Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

demmick

OH NO! The Adam/God Theory Returns!

Recommended Posts

Drewm77 thanks for the qoute.

After reading this talk through, I disagree that Brigham Young teaches that Adam is God, our Heavenly Father.

In several paragraphs Brigham Young recognizes Adam and our Heavenly Father as seperate:

"But when you speak of the system of salvation to bring back the children of Adam and Eve into the presence of our Father and God, it is the same in all ages, among all people, and under all circumstances, worlds without end. Amen."

"Elohim looked around upon the eternity of matter, and said to his associates, and those that he was pleased to call upon at that time for his counselors, with regard to the elements, worlds, planets, kingdoms and thrones; said he, "Yahovah Michael, see that eternal matter on all sides, this way and that way; we have already created worlds upon worlds, shall we create another world? Yes, go and organize the elements yonder in space..."

"When Christ has finished his labor and presented it to his father, then he, Adam, will receive a fullness."

There are also many statments that support that Brigham Young taught Adam was our Heavenly Father:

1. "I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits."

2. "You may add these words to it, or let it alone, it is all the same to me, that he is not only the Father or our spirits, but also of our flesh, he being the founder of that natural machinery through which we have all obtained our bodies."

3. "I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial kingdom they were crowed with glory, immortality, and eternal lives, with thrones, principalities, and powers: and it was said to him it is your right to organize the elements; and to your creations and posterity there shall be no end, but you shall add kingdom to kingdom, and throne to throne; and still behold that vast eternity of unorganized matter. Adam then, was a resurrected being; and I reckon, our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve."

4. "Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he, with his wife Eve, partook of the fruit of this earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children."

Why does Brigham Young contradict himself in this talk? I challenge that he does not.

First of all, this talk is chiefly about the Gods of eternity. Brigham Young is trying to teach the doctrine of a pluralty of Gods. He says that every world began with an Adam and Eve, those being the titles for the first man and women throughout eternity. He is teaching that there was no beginning to Gods, and no end. He is teaching the cycle of Godhood.

1. He begins by identifying a Father that commands him, Adam, to organize the earth and put living things upon it. He says that Adam is the Father of our spirits. I believe Brigham Young is saying that Adam is the earthly father of our spirits. Meaning he begat the bodies that the spirits will inhabit. That is very inline with church doctrine.

2. When Brigham refers to Father being the father of our spirits and the flesh, he says "he being the founder of that natural machinery through which we have all obtained our bodies." I believe Brigham is not referring to Adam, but is referring to Heavenly Father. Because he commanded Adam to organize the earth and begin to have children so he can send his spirit children to these bodies, Heavenly Father is in effect the "founder of our bodies".

3. While the teachings that Adam was a ressurected being are quite confusing, I do not believe Brigham is teaching Adam is our Heavenly Father. Brigham is teaching the promises given to Adam if he remained faithful. He is teaching that eventually Adam will "add kingdom to kingdom, and throne to throne; and still behold that vast eternity of unorganized matter." He is teaching the cycle of Godhood. He is teaching that the spirits of Heavenly Father were begotten in mortality through Adam and Eve.

4. Again, Brigham Young refers to "their spiritual children" because by birth Heavenly Fathers children become Adam and Eves posterity and children.

Now this is my interpretation and assumption. But my main support for this is because if Brigham was truly teaching Adam was God, our Heavenly Father, in this discourse, he would be contradicting himself within that same discourse.

Share this post


Link to post

I love this topic just for the fact that there have been a dozen different interpretations of it. Everyone has their own theories. The question is, which one is right? Hmm......

Share this post


Link to post

livy111us-

I don't think we will know in this life :P

Share this post


Link to post

One thing that troubles me is a lot of the qoutes I am reading from previous posts highlight the disagreement between President Young and Orson Hyde. The reader is led to believe this disagreement was over the Adam-God theory. But it appears that is not entirely correct:

"Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth, and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness & unbelief in what President Young said that will destroy him if he does not repent & turn from his evil ways. For when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel & tries to lead the prophet-- he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling."

-Journal of Wilford Woodruff; March 11, 1856.

Also a lot of the journal entries are incorrect in trying to quote what Brigham Young said.

example: "An Adam & Eve is necesary for evry world The oldest Son, if faithful, is the Saviour of the family--There are Lords many & Gods many But the God that we have to account to, is the father of our Spirits--Adam. All the inhabitance of the Earth are made of one flesh- whither they are black-white-blue or streaked."

When Brigham Young made this reference to gods many and lords many and that every world has a Adam and Eve, he mention Adam being the Father of our spirits until much later in the talk.

Would it be possible that the Brethren and much of the membership misunderstood Brigham Young?

Share this post


Link to post
I know that I am opening up a can of worms with this question. ...

I see you certainly DO like worms alot. :P<_<

Aren't there other more useful ways to spend your time? Brigham Young is dead, died in 1877

Share this post


Link to post
He [brigham Young] often admonished the Saints not to accept everything that the leaders of the church taught, ...

What are some sources for this?

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree. It is no more a waste of time than any study of early church doctrine. It has been beaten like a dead horse, but I don't consider it a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
I also wonder if this discourse was recorded correctly.

Joseph Field Smith wondered this too. See doctrines of salvation somewhere. I can't remember the reference exactly.

I will stay open-minded when reading these posts, but so far it is my opinion that this doctrine is the result of:

1. Misunderstanding of the word Father and God is LDS theology

2. Critics using semantics.

3. Discourses not accurately recorded by historians.

Thanks for your input,

I would add a number 4:

4. Brigham Young spoke without notes. He could have often thought he said one thing, and really said another.

(I do this all the time, and it happens with EVERYBODY)(Last night at our family dinner I was calling my sister by my wifes name. I had been doing that for at least 15 minutes before she corrected me. How funny)

A very wise Calculus professor I had for one summer would make mistakes on the chalk board while demonstrating some math principles of the simplest sort. When correct he would say:

I think one thing,

I say another thing,

and my hand writes another thing!

Everyone in the class laughed at this true piece of wisdom.

When rapid anti-mormons trot out these quotes, I am left to think that they have no humanity to realize number 4.

Awful will be their state when Jesus applies the same type of judgment they so mercilessly passed out on others.

Share this post


Link to post
I disagree. It is no more a waste of time than any study of early church doctrine. It has been beaten like a dead horse, but I don't consider it a waste of time.

Okay Okay, you're right, I retract that statement. :P

Share this post


Link to post

In November, I pulled a lengthy thread from I believe the Doctrinal Stew Archives that took place on the Fair Message Board in Jan/Feb 1999 (posted by Wild Bill Hickman on Jan 30, 1999 and Clark) that addresses various aspects of the A-G theory and whether Brigham taught this principle... "but if you accept the two Adam reading of Brigham's comments then there are lots of comments... There was a heavenly Adam and then an earthly Adam. The heavenly Adam was God the Father. The earthly Adam was the person most of us think of as Adam... Brigham talked about the two and sometimes conflated the two although there are talks where he appears to be distinguishing them." The post touches on the history of this concept going back to the early Kabbalistic period, and some of the gnostic text parallels for a two-Adam theory, and refers to "lots of other examples in the Nag Hammadi texts." Also, starting on page 4 is a post by Clark dated 2/5/99 that is interesting... GG

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not really sure if I even want to debate this topic at this time. I do have a question.

Since all humanity haven't all stood before God and Jesus Christ at the Final Great Judgement and entered into one of the degrees of glory.....how could Adam or any man/woman for that matter already be exalted to godhood and it have an impact upon anyone on the Earth in their mortal probation???

I refuse to worship anyone not worthy of worship.

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

I think it's important to also take into consideration what others understood Brigham Young taught and they in turn taught themselves during Brigham's lifetime/administration without clarification being made by Brigham to correct their errors.

(Following references taken from 'Research in Mormonism' a book solely devoted to photo-reprinted rare documents first published in the 1950s for RLDS missionaries) {Not all references that may be available on a given topic were cited in the book}

Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 50, Brigham Young, April 9, 1852

Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, page 319, Brigham Young, April 20, 1856

Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, page 331, Brigham Young, October 7, 1857

The Millenial Star, vol. 15, page 769, Brigham Young

The Millenial Star, vol. 15, page 801-804, Editorial

The Millenial Star, vol. 15, page 825, Editorial

The Millenial Star, vol. 16, page 482, Special General Conference in London

The Millenial Star, vol. 16, page 534, F. D. Richards

The Millenial Star, vol. 17, page 195, Editorial

Mormon Doctrine of Deity, page 42-43, B. H. Roberts

Poems by Eliza R. Snow, page 8, Eliza R. Snow

There were council meetings in Utah I remember reading that recorded a debate between Brigham Young and either Orson Pratt or Hyde dealing with the concept of Adam being God both physically and spiritually. Brigham was pretty exact in his view and won the debate. If I decide to take the time to find it....I'll post them.

One more thing....Is Moroni on top of the LDS/Mormon temples an angel or a god at this moment? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Since all humanity haven't all stood before God and Jesus Christ at the Final Great Judgement and entered into one of the degrees of glory.....how could Adam or any man/woman for that matter already be exalted to godhood and it have an impact upon anyone on the Earth in their mortal probation???

It would not have any impact on us. Remember this: God to whom? Godhood has everything to do with Eternal families, (or what comes after us) and nothing to do with replacing our Savior and God his Father (what comes before us).

I refuse to worship anyone not worthy of worship.

Then you really don't have an issue with this because LDS doctrine doesn't make an issue of it. The only one's who have an issue with it, don't really have to worry about it because they disqualify themselves for it anyways...

I think it's important to also take into consideration what others understood Brigham Young taught and they in turn taught themselves during Brigham's lifetime/administration without clarification being made by Brigham to correct their errors.

Excellent point. His obscure quotes seems to have made absolutely no dent on church doctrine.

One more thing....Is Moroni on top of the LDS/Mormon temples an angel or a god at this moment?

Ask Moroni at the final judgement.

Share this post


Link to post

The idea is Adam & Eve being created in the garden was a myth. So Adam under Eloheim shares the title of only God with Jehovah. If Jesus could do it so could Adam I think was his idea. The 1852 sermon clearly distinguishes all three persons just not in shared title.

Brigham Youngs idea was that Adam had already achieved exaltation. But since he became mortal again he would have to be judged again. When on earth Eloheim & Jehovah carried out Adam's function. But the 1852 sermon has Adam always subordinate to Eloheim. But since he listed Jehovah second, and Michael third Michael is subordinated to Jehovah as Savior.

As I look on it if God, and Jesus are treated as two literal personages. Jesus is not the Father, but shares the title of one God with the Father. If two Gods are worshipped as one why not three? Add the Holy Spirit to that that makes three Gods. What's to prohibit adding a fourth personage? Unless you equivoquate on the deity of Jesus, and the Holy Spirit you have three Gods. Scripture no-where treats Jesus as "a God" but rather Almighty God. Three Gods and one God figuratively or one God there's no inbetween. Unless of course you take a Trinitarian view of God which I prefer.

Plus Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is a part of Christian worship. The Father alone is not worshipped. But is Adam worthy of worship? I don't believe so.

I do object to adam God, but this is my best understanding of what he taught? My main objection is not to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being named God, but giving Adam status of one God which only real references of support come from Brigham Young sermons & not the scriptures. You have to strain to find support for his idea which I don't like. To me it's just a speculative idea that should be stayed clear of as my LDS friends official teaching.

A lot of Adam God might be related to the ancient idea of Kings agents. When you knelt before a kings agent you were knealing before an absent king. But the difference is the exclusiveness of God(Eloheim) is figuratively represented in 4 persons. They literally share the same title but they they don't represent themselves as, or representing seperate Gods from the Father. So God the Father's exlusiveness as God is kind of preserved in only symbolically, but not so much us Trinitarians would ever be satisfied.

But if you believe in a two personages, or Gods in the Godhead, and the Holy Spirit another God all sharing the title of one God I don't see why adding Adam would be much more heretical. I think orthodox Jews I Moslems would find two, or more persons in the Godhead quite blasphemous. They already find the Trinity idea blasphemouus.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the link Tanyan. I've read those articles, and like I said in my first post, I don't agree with some of them. Especially those that say the doctrine was taught by Brigham Young. Through this thread I am definately seeing why apologists have been led to write that. But I don't think it have been proven that Brigham Young taught that. Something just doesn't add up. Unfortunately, I don't think I will know what that is until we can ask Brigham in the next life.

Share this post


Link to post

demmick, thanks for sharing !. In His [THE LAST ADAM] Debt, Tanyan, The LDS Jedi.

Share this post


Link to post

Another reason after one month of being LDS I'm already getting tired of it. I've heard Adam was the first man, then Michael, now God???? Can't they make up their minds? If I do decide to have my name removed this is one thing I will bring up, I was never told this before I joined. I don't even think I saw it on the net! Sheesh!

Share this post


Link to post

I've heard Adam was the first man, then Michael, now God????

Adam and Michael are the same person. Michael is the pre-mortal life name of Adam, this is found in the scriptures.

As far as Adam (or Michael) being God, No, being Lord over this earth yes. See my post on the first page of this thread for the scripture.

Did you expect you would have learned everything about this religion in one month?

I don't have a problem with people studying what Brigham Young said, I just don't think that needs to be the only thing they study. Like it was pointed out Joseph Fielding Smith gives his interpretations on Brigham Young

Share this post


Link to post

"But when you speak of the system of salvation to bring back the children of Adam and Eve into the presence of our Father and God, it is the same in all ages, among all people, and under all circumstances, worlds without end. Amen."

"Elohim looked around upon the eternity of matter, and said to his associates, and those that he was pleased to call upon at that time for his counselors, with regard to the elements, worlds, planets, kingdoms and thrones; said he, "Yahovah Michael, see that eternal matter on all sides, this way and that way; we have already created worlds upon worlds, shall we create another world? Yes, go and organize the elements yonder in space..."

"When Christ has finished his labor and presented it to his father, then he, Adam, will receive a fullness."

Drew,

I don't see this as a contradiction with the other stuff he was saying, but actually support for it.

1. The first quote refers to "the children of Adam and Eve," being us returing "into the presence of our Father and God." He doesn't deny that "our Father and God" is Adam. As a matter of fact, he's been known to say exaclty that! In other words, there is nothing in the first quote that is contradictory to the idea that Adam is God.

2. If Adam/Michael was God in Brigham's mind, Elohim would be his grandfather, or someone else. Therefore, there is no contradiction in refering to Elohim here and having him tell "Yahovah Michael" to create the world. It would be God's god telling him to create the world. Thus Michael could still be our God. In other words, you're looking at it through your lenses with the preconceived idea that the term "Elohim" can only refer to our Father in Heaven. That's not really what it's always meant. Joseph Smith said it meant "gods." Brigham Young didn't say here which god he was refering to when he talks about Elohim. No where in this text does he say that Elohim is our Father. So, it could still be Michael.

3. The third quote doesn't say who Christ's father is. If you read the whole talk, he says it's Adam. So, that quote still fits the doctrine. "When Christ has finished his labor and presented it to his father (adam), then he (that is, his Father), Adam, will receive a fullness."

Disclaimer: I don't believe Michael is God. I'm just saying that it looks like Brigham Young taught it on a few occassions. He also seemed to contradict himself. I don't think he did in this talk we are here discussing, however. It is very clear and straight forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Would the "two former members of the local Provo, Utah School of the Prophets were involved in a high-profile homicide, scrutiny, rumors and fear that circulated at this time reduced desire to attend" be the Lafferty brothers?

Yes. Notice it says "former members".

Both had been removed from the School, after 2-1/2 months, because of their attitude and claims. At first they seemed to accept the counsel and revelations of the School. I have copies of about 17 revelations that Ron wrote-- in imitation of the 2BC revelations. All were rejected by the School. Their efforts to "take over" the School were almost comic-opera to me.

Ron and Dan acted upon their own counsel and own revelations when they went and murdered Brenda and her daughter. One member of the School had made up an affidavit before anything happened rejecting the dangerous talk of Ron and Dan. This was used in the trial against them. None of us were ever charged with anything.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
... But I don't think it have been proven that Brigham Young taught that. Something just doesn't add up. Unfortunately, I don't think I will know what that is until we can ask Brigham in the next life.

I am not following what you are saying: "I don't think it have [sic] been proven that Brigham Young taught that." What is "that"? He certainly was NOT teaching exactly the same as the church teaches today. Right?

Is there anything that Brigham will tell in the next life that the Holy Ghost could not reveal in this life? Consider these promises:

D&C 121

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;

Share this post


Link to post

>For those that feel Brigham Young did teach it, can you please support that with quotes and sources?

McConkie thought so. See the link to his letter.

>joke

I think BY fell into his own trap. For some reason he began to believe what was originally a practical joke. It began to take a life on its own, so to speak.

Share this post


Link to post
No discusson on this topic is complete without McConkie's letter to Eugene England.

http://www.myplanet.net/mike/LDS/McConkie_...and_letter.html

I think it says it all, except for one tidbit.

This is third or fourth hand information:

An elderly woman in a nursing home said that BY told her father (a local leader of the church in southern Utah) that he was going to play a great joke on the members of the church. It was shortly after this remark that BY first gave the Adam-God teaching.

If true, it would give some explanation on the origin of this doctrine. He often admonished the Saints not to accept everything that the leaders of the church taught, and he was involved with JS's joke on Daniel Wells in Nauvoo where JS pretended to be drunk. When BY pretended to complain abt the prophet's so-called drunkeness, Bro Wells replied "Well, a drunken prophet is better than no prophet at all."

BY could have considered the Adam-God theory an excellent test for the saints. Just my theory on the subject.

It was hardly a joke and it was certainly taught and taught by BY more than many want to admit.

It was also part of the St George temple endowment at one point.

The record shows that it was accepted ( at least on the surface) by the quorum of the twelve accepting Orson Pratt who vigorously opposed the idea. Thanks to Orson it did not become doctrine.

Anyone who has really studied this will find that Brigham did push, and did teach it. At times he backed down from it due to the resistance it met. He even said that Joseph taught him this doctrine.

To try to say that BY was being obscure or really did not teach it or was playing a joke is silly. He taught it. Period. Why he did I do not know.

Maybe he was right and we cannot accept it. Maybe he was off his rocker on it. Who knows.

Teancum

Share this post


Link to post

Teancum-

I believe you make a few assumptions in error-

First, what is this record that you speak of? Are you talking about official records, or others journal entries?

Second, it is the opinion of many that it was never part of the St. George endowment. Some claim it was "the lecture at the veil" but there is a lot of evidence that it is not. The only evidence that supports it being the lecture at the veil, is an entry made in the journal of John Nuttall. And that entry was not made in regards to what was being taught in the temple. It was recorded after John Nuttal had spent the evening with Brigham Young in his home. I don't think you should say so easily that it was part of the endowment.

Third, ANYONE who studies this will not find that he taught it. I have not seen enough evidence that supports this. Granted I have learned a lot I didn't know on this subject before this post, but it hasnt been proven it beyond the shadow of a doubt in my opinion.

I recognize that Brigham Young taught some strange doctrine in many of the mentioned discourses. I am just not satisfied that we are understanding exactly what he is teaching.

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely agree (with Teancum).

The problem is that he seems to contradict himself, the teachings don't seem to add up with the scriptures, etc. To top it off, Brigham was no dumby! I mean, he quoted scriptures word for word in many sermons off the top of his head. So, you some how have to reconcile it all. Plus, some details on the whole thing are very confusing and seem to not fit. However, I don't think you can ignore the fact that it was taught, whatever it was, and that it didn't become the doctrine of the church, right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...