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

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

The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary. The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline acknowledged by Christendom be correct then Christians must believe that God is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ! The infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples. I will tell you how it is. Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be, upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.

Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken - HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgen Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so [p.51] on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone. I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing.

It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. - JoD 1:50-51 (April 9, 1852)

[That] reminds me that brother Joseph B. Nobles once told a Methodist priest, after hearing him describe his god, that the god they worshipped was the "Mormons'" Devil - a being without a body, whereas our God has a body, parts, and passions. The Devil was cursed and sent down from heaven. He has no body of his own; therefore he is constantly endeavouring to obtain possession of the tabernacles belonging to others. Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass [p.332] the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;" and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;" then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam. But those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible - "This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." - JoD 5:331-332 (October 7, 1857)

I do not marvel that the world is clad in mystery, to them He is an unknown God; they cannot tell where He dwells nor how He lives, nor what kind of a being He is in appearance or character. They want to become acquainted with His character and attributes, but they know nothing of them. This is in consequence of the apostacy that is now in the world. They have departed from the knowledge of God, transgressed His laws, changed His ordinances, and broken the everlasting covenant, so that the whole earth is defiled under the inhabitants thereof. Consequently it is no mystery to us that the world knoweth not God, but it would be a mystery to me, with what I now know, to say; that we cannot know anything of Him. We are His children. [...summary of the history of the human race...] Thus you may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and Eve, and ask, "are we of the same species with Adam and Eve?" Yes, every person acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding.

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species - of one family - and Jesus Christ is also of our species. - JoD 4:217-218 (February 8, 1857)

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God...We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? Is is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "Go ye and make an earth." What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth. ...Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. "Well," says one, "Why was Adam called Adam"? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his bretheren, brought it into existence. Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here... I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and now where is the mystery?" - Deseret News, June 18, 1873; photocopy in Banister, For Any Latter-day Saint, p. 86

And this link provides other original sources:

http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-adam-god.html

Teancum

Share this post


Link to post

Teancum

I appreciate your efforts in providing those qoutes. Unfortunately, most of those qoutes have already been discussed in this thread. It is my opinion that those qoutes do not prove the Adam/God theory. More appealing to me is that ton of journal entries on the teaching. That is very convincing. The names Father and God have multiple meanings. Also, consider that Brigham Young taught that Adam is not just the name for Michael, but an office held by the first parent of a particular race of each earth. Could Father Adam actually mean our Heavenly Father, and not Michael? Is it possible that Brigham Young used the term Father Adam at times for the name of Heavenly Father? I don't know. It is strange doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
In case you didn't read that sermon of President Young's, here are a few quotes for you.

"I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life."

"Many inquire who is this Savior? I will tell you what I think about it, and as the Northerns say I reckon, and as the Yankees say I guess; but I will tell you what I reckon. 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.

"'How are we going to know this?' I reckon it.

And I reckon that Adam came into the Garden of Eden, and did actually eat of the fruit that he, himself planted; and I reckon there was a previous understanding, and the whole plan was previously calculated, before the Garden of Eden was made, that he would reduce his posterity to sin, misery, darkness, wickedness, wretchedness, and to the power of the devil, that they might be prepared, for an exaltation, for without this they could not receive one."

"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. If the spirit does not enter into the embryo man that is forming in the womb of the woman, the result will be false conception. A living intelligent being cannot produced. Adam and Eve begot the first mortal bodies on this earth, and from that commencement every spirit that was ever begotten in eternity for this earth will enter bodies thus prepared for them here, until the winding up scene, and that will not be until the last of these spirits enters an earthly tabernacle."

Did Brigham Young teach it? What does it look like? What does it mean? I don't know exactly. Is it true doctrine? Well, that's hard to say seeing as it's not entirely clear as to what it means. Anyway, I don't think it can be dodged by only stating that Brigham Young was "misquoted" or "misunderstood." What does it look like to you?

PS I do recognize that it appears Brigham Young contradicts himself. I'm not an advocate of the so called Adam-God Theory. I'm just stating that it's a more complex issue than many would believe.

Ummm....but he is saying the word think or reckon...this does not sound very definite to me. It sounds more like guessing but not based on fact. At least I think that it can be so or as they say in the north I reckon it to be so. But is it true? I reckon so but who knows. :P

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously, why me, he was speculating :P I think he reckoned maybe a little too much. BUT YOU CAN'T SAY IT WASN'T TAUGHT. He taught it on several occassions. I don't know why we can't just come to grasp it. He taught it. He taught it. He taught it. What does it matter? He also taught that the moon doesn't cause tides, but rather the breathing of the earth. So he got some things wrong. I'm glad he was human!

Share this post


Link to post

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

...It is my opinion that those qoutes do not prove the Adam/God theory. More appealing to me is that ton of journal entries on the teaching. That is very convincing...

:P That's precious.

Just one or two posts earlier, you criticized using journal entries over "official" records. Now, you apparently are more convinced by a "ton of journal entries" than the "official record" (Deseret News, JoD, etc.)

These sort of reversals don't happen to coincide with any certain points you're interested in making/believing/convincing...do they????

Be sure to write your ideas down in your journal!! <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Observer-

I admit, I am approaching this from the position that Brigham Young never taught the doctrine that Adam was actually our Heavenly Father. But I am open-minded and my thoughts have evolved while reading the posts of others.

I believe it was a good question when I asked Teancum if the records he mentioned were official records and not journal entries. I believe it is important to distinguish between official releases and records of the church, and individual journal entries. One holds more water for me over the over.

The actual sermons of Brigham Young aren't as convincing for me, because from my position I can interpret it a different way. But what is convincing is that there are many journal entries that show many people believed he was teaching Adam was Heavenly Father. These were people that actually heard the discourses. They heard exactly what Brigham said, and how he said it.

I hope that clears up the contradiction.

Share this post


Link to post

I think we should all know that those things which are truly doctrines of the Church are all well known and openly taught. This includes all that is taught in the temple (it is in the scriptures) except certain signs and tokens.

We should also know that large amounts of information we think we know as LDS are based on the ideas and teachings of men. These things may or may not be true, but they are also not doctrine of the kingdom.

Further, many of the things members consider doctrine are really practices of the Church. Practices are the way the church conducts business today, and they may or may not be doctrinal.

It is my personal opinion that Brother Brigham had some peculiar ideas that were never and have never been doctrine. Whether or not they are true or upon what they are based is simply unknown.

When people use such teachings to tear down the church, they are acting inappropriately and at their own peril. On the other hand, honest discussion of the Gospel is to be admired.

I hope we all know where we fit into such matters and bring blesings upon ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post

cougarfan, I believe you hit it right on the head

Brigham taught something, but it doesn't really matter. It is fun to poke around with, however.

Share this post


Link to post

I wasn't going to get into this discussion. I may still attempt to lay low, because other folks are doing a such good job in my opinion.

Without bringing polygamy into the topic to move it away from the discussion's original intent, I'd just like to make a quick comparison between accusations against Joseph Smith, Jr. /polygamy and that of Brigham Young /Adam-God Theory. I realize some might think that's debatable.

Joseph consistently is on record denying and condemning polygamy, spiritual wifery, plurality of wives, etc... Even excommunicating those who taught and practiced it when he was convinced the accusations were true.

Brigham Young repeatedly is on record promoting the theory of Adam-God....and clearly introducing it and contradicting himself at times....none the less defends the overall concept and promotes that belief in his followers. Where did Brigham excommunicate anyone with the wrong or false understanding of Adam-God? Brigham even uses Joseph's name to establish it.

With all this in mind.....people question if Brigham really taught Adam-God or meant what he said???? And some think I'm off my rocker for believing Joseph innocent of polygamy, etc. after study of the historical record.

Finally there was enough evidence of Brigham and the LDS/Mormon church adopting Adam-God that two courts declared it fact.:

Judge L. S. Sherman of the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio stated as part of his decision in the 1880 Kirtland Temple Case:

"...That the church in Utah, the Defendant of which John Taylor is president, has materially and largely departed from the faith, doctrines, laws, ordinances and usages of said original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and has incorporated into its system of faith the doctrines of celestial marriage and a plurality of wives, and the doctrine of Adam-god worship, contrary to the laws and constitution of said original Church...."

Judge John F. Phillips of the Circuit Court (Federal District Court) of the U.S. Western District of Missouri at Kansas City stated as part of his 'Findings of Fact' included with his decision in the 1892 Temple Lot Case:

"...The Utah Church further departed from the principles and doctrines of the original church by changing in their teaching the first statement in the Article of Faith, which was, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost," and in lieu thereof taught the doctrine of "Adam-god worship...."

"...It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith, "the Martyr," secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in "nest hiding." In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the "secret wife system," charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Doctor Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor the former President of the Utah Church. And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies' Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, the wife of Jospeh Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph's death.

But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young. -- Decision of Judge Philips in Temple Lot Case, pp. 20-26."

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

Share this post


Link to post
OH NO! The Adam/God Theory Returns!, Did Brigham Young teach it???

No, never at any time did BY teach that Adam is God the Father or Jesus Christ etc. This is plainly seen in the JoD wherein BY taught that Adam is Jesus' Father in the same way Adam is the Father of us all.

What BY apparently taught (according to the WWJ) is that God and His wife (or wives?) were an Adam an Eve(s) in name title only and differentiated between them and Adam and Eve we know, the first of the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
I wasn't going to get into this discussion. I may still attempt to lay low, because other folks are doing a such good job in my opinion.

Without bringing polygamy into the topic to move it away from the discussion's original intent, I'd just like to make a quick comparison between accusations against Joseph Smith, Jr. /polygamy and that of Brigham Young /Adam-God Theory. I realize some might think that's debatable.

Joseph consistently is on record denying and condemning polygamy, spiritual wifery, plurality of wives, etc... Even excommunicating those who taught and practiced it when he was convinced the accusations were true.

Brigham Young repeatedly is on record promoting the theory of Adam-God....and clearly introducing it and contradicting himself at times....none the less defends the overall concept and promotes that belief in his followers. Where did Brigham excommunicate anyone with the wrong or false understanding of Adam-God? Brigham even uses Joseph's name to establish it.

With all this in mind.....people question if Brigham really taught Adam-God or meant what he said???? And some think I'm off my rocker for believing Joseph innocent of polygamy, etc. after study of the historical record.

Finally there was enough evidence of Brigham and the LDS/Mormon church adopting Adam-God that two courts declared it fact.:

Judge L. S. Sherman of the Court of Common Pleas, Lake County, Ohio stated as part of his decision in the 1880 Kirtland Temple Case:

"...That the church in Utah, the Defendant of which John Taylor is president, has materially and largely departed from the faith, doctrines, laws, ordinances and usages of said original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and has incorporated into its system of faith the doctrines of celestial marriage and a plurality of wives, and the doctrine of Adam-god worship, contrary to the laws and constitution of said original Church...."

Judge John F. Phillips of the Circuit Court (Federal District Court) of the U.S. Western District of Missouri at Kansas City stated as part of his 'Findings of Fact' included with his decision in the 1892 Temple Lot Case:

"...The Utah Church further departed from the principles and doctrines of the original church by changing in their teaching the first statement in the Article of Faith, which was, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost," and in lieu thereof taught the doctrine of "Adam-god worship...."

"...It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church, that Joseph Smith, "the Martyr," secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in "nest hiding." In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the "secret wife system," charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Doctor Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor the former President of the Utah Church. And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies' Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, the wife of Jospeh Smith, and Phoebe Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph's death.

But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young. -- Decision of Judge Philips in Temple Lot Case, pp. 20-26."

Bradley E. Barnhart, priest (RLDS Restorationist)

Springfield, OR.

oh boy, start another umpteenth thread on whether or not Joseph Smith lived polygamy. Your comparison is really weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Teancum

I appreciate your efforts in providing those qoutes. Unfortunately, most of those qoutes have already been discussed in this thread. It is my opinion that those qoutes do not prove the Adam/God theory. More appealing to me is that ton of journal entries on the teaching. That is very convincing. The names Father and God have multiple meanings. Also, consider that Brigham Young taught that Adam is not just the name for Michael, but an office held by the first parent of a particular race of each earth. Could Father Adam actually mean our Heavenly Father, and not Michael? Is it possible that Brigham Young used the term Father Adam at times for the name of Heavenly Father? I don't know. It is strange doctrine.

Howdy,

Well, I am not an expert on this other then I have read tons of stuff by BY, journal entries and papers discussing it from LDS apologists and critics.

I am pretty convinced that BY was teaching the Adam is God. But I can se how someone else can come up with reasonable points that may cloud the issue as well.

What bugs me most is the fact that BY did say a number of things on this that continue to plague us today.

Teancum

Share this post


Link to post
OH NO! The Adam/God Theory Returns!, Did Brigham Young teach it???

No, never at any time did BY teach that Adam is God the Father or Jesus Christ etc. This is plainly seen in the JoD wherein BY taught that Adam is Jesus' Father in the same way Adam is the Father of us all.

What BY apparently taught (according to the WWJ) is that God and His wife (or wives?) were an Adam an Eve(s) in name title only and differentiated between them and Adam and Eve we know, the first of the human race.

I find it simply amazing BC, that you can say BY never ever taught Adam wqas our god.

Tell me then how do you uinderstand this remark from Brigham?

How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God...We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? Is is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "Go ye and make an earth." What is the great mystery about it? He came and formed the earth. ...Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. "Well," says one, "Why was Adam called Adam"? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his bretheren, brought it into existence. Then he said, "I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here... I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has, and now where is the mystery?" - Deseret News, June 18, 1873; photocopy in Banister, For Any Latter-day Saint, p. 86

I mean here you have BY saying he revealed to the saints the idea that Adam is our Father and God! And this was revealed to him. Not his own idea. It was revealed to him. He even says that he saints generally do not believe it! He then explains that Adam was the framer and maker of the earth and that he wanted his spirit children to live on the earth that he made. This seems pretty clear what he is saying to me.

What do you think this means?

Teancum

Share this post


Link to post
Teancum

What bugs me most is the fact that BY did say a number of things on this that continue to plague us today.

Perhaps he MEANT to, so as to give us hints........we might profit from trying to understand rather than making it a battle call for and against Mormonism........... :P

After all, the Zohar teaches happy is the man who learns through hints..........

Share this post


Link to post

I would say it is nearly impossible to summarily dismiss the collection of BY's statements as well as the second hand accounts of statements and subsequent commentary that we can categorize as Adam-God related.

As with others in this thread, I have written a paper on this subject, no I can't link to it (not yet at least). My conclusions are different than those generally offered.

I believe that the denials of members arise not from the existence of the statements (they do exist), but from an incorrect interpretation or assumption as to what they mean or what BY was suggesting.

Just as Biblical scholar (MB) suggests that forming opinions on a single verse is an irresponsible use of scripture, so to is using a single paragraph by BY to declare what the Adam-God theory is (or whether or not it exists) equally irresponsible.

Share this post


Link to post

Teancum, don't you find it odd that in your quote of BY in the Deseret News, that after saying that he is God, immediately says that he is Michael, and God told him to help make the earth?

Share this post


Link to post
.... that after saying that he is God, immediately says that he is Michael, and God told him to help make the earth...

I'm sorry, but he doesn't say "God" told him to help make the earth. He said "Elohim" told him to make the earth.

You have to be careful when you start reinterpreting what he said. The fact is he said that ELOHIM sent him to MAKE the earth. Not God, and not help make. So, who is elohim? Why did he send Michael to MAKE and not help make the earth?

Look, I'm just pointing out what I see as a flaw in your question. I don't believe the Adam-God theory.

Share this post


Link to post
OH NO! The Adam/God Theory Returns!, Did Brigham Young teach it???
No, never at any time did BY teach that Adam is God the Father or Jesus Christ etc. This is plainly seen in the JoD wherein BY taught that Adam is Jesus' Father in the same way Adam is the Father of us all.

What BY apparently taught (according to the WWJ) is that God and His wife (or wives?) were an Adam an Eve(s) in name title only and differentiated between them and Adam and Eve we know, the first of the human race. 

I find it simply amazing BC, that you can say BY never ever taught Adam wqas our god.

You misquoted me. BY never said that Adam was God the Father. Neither does your quote btw....Try again..... :P

Share this post


Link to post

If we cannot assume that when Brigham Young refers to Eloheim he is referring to our Heavenly Father, than we cannot assume that everytime the word Adam or Father Adam is used that Brigham Young is referring to the Adam that was put in the Garden of Eden. That's where I believe the confusion is.

Share this post


Link to post

Demmick,

You might want to check out "Conflict in the Quorum" by Gary James Bergera. There is a fair amount of material in there dealing with the Adam-God theory, and the exchanges between Orson Pratt and Brigham Young on this subject.

cacheman

Share this post


Link to post

Elohim became a title that refers to God the Father after James E. Talmage wrote Jesus the Christ. Before that it wasn't considered to mean anything specific beyond a certain god or "the gods." There is no evidence that Brigham Young specifically and exclusively applied it to God the Father. He did, however, always refer to Adam as "Michael" or even as "Yahovah Michael."

EDIT: typo

Share this post


Link to post

demmick, not to sound haughty or anything, but the two Adam theory just doesn't stack up with the things I've read. I think I've read nearly everything ever written on the topic, everything ever said by Brigham Young on the topic, etc. It just doesn't fit. For Brigham Young, Father Adam was the father of our spirits, he came here to be the first man and to make physical bodies for his children, and he fathered Jesus Christ. He even mentioned in the talk I refered to above that he believed Adam didn't die but that he returned to Heaven when his life was done here. I recommend you read the lecture at the veil as well. It says pretty much the same thing as the talk quoted above. He was pretty clear and emphatic about it. However, it appears that Brigham Young taught two different contradicting things on the topic. Bruce R. McConkie said you have to chose which Brigham you'll believe (see the Eugene England letter). I, for one, chose to believe what the scriptures teach and what Joseph Smith taught. The "Adam-God theory" doesn't add up.

EDIT: typo

Share this post


Link to post

Drew,

But doesn't Brigham Young say that every earth began with an Adam and an Eve? That is always the title of the first parents?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, he sure did! :P And he said we would become Adam and Eves to some future world. (So did Orson F. Whitney)

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...