ANSWER TO A QUESTION ON THE ADAM-GOD THEORY

I thought this was quite timely from a blog reader:

Jennifer - does it make sense in ANY context of what you know?  It does not even begin to make sense to me in any way.  The next question is: Did BY ever say other ridiculous things along the same lines - was there a pattern, in other words?  I am not aware of too much along those lines - and the stuff he did say I always felt pretty strongly about (it resonated with me).  So, there are two possibilities - since I believe you can find reference to the A/G theory in the JoD.  He was either misquoted in the JoD, or he was fronting a theory as it purports to be in the JoD.  A theory - and a theory is something to be stated, then tested and then either thrown out, or proven true and embraced.  When it comes to Adam being God, we all know that is crap.  Adam had a body that died so far as we know.  God is a resurrected being - perfect and not subject to death.  So, that means that wherever that came from or whatever it is, is complete bunk.  Simple as that.  Any time I read that, it was alot like Denver Snuffer's stuff that started to not be sweet to me - and I dismissed it and then finally dismissed it's source when he was X'd for teaching false doctrine and pulled many people away.

Same thing with the bunk my wife got hung up on with Joseph Smith's many wives (and sex outside of his marriage to these women with the supposed children that supposedly came of those unions).  That article on DNA evidence I had in my blog that debunked all of those rumors and "authoritative" witnesses that swore they caught him in many liaisons other than Emma - were false.  So, if it does not fit with the character of the person, I usually throw it out.  This is what is hanging many people up with Joseph Smith - because he was (while alive - in the thousands, post-humously) sealed to at least 39 women (one or two already married for time to another man - polyandry) and one 14 year old young woman.  But I know almost with a certainty that he was not rolling in the hay with all of them.  It was a sealing - and was not used as an excuse to have multiple women sexually.  Most likely NONE of them - other than Emma.  So, I throw it out or hold judgment on it until there are multiple witnesses that are irrefutable.  I have been falsely accused (the latest one going around is that I have kidnapped my family against their will and taken them to Canada and not "giving them permission" to cross the border back into the USA and that I am "withholding the internet" from them so that they cannot get help in this supposed dystopian hell they are in.  I considered the source - a perpetual drunk and pot smoker and actually thought it was kind of funny considering the source (I found all this stuff on an ex-mo site, of all places when I looked into the source of all the vitriolic comments on the blog on my google analytics).  Um, hello.  Mary jane is known to cause paranoia.....  Might want to lay off of it, folks.......

Another example that illustrates the opposite spectrum, there is someone I know who was not exactly a "chaste" person in their life, to the point she was forced to get married to her second husband when a child was on the way unexpectedly.  When I heard from her former best friend (college buddy), that she had fooled around with a BYU professor after her first husband passed away, I was kind of surprised (I had never heard of a BYU professor being unfaithful like that before at that point) - but then began to not doubt that report in any way as there was a mountain of evidence throughout her life of out-of-the-bounds of marriage liaisons that still continue to this day (live-in boyfriends,etc and so much else I dare not get into right now).  Instead of dismissing the testimony of her former best friend, I took it with a grain of salt and kind of held onto it for some time until the truth became apparent.  Time proved that her college buddy was most likely NOT making stuff up.  The other thing that kind of nailed it with me, was she was wont to accuse people of doing things that they were not doing (including the big one - adultery).  So yeah, consider the source (once again).

On the flip side of that, I know of a person who has thought in times past that her husband had molested all of her girls, thought he had engaged in multiple affairs including one with a male during her marriage to him - and so much else.  To the point, that some people actually believed that she was married to a real "winner" and, in one case, had the Bishop of their ward calling him out over some of it.  Over time, all those allegations proved completely false.  When it had been declared there was fire, there was not even smoke.  So yeah, I take a LOT of stuff with a grain of salt - and let time take it's course.  As hard as that can be sometimes to do.

There was yet another case where a father was accused by a daughter of having an affair because she saw him coming out of work with a co-worker around 10pm at night and they were laughing and carrying on as they went to their cars (and then I think of the number of times I have walked married women - and singles - to their cars after dark when I worked for Customer Services in an area known for car prowls and worse and what someone who is actually guilty of the same things they might accuse people of, might have observed and thought...).  Mind you, this father was not kissing or doing anything unbecoming.  Further, this person was at this father's place of employment over three hours away from her home.  Stalking daddy that far away from home??  I questioned that weird detail.  Digging in a little further and found out from her mother that she had been promiscuous as a 20-something and became pregnant, having to abort the baby.  So this person, who did NOT keep the Law of Chastity like she knew she should have, accusing while there was nothing to support any kind of actual relations outside that man's marriage.  So, I consider the source - in EVERYTHING.  If the source has been trashy or suspect in any way, I start assigning confidence factors that weight their opinion or story lower or higher.  And then I just wait and watch.  There is a reason integrity is EVERYTHING.  Once you have it in lesser and lesser quantities, everything you do and say becomes less and less, to the point of nothingness, in some cases.  And I know people who I give a zero to, as far as confidence factor goes.  Anything times zero, is zero - if I am doing my math correctly......

In the battle between good and evil, those who cling to evil will attempt to tear down those who attempt to hold up what is good and right, as the standard.  Thus, recently finding out the caliber of those in the ex-mo movement just seals the deal for me.  Mostly wandering, miserable people who want to try to destroy what is good and holy - and repentance is the only way out for them.  Deep, sincere repentance.

So, yes.  Test it.  Weigh it.  Wait on it.  The answer usually sifts out over time.  One way, or the other.

Just my 0.02.  Iraq

PS - hope you don't mind putting your question in my blog.  It is quite timely.