping water on the altar in a compete for who's God is more superior. The God Ba'al is actually the same Belief System of the Canaanites as the God El (Elohim). The Israelites cherry picked their own God and their culture developed around that. If Canaanites saw the Israelites they would've seen them as being sorta hickish or a bit bruised for having their Gods being culturally appropriated. I wouldn't be surprised if conflict ensued over the years for the same reason and matter. One's people's Gods is no light matter, as it affects their politics and way of life. Yahweh and El eventually got merged by the Israelites as 2 Canaanite Gods to become one God to the the Israelites, but used the distinguish as a different Alias or Holy Name of God.
Also the Bible is not exactly the Bible per se, many books used to make up for the Bible, but quite a few of those books were very looney and too mythical. Others made up the Apocrypha and other compiled works. Also the Bible even the KJ Bible doesn't have the Books in order of its own conception from time. Christians and Mormons do the same thing, they presume everything is by some sort of chronological order. It's not. A few books are not even from cultural dialogue but exoteric groups trying to perceive their own kind and politics boiled down to a mystical belief of some whimsical conclusion to imagination or some more like 'hedging bets'.
The Bible is nearly hogwash if the reader doesn't know the people it came from along with not knowing their culture, their politics, their socio-economic issues, and the direction of their mind to why they think a certain way etc. However a Christian or other religion will read the Bible as how they will interpret and pull from their imagination to believe one is more 'holy' or more right. The thing with imagination or empowered imagination, is one's Ego will always make someone right, even if they are a imaginative, bias to their own supposal to collect, or if they are a lunatic. There are some wisdoms in the Bible, but not all wisdoms apply to people and some wisdoms just don't work as one's life may be differing from the norm from such a time point.
People are somewhat predictable with their habits and same behavioral probability to causality to behave a certain way, but to pull something even more from meaning is still whimsical at best. One can proport one's imagination into ideological dialogue to make it convey grater meaning, but it's more like a roll of the dice than it is likely. I wish the Bible did a better job at keeping better mental bookmarks and challenging the reader/populous to shape their own causality with better strength, courage, and fortitude rather than always look for a Doomsday finality.
The so called LDS prophets made up belief and practice according to personal whim. Anyone who buys into LDS religious belief and practice is seriously deluded.
Jessy Lee Peterson's podcast, and John DeLorean podcast on this issue . I'll come on with the peer reviewed science. Don't worry I'll make the connections.
NOT
💚
I enjoy listing to your discussions. I have been perplexed at how many former Mormons are now atheist. I am a bible believer and believer in God. I was surprised at how strongly the Theory of evolution is promoted, it is a THEORY and not a good one. There are a lot of problems with it. There are also a lot of bible evidences that are discounted. anyway, do you have a forum that allows for civil rebuttal?
Do you know what a theory is? In the scientific world it has a different definition than the casual use. In science it is a well established explanation of all the facts and experiments of a scientific principle and nothing becomes a theory until there is a lot of proof to support the idea over any other explanation. Saying something is "just" a theory shows you are using the word as the casual use which is more like a scientific hypothesis. We never assign something as a theory unless we are pretty sure it is right.
Also, the theory of evolution is one of our most confident theories with so much evidence and ability to predict what we should find that it is doubtful we will find any evidence to overthrow it.
Sweetheart, take a breath! I love your information, but you talk at warp speed. Please SLOW DOWN for us proles who want to process. Xoxo
30 min 57-sec D&A 137:5 : " Je vis notre Père Adam, et Abraham ..." Joseph ne mentionne pas Michel.
I am offended, sir! I am offended that you would put Harry Potter on the same level with Tolkien. 😁
Stop saying “that’s offensive” it’s not. They get to offend all of us but we can’t do it to them, Fuck that. Eye for and eye 🤣🤣
Is he saying the Adam and eve in Bible is mythical just a story or myth and not real ?
Yes that's correct
@39:15 ONDI-AHMAN
Ondi-Ahman, the fabled Adamic Language is no more than early Canaanite. That Ancient Language Book Joseph Smith used to 'win' authority and mysticism points with his followers worked, but it's another total anachronism. The church builds 'their own language' to assume they know the language, but it's all chicken scratch. Ondi-Ahman , supposedly not known to be translatable as claimed by the Church... in Canaanite is 'On high, Throne' or 'Throne of the On high' Those titles were given to ancient province lords... I can't remember the exact dynasty off the top of my head, it's one of the first 4 rulers or so toward the beginning of the Canaanites.
Adam-Ondi-Ahman would've translated to 'Adam who sits on his throne on high'.
The Church's devotion and worship of the Adamic language is also a bit nuts. I've seen people throw away their ENTIRE lives or have their life in complete devotion to the church's imagination engines to suppose this language was a holy language spoken by God in the garden and from Adam to Noah. This language was used, but it wasn't a holy language, this was a people and they were certainly not Adamic.
People still worship the Adamic language to this day in the temple. They worship that as like a manifestation of attaining Godhood or hoping to speak in tongues and speak prophecy.
The OLD 'Mormon Doctrine' (The one, that was as thick as the novel Dune) , explained Sons Ahman, Ahman, and his thoughts of what Ahman was as to the nature of God. That was all to McConkie's imaginative reach / I suppose you can call revelation. But, in reality, had known that Ahman just meant the word Throne, I'm sure his 'years of work' explanation would've changed very fast.
The church had used Adam-Ondi-Ahman in association with the Abraham facsimile like they are both related to the Adamic language. This is lunacy comparing or attributing both to each other... Trying to connect Ancient Egypt to Canaanite from two different time periods. It would be like comparing Navajo with Aztec and say that both are related because they are from the same general region and you call them Native Americans.
And then they are 2 different separate cultures from different time periods and their politics were separate in themselves. Ouch. If anything one would be hyping it's ancient, but when down to reality, one shows their complete moron side to come out and people believe it anyways because of the authority that is being implied (sadly this reminds me a lot of how our dumber, flakey, and impulsive US populations works).
Brigham Young supposedly embellished the fable of the Adamic language and used the name Ein Sof (In Brigham Young Discourses) to claim that was the true name of Elohim, his followers believed in him more for it.
However Ein Sof, is a bit anachronistic and misapplied. Ein Sof was more of a Kabbalist name to describe God and the essence of God than is it a name. Of course Mormonism and LDS would believe otherwise as their leader postured it a different way and with their self righteousness, they believe that they are more right than the culture that uses and conceives those concepts. It's comical. Like a game of ego to prove self-right, when one is really out in the middle of no where and haven't got a clue with the groups they cherry pick from, only to assume one can invent or claim to create a God.
I think what won Brigham Young more approval for his spirituality to be comparable to Joseph Smith, was when he invented that infernal code of wingdings that he called the language of Deseret. No grammar structures, just a complete replace of English alphabet for his own symbols. He certainly had his own ego waaay up there.
@45:00 The invention of the Priesthood is messy.
It's pretty much an invention with 4-5 different revisions in Kirtland and playing around with theories of roles (Borrowing from the structure and role from Jewish Mystiscm/ Kabbalism - Where he got Elder, High Priest, how they function, quite a few other offices), including dividing out the Priesthood of Jacob and the Priesthood of Enoch on a few. This was about the same time Joseph Smith turned his movement and side hobby in a full fledged religion independent in its own divine power and Priesthood autonomy. (Joseph Smith was attending the Presbateryian faith more with his wife before this divide. His Church of Christ was more of a side project/side show money scheme before then like a traveling preacher)
Then the church later revises the Priesthood in the future (Date unknown, but it appears there are chunks edited and removed from Church history. History jumps around very oddly like a few pages were ripped out.. Local missionary claims that the Priesthood came directly from God until that regional belief became its own fable, which later became a collective assumption of authority in that fable. With the strong notion of belief there, the church revised their own history and appeased their followers to the 'revealed' belief of being bestowed the Priesthood to its respective beliefs now: the Aaronic from John the Baptist & the Melizedick from Peter, James, & John.
Apologetics are wet sand in a dry fit stone foundation for faith.
How can Adam be rhe original polygamist, if it was only he and Eve?
At about minute 54 where it says Jesus is Father Adam's the only begotten of the flesh... in that case where exactly did Cain and Abel and presumably the numerous others of Adam and Eve's children come from, especially considering he was the only man in existence to impregnate her? 😅