I forgot to announce that, after 10 days (April 8-18), my blog was reinstated after some people reported this blog as a “spam blog” (showing they cannot meaningfully respond to anything I have written against their Satanic Protestant theology).
Anyway, for those who wish to support this blog (and
my youtube channel), you can do so via:
Paypal and also
The Bible Dictionary
article on flesh and other sources list several scriptures that equate flesh
to mortality. This interpretation makes sense in most cases. Furthermore, Adam
was not the first physical creature; all the animals were created first . . .
So, Moses 3:7 likely does not mean that Adam was the first physical creature,
and therefore, Adam could really be the first mortal creature. “Flesh” as “mortal”
was the [sic] also interpretation of a committee of apostles who reviewed Elder
B. H. Roberts’ 1930’s era manuscript, The Truth, The Way, the Life,
which was not published in his lifetime, but is now available.
The committee, chaired
by George Albert Smith, also included David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith,
Stephen L. Richards, and Melvin J. Ballard. They were concerned about strange
ideas in the book such as pre-Adamites, and Roberts’ understanding of the word replenish
to mean repopulate—he thought the earth had been populated before Adam, but the
population was wiped out by some cataclysm. (B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the
Way, The Life [Smith Research Associates], 332-333) Of relevance here, the
committee also expressed their view of the term flesh and of Adam being
the “first flesh”:
As we understand it
the phrase “first flesh also,” does not have a reference to Adam as being the
first living creature of the creation on the earth, but that he, through the “fall”
because the first “flesh,” or mortal soul. The term “flesh” in reference to
mortal existence is of common usage. We find it so used in the scriptures. Adam
having partaken of the fruit became mortal and subject to death, which was not
the condition until that time. We are taught in the Temple as well as in the
scriptures that man was the last creation placed upon the earth, before death
was introduced. Adam was the first to partake of the change and to become
subject to the flesh. This is the view expressed by President Joseph F. Smith
and President Anthon H. Lund.” [They then presented several scriptures in which
flesh means mortal.] (B. H. Roberts, The Truth, The
Way, The Life [Smith Research Associates], 664)
However, God’s body,
as well as our future resurrected bodies, are also described as “flesh and bone”
(Luke 24:39; D&C 129:1-2; 130:22). So not all uses of flesh mean
mortality. Flesh can mean mortal, but it can also just mean physical.
While acknowledging this, Robert J. Matthews . . . reasons that flesh in
Moses 3:7 must mean mortal because most flesh scriptures use it that
way. (Robert J. Matthews, “The Fall of Man,” in Joseph Fielding McConkie and
Robert L. Millet eds., The Man Adam, p. 48)
The context of Moses
3:5-7 is clearly Adam’s initial physical creation, contrasted with his earlier
spirit creation. Look at verse 5: “And I, the Lord God, had created all the children
of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them.” To
me, that means our pre-earth existence. Continuing, “and there was not yet
flesh upon the earth . . .” SO here flesh would mean physical bodies, as
opposed to our pre-earth existence. Furthermore, as the Lord had been talking
about the “children of men” and “man,” one might suppose that by flesh,
he means physical humans, as opposed to all life forms. The word could apply to
animals as well, but this scripture references humans. And then, in verse 7,
Adam’s physical creation is described. Whereas others have interpreted “the
first flesh upon the earth” To mean the first mortal, verse 7 doesn’t reference
the fall, but rather, Adam’s physical creation. If we keep the interpretation
of flesh in verse 7 that we saw in verse 5—physical humans—then Adam is
the first physical human, and the first man also; he is male. This
interpretation, then, says nothing about if there were other mortal animals
(or plants) on the planet. I’m not necessarily arguing that there were; I’m
only saying that this interpretation, which is reasonable and internally
consistent, does not rule them out. I agree that most of the uses of flesh in
the scriptures means mortal, but the context here may make it an exception. Context
matters.
I admit that the rain
issue in verses 5-6 is enigmatic to me. Elder McConkie argued that rain was
necessary for mortal life, and that therefore this scripture is about entering
mortality. It seems, however, that there must have been rain before any rivers
or streams existed, so perhaps these verses about rain are out of order; we’ve
already seen that the order of events in Moses and Abraham differs slightly.
(As a precedent for incorrect scriptural chronology, the story about the saints
resurrecting just after Christ’s resurrection is placed non-chronologically in
our New Testament record).
To be fair, if we
admit that some scriptures are written out of chronological order, then perhaps
calling Adam the “first flesh” in Moses 3:7 might still refer to his fall to
mortality, even though it is placed in the context of his initial physical
creation rather than his fall.
One other scripture is
used to show that Adam was the first mortal—not just the first mortal man, but
the first mortal among all of God’s creatures, both animals and plants:
And he said unto
them: Because that Adam fell, we are; and by his fall came death; and we
are made partakers of misery and woe . . . That by reason of transgression
cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death. (Moses 6:48, 59, italics
mine).
But this scripture doesn’t
specify if death means all death, or only human death, or whether it
applies to life outside of the garden. Alma 42:9, which often comes up in
discussion of the fall and its effects, applies to mankind only. (“The fall had
brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal.”
Italics mine.) In conclusion, a case can be made that “first flesh” means “first
mortal,” but the context may favor interpreting “first flesh” as “first
physical human.” If so, this removes the major argument against death and
reproduction before Adam’s fall. (Richard D. Gardner, “Who is the Holy Ghost? The
Adam/Michael Hypothesis Compared with the Conventional Stance,” in Who is
the Holy Ghost? [Eborn Books, 2024], 112-14)
The Holy Ghost
Is Probably a Spirit Son of Our Heavenly Father
There is,
unfortunately, no official doctrine as to the origin of the Holy Ghost, and
precious little unofficially spoken on the subject by Church leaders, although
it is thought by some noted Latter-day Saints (such as Joseph Fielding McConkie
[Joseph Fielding McConkie, “Holy Ghost” in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism])
that the Holy Ghost is a son of our Heavenly Father.
The most direct
Church-leader statement that I can find on the subject . . . is from Heber C. Kimball:
The Spirit that is on
me this morning is the Spirit of the Lord; it is the Holy Ghost, although some
of you may not think that the Holy Ghost is ever cheerful. Well, let me tell
you, the Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our
God; and he is that man that stood next to Jesus Christ, just as I stand by
brother Brigham. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:179 [August
23, 1857])
In another
non-official source, Elder Bruce R. McConkie apparently implied that all
spirits associated with Heavenly Father’s realm are His spirit offspring:
Jehovah and Michael are
both spirit children of Elohim. They are both, therefore, along with all the
spirit hosts of heaven, subject to Him whose offspring they are. (I obtained
this quotation—which I cannot independently verify—from an Interpreter blog
post about Elder McConkie’s comments [some in private letters] on the Adam-God
theory. https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog-elder-bruce-r-mcconkie-and-the-adam-god-theory-part-2/)
It is felt by many
that the Holy Ghost is a son of our Heavenly Father (as opposed to, say, the
son of another exalted being), and I agree that this conclusion is most
consistent with our knowledge of Heavenly Father and His plan, . . . (Richard
D. Gardner, “Who is the Holy Ghost? The Adam/Michael Hypothesis Compared with
the Conventional Stance,” in Who is the Holy Ghost? [Eborn Books, 2024],
25)
Could the Holy Ghost
be not a spirit son of our God? Perhaps He is a spirit son of another God.
But I disfavor this because it implies that a god is assigned to this earth who
really belongs to another earth, and it seems odd for Heavenly Father to
require the assistance of a god from another realm. What about the theory—based
on Franklin Richards’ transcription of a Joseph Smith speech—that the Holy
Ghost is preparing to be the savior of another plant? Our Savior was God’s firstborn;
but this theory would mean that another savior is not, unless he was the firstborn
of another “set” of offspring—perhaps each earth has its own “firstborn.” These
ideas leads to questions of how many planets is Christ the Savior of, which is
beyond the scope of this essay—except to say that D&C 76:23-24 suggests
that Christ is the Savior of other worlds, but Brigham Young thought that each
earth had its own firstborn-Savior—and if Young was correct, it is hard to see
how the Holy Ghost could yet be a savior:
Every world has had
an Adam and an Eve, named so simply because the first man is always called Adam
and the first woman, Eve. And the oldest son has always had the privilege of
being ordained, appointed and called to be the heir of the family if he does
not rebel against the Father, and he is the Savior of the family. Every world
that has been created has been created upon the same principle.
Brigham Young, “For This
Is Life Eternal,” in Elden Watson (editor), Brigham Young Addresses 1982),
2:230 . . . But if our Holy Ghost is to become the savior of another world,
then He would become associated with that earth, not ours, which may contradict
his assignment to minister to the inhabitants of this earth who are destined for
the telestial kingdom. It strikes me as odd that He may perform both roles, but
it is formally possible. (Ibid., 52-53 n. a)
1. But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten
by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of
death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor
receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: "If the Son
shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed." But, being ignorant of Him
who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is
eternal life; and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal
flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom
the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: "I said, Ye are all the
sons of the Highest, and gods; but ye shall die like men." He speaks
undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption,
but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God,
defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to
the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the
Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man,
that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might
become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to
incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility
and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and
immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that
which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by
incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the
adoption of sons?
2. For this reason [it is, said], "Who shall declare His
generation?" since "He is a man, and who shall recognise Him?"
But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so
that he understands that He who "was not born either by the will of the
flesh, or by the will of man," is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son
of the living God. For I have shown from the Scriptures,5 that no one of the
sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord.
But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God,
and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the
prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have
attained to even a small portion of the truth. Now, the Scriptures would not
have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.
But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is
from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation
which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of
Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that
He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall;
that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and
that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in
appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men;--all
these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.
3. But who is it that has had fellowship with us in the matter of food?
Whether is it he who is conceived of by them as the Christ above, who extended
himself through Horos, and imparted a form to their mother; or is it He who is
from the Virgin, Emmanuel, who did eat butter and honey, of whom the prophet
declared, "He is also a man, and who shall know him?" He was
likewise preached by Paul: "For I delivered," he says, "unto you
first of all, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; and
that He was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the
Scriptures." It is plain, then, that Paul knew no other Christ besides Him
alone, who both suffered, and was buried, and rose gain, who was also born, and
whom he speaks of as man. For after remarking, "But if Christ be preached,
that He rose from the dead," he continues, rendering the reason of His
incarnation, "For since by man came death, by man [came] also the
resurrection of the dead." And everywhere, when [referring to] the passion
of our Lord, and to His human nature, and His subjection to death, he employs
the name of Christ, as in that passage: "Destroy not him with thy meat for
whom Christ died." And again: "But now, in Christ, ye who sometimes
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." And again:
"Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for
us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree." And
again: "And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
Christ died; indicating that the impassible Christ did not descend upon Jesus,
but that He Himself, because He was Jesus Christ, suffered for us; He, who lay
in the tomb, and rose again, who descended and ascended,--the Son of God having
been made the Son of man, as the very name itself doth declare. For in the name
of Christ is implied, He that anoints, He that is anointed, and the unction
itself with which He is anointed. And it is the Father who anoints, but the Son
who is anointed by the Spirit, who is the unction, as the Word declares by
Isaiah, "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed
me,"--pointing out both the anointing Father, the anointed Son, and the
unction, which is the Spirit. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.18.1-3 [ANF 1:445-46])
11. For some of them, beholding Him in glory, saw His glorious life
(conversationem) at the Father's right hand; others beheld Him coming on the
clouds as the Son of man; and those who declared regarding Him, "They
shall look on Him whom they have pierced," indicated His [second] advent,
concerning which He Himself says, "Thinkest thou that when the Son of man
cometh, He shall find faith on the earth?" Paul also refers to this event
when he says, "If, however, it is a righteous thing with God to recompense
tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you that are troubled rest with
us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven, with His mighty angels,
and in a flame of fire." Others again, speaking of Him as a judge, and
[referring], as if it were a burning furnace, [to] the day of the Lord, who
"gathers the wheat into His barn, but will burn up the chaff with
unquenchable fire," were accustomed to threaten those who were
unbelieving, concerning whom also the Lord Himself declares, "Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, which my Father has prepared for the
devil and his angels." And the apostle in like manner says [of them],
"Who shall be punished with everlasting death from the face of the Lord,
and from the glory of His power, when He shall come to be glorified in His
saints, and to be admired in those who believe in Him." There are also
some [of them] who declare, "Thou art fairer than the children of
men;" and, "God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness
above Thy fellows;" and, "Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O Most
Mighty, with Thy beauty and Thy fairness, and go forward and proceed
prosperously; and rule Thou because of truth, and meekness, and
righteousness." And whatever other things of a like nature are spoken
regarding Him, these indicated that beauty and splendour which exist in His
kingdom, along with the transcendent and pre-eminent exaltation [belonging] to
all who are under His sway, that those who hear might desire to be found there,
doing such things as are pleasing to God. Again, there are those who say,
"He is a man, and who shall know him?" and, "I came unto the
prophetess, and she bare a son, and His name is called Wonderful, Counsellor,
the Mighty God;" and those [of them] who proclaimed Him as Immanuel,
[born] of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own
workmanship, [declaring] that the Word should become flesh, and the Son of God
the Son of man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb which regenerates
men unto God, and which He Himself made pure); and having become this which we
also are, He [nevertheless] is the Mighty God, and possesses a generation which
cannot be declared. And there are also some of them who say, "The Lord
hath spoken in Zion, and uttered His voice from Jerusalem;" and, "In
Judah is God known;"-- these indicated His advent which took place in
Judea. Those, again, who declare that "God comes from the south, and from
a mountain thick with foliage," announced His advent at Bethlehem, as I
have pointed out in the preceding book. From that place, also, He who rules,
and who feeds the people of His Father, has come. Those, again, who declare
that at His coming "the lame man shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of
the dumb shall [speak] plainly, and the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and
the ears of the deaf shall hear," and that "the hands which hang
down, and the feeble knees, shall be strengthened," and that "the
dead which are in the grave shall arise," and that He Himself "shall
take [upon Him] our weaknesses, and bear our sorrows,"-- [all these]
proclaimed those works of healing which were accomplished by Him. (Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, 4.33.11 [ANF 1:509-10])
In a note in the Schaff set, we read the following
note concerning the use of Jer 17:9:
Harvey here remarks: "The LXX.
read אֱנֹושׁ
instead of אָנֹושׁ.
Thus, from a text that teaches us that the heart is deceitful above all
things, the Fathers extract a proof of the manhood of Christ."
He is not undone, he says, but revolves as it were, and goes round
himself. Moreover, also, cities in which we dwell, because we turn and go round
in them, are denominated “Poleis.” In
this manner, he says, the Phrygians call this one “Aipolis,” inasmuch as he
everywhere ceaselessly turns all things, and changes them into their own
peculiar (functions). And the Phrygians style him, he says, “very fruitful”
likewise, “because,” says he, “more numerous are the children of the desolate
one, than those of her which hath an husband;” that is, things by being born
again become immortal and abide for ever in great numbers, even though the
things that are produced may be few; whereas things carnal, he says, are all
corruptible, even though very many things (of this type) are produced. For this
reason, he says, “Rachel wept for her children, and would not,” says (the
prophet), “be comforted; sorrowing for them, for she knew,” says he, “that they
are not.” But Jeremiah likewise utters lamentation for Jerusalem below, not the
city in Phœnicia, but the corruptible generation below. For Jeremiah likewise,
he says, was aware of the Perfect Man, of him that is born again—of water and
the Spirit not carnal. At least Jeremiah himself remarked: “He is a man, and
who shall know him?” In this manner, (the Naassene) says, the knowledge of
the Perfect Man is exceedingly profound, and difficult of comprehension. For,
he says, the beginning of perfection is a knowledge of man, whereas knowledge
of God is absolute perfection. (Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies Book
5, chapter 3 [ANF 5:55])
17:9–10: The heart of all is perverse and inscrutable; who can understand it? “I the Lord search
the mind and try the heart, to give to everyone according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his doings.” lxx:
“Deep
is the heart beyond all things, and it is man; who can understand him?” And the
rest similarly.
The Hebrew
word enos is written with four
letters, aleph, nun, vav and sin. If it is read enos, it means “man,” but if it is read anus, it means “inscrutable” or “incurable,” with the sense that no
one is able to comprehend the human heart—although Symmachus interpreted the
passage thus: “Inscrutable is the heart of all; what man is there who could
comprehend it?” We [Christians] are accustomed—with good intention, to be sure,
but not according to knowledge—to use this passage against the Jews, to the
effect that the Lord and Savior is a man according to his assumed flesh, and
that none can understand the mystery of his nativity (as it is written: “Who
will describe his generation?”) except God alone, who searches out hidden
things and renders to each one according to his works.
It is
better, however, that we simply understand that no one knows a person’s secret
thoughts except God alone; for earlier he said, “Cursed is the man who has hope
in man,” and its opposite, “Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord.” And so,
lest we think that human judgment is trustworthy, he adds that the hearts of
almost all people are corrupt, as the psalmist says: “Cleanse me from my hidden
(things), and spare your servant from the (things) of others”—no doubt he means
“thoughts.” And in Genesis it says, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of
humanity was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of
his heart was only evil continually.” And again, “for the mind and thought of
the human heart is evil from his youth.” From this we learn that only God knows
their thoughts.
But if it
is said concerning the Savior, “But Jesus, seeing their thoughts …” and if no
one can see someone’s thoughts except God alone, then Christ is God, who
searches the mind and tries the heart, and renders to every person according to
his works. (Jerome, Commentary
on Jeremiah [trans. Michael Graves; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP Academic, 2011], 107)
In v. 9 the MT אנש has been pointed to mean "dangerously
sick", but in the LXX it has been pointed to mean "man". In both
cases the root is written אנש, but the root in the first case means "to be
evil, to be deadly", while the root in the second case means "to be
strong". In the MT the sentence reads thus, "The heart - -
desperately sick", but in the LXX it is "The Heart - - - (it is) the
man." The meaning is a little changed in v. 16, and the words are slightly
different although they are from the same roots as those given above. The MT
reads, "neither have I desired the woeful (אנוש) day", and the LXX
reads, "neither have I desired the day of man" (אנוש). In neither of
these examples is the LXX preferable, although in the second example the
meaning of the two texts is very similar. The "day of man" would
refer to the judgment day, a "woeful" day. In these two cases the
translator chose the more frequently used meaning of the word, but he was in
error. (David C. Pellett, "A
Critical Study of Scribal Errors in the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of the
Septuagint" [MA Thesis; Butler University, 1937], 24-25)