Jump to content

Archived

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

consiglieri

Adam-god Theory--let's Really Talk About This!

Recommended Posts

Again, I can't refute an argument from silence. I can't refute a controlling assumption posited without evidence. So, I'll leave you with it. I'd note that your suggestion stands in no danger of being objectively falsified as, again, it appears to be simply assumed on no evidential basis.

I am sorry you did not note my reference to Abraham 1:3. Of course, I rather take it you were hoping for secular evidence, of which I am aware of none.

Share this post


Link to post
I am sorry you did not note my reference to Abraham 1:3. Of course, I rather take it you were hoping for secular evidence, of which I am aware of none.

Well, I have no idea what the "it" refers to, but it appears to refer to "the right belonging to the fathers."

Language doesn't appear to be at issue here at all. And, no, Log, I was really not "hoping for secular evidence." Heck, I barely even knew what I was asking, frankly. It was an honest question.

I haven't seen an answer to it, which might mean it is an ill-directed question. Or, not. At any rate, it remains something that interests me.

I won't repeat my earlier points, as I'm sure you've considered them.

Best.

cks

Share this post


Link to post

Abraham 1:3 ... the first man, who is Adam, or first father...

Hence, among the LDS, there is a scriptural basis for the etymology of Adam that does not pass through "red earth." I think it can be said that we believe Adam means "first father" in the language of God.

My problem in responding a lot of the time is that some things seem to me to be so clear by implication that I sometimes can't see how someone misses my point(s).

Share this post


Link to post

Then it seems to me that Watson's thought on God and "Mother" coming here to physically father Adam and Eve, is a little preposterous.

This theory that seems to try and harmonize BY's statements is just as, if not more so, problematic as BY's statements themselves.

IMO, if I were LDS, the only viable explanation would be that the Father was an Adam when he was not exalted....however this would lead to some sort of ad naseum creation with an infinitude of everything, including Mudcats, Consigs, Logs, etc...and most likely jeapordize the concept of non-Adamic exaltation.

I suppose your only backup is that he wasn't speaking as a prophet.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that Wilford Woodruff misunderstood Brigham Young as saying that Eve was actually Adam's daughter, rather than that she was taken from the side of Adam/"mankind" in the sense of being procreated on the world that she and Adam went through mortality on.

In other words, I don't think that Brigham Young believed that Eve was literally taken from Michael/Adam, or was his daughter, nor do I think that Brigham Young believed that Eve was procreated physically by Elohim/Adam (as the two-Adam people believe) on this earth, but rather that he believed that Eve's spirit was procreated by Elohim and that her body was procreated by her mortal father (name not known) on the world that they and Adam went through mortality on.

I think kameraider has a good point. If you look at the quote in context:

â??Afternoon. President B Young Spoke. 1 Hour & 18 Minuts. In his remarks He said that a Man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another But he may be saved in the kingdom of God but be single to all Eternity. Mother Eve was the Daughter of Adam.

Staker, Susan ed. (1993) Waiting for Worldâ??s End, Signature Books p.306

The line seems to be tacked on and not relavant to the passage. It might have represented either a mistake on Woodruff or Youngs part. It seems like a big departure from his teachings from 20 years earlier:

Wilford Woodruff recording a speech by Brigham Young in the Tabernacle given April 9th 1852:

â??Who begat the Son of God? Infidels say that Jesus was a ******* but let me tell you the truth Concerning that matter. Our Father begat all the spirits that were before any tabernacles were made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his celestial body & brought one of his wifes with him & eat of the fruit of the garden until He could begat a tabernacle. And Adam is Michael or God And all the God that we have any thing to do with. They Eat of this fruit & formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the VIRGIN MARY was begotton with Child it was By the Father and in no other way ownly as we were begotton. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world dont know that Jesus Christ Our Elder Brother was begotton by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please. It will either seal the damnation or salvation of m[e/a?]n. He was begotton by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost. When you go to Preach & believe that Jesus Christ was begotton by the Holy Ghost dont lay Hands upon the Heads of Females for the reception of the Holy Ghost lest it Beget her with Child And you be acused. I have told you nothing in this thing but what you have red in the Bible. I do not frame it.â?

Staker, Susan ed. (1993) Waiting for Worldâ??s End, Signature Books p.150

Wilford Woodruff recording a private conversation with Brigham Young on May 6th 1855:

â??Adam & Eve had lived upon another Earth. Were immortal when they came here. Adam assisted in forming this Earth & agreed to fall when he came Here & He fell that man might be & the opposite principle to good the devel, the serpent, the Evil was plased upon the Earth that man might know the good from the Evil for without an Experience in these things man Could not know that one from the other.â?

Staker, Susan ed. (1993) Waiting for Worldâ??s End, Signature Books p.166

However, the earlier statements may not be completely out of harmony. In the first quote, Young insists that Adam fathered Jesus through physical intercourse. It has been suggested that the Virgin Mary was one of Adam's wife, but she was also necessarily his descendant. Likewise, Eve might have been both Adam's wife and descendant--thus "daughter".

This might have represented the progression of Young's thought over the 20 years, but it is a stretch and is largely conjecture.

(Sorry Consig, I know you didn't want quotes :P )

Share this post


Link to post
Abraham 1:3 ... the first man, who is Adam, or first father...

Hence, among the LDS, there is a scriptural basis for the etymology of Adam that does not pass through "red earth."

I don't see any objective etymological basis, Log. Perhaps an unargued-cum-assumed one. I think you must be conflating the titular with the etymological, here. There may be LDS scriptural evidence that "Adam" is primarily titular, but there is no evidence, LDS or not, that Hebrew "Adam" "does not pass through 'red earth.'"

Those are two fundamentally separate discussions.

Best.

cks

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see any objective etymological basis, Log. Perhaps an unargued-cum-assumed one. I think you must be conflating the titular with the etymological, here. There may be LDS scriptural evidence that "Adam" is primarily titular, but there is no evidence, LDS or not, that Hebrew "Adam" "does not pass through 'red earth.'"

The scriptural evidence of Abraham 1:3 suggests the word Adam did not arise from "red earth," but rather "first father," which usage predates the Hebrew, even if the word in Hebrew can be interpreted "red earth."

Dunno what else to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Then it seems to me that Watson's thought on God and "Mother" coming here to physically father Adam and Eve, is a little preposterous.

This theory that seems to try and harmonize BY's statements is just as, if not more so, problematic as BY's statements themselves.

IMO, if I were LDS, the only viable explanation would be that the Father was an Adam when he was not exalted....however this would lead to some sort of ad naseum creation with an infinitude of everything, including Mudcats, Consigs, Logs, etc...and most likely jeapordize the concept of non-Adamic exaltation.

I suppose your only backup is that he wasn't speaking as a prophet.

Okay, I've looked and looked and couldn't find it, but perhaps someone can help me with this reference, because I think it somewhat speaks to the possibility of how Adam came to be on this earth. I believe it was JS (could be wrong) who taught that Adam came in to existence the same way that we all come into existence,...basically being born as we are born. I just for the life of me can't find the quote and would love it if someone could help me find it! To me, I don't see anything problematic with the possibility that Adam and Eve were born to God the Father and a Heavenly Mother. I can much better rationalize that with them just coming here from a different world.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's sing one of the hymns from back in Brigham Young's day, shall we?

...

31-05.gif

I would rather have Eliza --"Zion's Poetess"-- read us one of her poems:

Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation he arose to be

Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to him in his probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?

Whate'er his offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By his obedience he obtain'd the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all her daughters on the earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great?

'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth--

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth.

Life's ultimatum, unto those those that live

As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive;

Is still the onward, upward course to tread--

To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head

Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth,

And to their spirti-race, give mortal birth--

Give them experience in a world like this;

Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss,

Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy

Where full perfection dwells, without alloy.

--from THE ULTIMATUM OF HUMAN LIFE

If the above applies to the "Adam" who happens to be Eloheim, then how is Eloheim really any different than Michael/Adam?

And so why can it not also be true for the "Adam" who happens to be Michael?

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.

Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
31-05.gif

I would rather have Eliza --"Zion's Poetess"-- read us one of her poems:

If the above applies to the "Adam" who happens to be Eloheim, then how is Eloheim really any different than Michael/Adam?

And so why can it not also be true for the "Adam" who happens to be Michael?

Richard

Your quote shows that Brigham Young said he didn't care if Adam was our God or if it was his Father or Grandfather. That should be sufficient along with the many other times he didn't teach the AG theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, I've looked and looked and couldn't find it, but perhaps someone can help me with this reference, because I think it somewhat speaks to the possibility of how Adam came to be on this earth. I believe it was JS (could be wrong) who taught that Adam came in to existence the same way that we all come into existence,...basically being born as we are born. I just for the life of me can't find the quote and would love it if someone could help me find it! To me, I don't see anything problematic with the possibility that Adam and Eve were born to God the Father and a Heavenly Mother. I can much better rationalize that with them just coming here from a different world.

As far as what Joseph Smith said that might be relevant to Adam-God, from the wikipedia article "Adam-God Theory":

1. In June 1835, William W. Phelps states that we have the opportunity to "become archangels". [1] Joseph taught that angels are "resurrected or translated" beings [2] and that Adam was "Michael the Archangel". [3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines "archangel" as "a chief angel". Joseph said that "spirits can only be revealed in flaming fire or glory. Angels have advanced further, their light and glory being tabernacled... Angels have advanced higher in knowledge and power than spirits." [4]

2. On May 16, 1841, Joseph taught that an "everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator." [5] Joseph seems to be suggesting that the 3 Gods made a covenant between themselves that related to their dispensation on earth, meaning that God the Father may have had a dispensation on earth.

3. Although the Nauvoo Expositor was an anti-Mormon newspaper in Nauvoo, it printed an interesting comment, saying that Joseph and his brother Hyrum had taught "a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe; and his liability to fall with all of His creations...."[6]

4. The following statement was recorded by Anson Call in Nauvoo and copied by Patriarch John M. Whitaker also of Nauvoo. Elder B. H. Roberts, Church Historian and one of the First Presidents of the Seventy later made a copy from Patriarch Whitaker. Date c. 1800-1844: "Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay...was made mortal and subject to death."

5. In June, 1854, Apostle Franklin D. Richards, British Mission President stated that "Adam is our Father and our God" and that the Lord had revealed this to the Prophet Joseph in a revelation. [7]

6. On April 4, 1860 a meeting was held in the Church Historian's Office in Salt Lake City at 7pm. Several apostles were in attendance. Brigham Young said: "It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God... God comes to earth & eats & partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, & if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it."

7. On September 4, 1860, George Q. Cannon said "...that Adam is our Father [and] is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print...." [8]

8. On December 16, 1867 at a meeting of the School of the Prophets: "President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle." [9]

1. Messenger and Advocate, Vol. 1, No. 9, p. 130.

2. History of the Church, 4:425, Sunday, October 3, 1841,

3. History of the Church 3:385-391; Messages of the First Presidency 1:113.

4. History of the Church 6:51, October 8, 1843.

5. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 190.

6. Nauvoo Expositor 1:1, June 7, 1844.

7. Millennial Star, 16:534.

8. Journal of Wilford Woodruff, September 4, 1860.

9. Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867.

I think you may be thinking of the 1909 First Presidency statement on the Origin of Man, which says, among other things:

...

True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.

...

Joseph F. Smith

John R. Winder

Anthon H. Lund

First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

--Improvement Era, Nov. 1909, pgs. 75â??81.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the current Official stance of the Church on the Adam God Theory anyone?

Russell M. Nelson, “The Creation,” Ensign, May 2000, 84

While visiting the British Museum in London one day, I read a most unusual book. It is not scripture. It is an English translation of an ancient Egyptian manuscript. From it, I quote a dialogue between the Father and the Son. Referring to His Father, Jehovah—the premortal Lord—says:

“He took the clay from the hand of the angel, and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And He heaved sighs over him daily, saying, ‘If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains.’ And I said unto My Father, ‘Put breath into him; I will be an advocate for him.’ And My Father said unto Me, ‘If I put breath into him, My beloved Son, Thou wilt be obliged to go down into the world, and to suffer many pains for him before Thou shalt have redeemed him, and made him to come back to his primal state.’ And I said unto My Father, ‘Put breath into him; I will be his advocate, and I will go down into the world, and will fulfil Thy command.’ ” 15

Although this text is not scripture, it reaffirms scriptures that teach of the deep and compassionate love of the Father for the Son, and of the Son for us—attesting that Jesus volunteered willingly to be our Savior and Redeemer. 16

Share this post


Link to post
I am not of a mind to argue with a lawyer who is on zero-concession mode. I suppose you shall continue to miss it, and not see anything. Others, like myself, will find it persuasive.

The only reason I am missing it is because it does not seem to be there.

The other day upon the stair,

I saw a man who wasn't there.

I am not trying to argue so much as I am willing to give the Watson Theory supporters a chance to produce the reasons for their belief.

I was told to do my "homework" and to read the Watson paper. When I did so, I found nothing of substance there.

(Frankly, I had read it many years ago and not been impressed then. When I reread it yesterday, I remembered why I had not been impressed.)

I would be more than happy to find a plausible explanation as to how Brigham Young's teachings could be harmonized with current LDS teaching on the subject.

I tried and tried to harmonize the two many years ago until the blood shot out of my eyes.

The more I studied what Brigham Young had to say in an attempt to make it harmonize, the more I realized it cannot be harmonized.

As long as I was trying to make Brigham Young teach modern LDS doctrine, I got hopelessly confused. (Talk about cognitive dissonance!)

When I finally decided to just let Brigham Young speak for himself, he suddenly became a model of clarity and consistency.

(Funny how that works.)

If you feel I have missed something or gotten something wrong, please correct me. I am willing to be persuaded.

Share this post


Link to post
The best explanation of Adam-God I have heard was in a book about Adam-Ondi-Ahman by a guy named Cottle. He didn't argue his position (because it wasn't an apologetics book) but simply asserted that there were two presidencies in the Godhead, a creation presidency and a post-creation presidency. The first of these presidencies consisted of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael, the second consisted of Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Ghost. This makes sense to me in light of the whole of Mormon theology, and it reconciles most, though not all of the Adam-God Doctrine with Young's other teachings as well as modern orthodoxy.

I appreciate your constructive contribution to this thread, Soren, especially considering you are not a member (Mudcat, too!).

Though it is probably outside the scope of this particular thread, I tend to think a lot of light can be shed on the entire subject by considering that these are not two different presidencies (or Trinities), but the same presidency with different names.

More than that, I don't want to say right now; mainly because I think it would cause the thread to explode!

Share this post


Link to post
I've alway's said Brigham Young didn't teach "Adam/God" according to the Anti-mormon version of understanding it, namely because it even contradicts Brigham Young himself before, during AND after in MANY MORE instances than the few he supposudly taught this.

Why do you seek to poison the well by saying that taking Brigham Young at face value in what he said is the "Anti-mormon version of understanding it"?

As I understand it, Brigham Young was a Mormon.

Is it not more "Anti-mormon" to twist his words to make them say something he never intended?

Am I now become an "Anti-mormon" because of this?

Also, taking Brigham Young at face value, he does NOT contradict himself. Brigham Young was remarkably consistent on this subject over his entire lifetime.

Would you like to give a reference as to how it is that Brigham Young contradicts himself; either before, during or after?

Since you say there are "many instances" of this, perhaps it will not be too much trouble for you to produce just one?

Share this post


Link to post
I also don't think that by saying that Elohim Jehovah and Michael were father, son and grandson, that Brigham Young necessarily meant that Michael was Jehovah's son. I think that he just meant that Michael was a descendant, and hence a grandson, (whether ggrandson, gggrandson, ggggrandson, or whatever) of Elohim and Jehovah.

edit: Also, if Jehovah were a patriarchal superior to Michael, then Jesus, if he were the firstborn spirit son of Michael, could not be the Jehovah of the creation presidency.

I agree with you that Brigham Young did not want to be express on whether Elohim is Adam's immediate father, or further up the family tree.

Brigham Young was certainly clear that Jesus was Adam's first born son in the spirit (pretty much the way modern LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus was Elohim's first born in the spirit).

As such, Brigham Young conceived of Jesus as being under Michael's authority.

It is pretty clear that Brigham Young knew that Jehovah was over Michael.

Hence, it also seems pretty clear that Brigham Young did not think Jehovah and Jesus were the same being.

Also, I think Brigham Young did not specify where Jehovah fit into all of this; obviously somewhere "between" Elohim and Michael, but not necessarily in the patriarchal line. I think he left this open.

Share this post


Link to post
I mean, there's nowhere else to go. Watson carefully avoids the charge of circular reasoning by showing that Brigham's contemporaries, as well as Joseph Smith in what is now canonized revelation, used Father Adam to clearly indicate Elohim in contradistinction to the man Adam (or Michael); moreover, what would otherwise be inexplicable statements by Brigham Young ("Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam") become perfectly clear.

Oh bloody well. I lose my appetite for discussion in the face of a bald refusal to responsibly engage the facts.

A bald refusal to responsibly engage the facts, is it? And just how, if I may ask, is it that you know I have a receding hairline?

Here are some facts:

Fact 1--There was nothing in Watson's article to show that anybody "used Father Adam to clearly indicate Elohim in contradistinction to the man Adam." You are overstating the evidence. In fact, as I showed above, at least some of the (very limited) evidence cited by Watson contradicts the conclusion it is supposed to support.

Fact 2--Inasmuch as it is Brigham Young's word usage we are discussing, and inasmuch as it is Brigham Young who gave us the many recorded statements that have given rise to the "Adam-God Theory" (and not the other people quoted by Watson), why is it asking so much to give us an instance of Brigham Young using the name "Adam" to designate "Elohim"? (Okay, that's not a fact, it's a question, but anyway, why? The fact is that Watson produces nothing from Brigham Young to support the key element of his theory.)

Fact 3--After tacitly admitting that Brigham Young did NOT give any clear statements that "Adam" is "Elohim," you are reduced to doing what Watson did; to quote one snippet of a statement (with no context) that actually mentions nothing about Adam's relation to Elohim, and nothing about "Adam" being a name for "Elohim," and saying that it is a dark saying, but IF we adopt Watson's theory, then we can make sense of it. (You do realize that this is not evidence, don't you?)

The accuracy of the snippet in question has already been called into question by two posters with good thoughts on the subject and references to back them up. Additionally, the phrase, "Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam," even if taken at face value as an accurate transcription of Brigham Young's words, does not need the Watson theory to decipher it; it simply seems to have reference to the idea that Eve was taken from Adam's side; and hence Adam stood in relation to her as a father, since Adam had "the seed in him."

Calling this statement evidence that Brigham Young considered "Elohim" to be "Adam, Sr." is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Really, don't you think so?

Share this post


Link to post
I think that pretty much says it. Here Adam (Michael) is definitely referred to as God. Not God in the sense that he holds some calling, but God as in Elohim.

We must be careful to not fall into the trap of thinking Brigham Young (or the words of this particular hymn) equate Adam with Elohim.

Brigham Young never did so, not does this hymn, in my opinion.

Brigham Young conceived of the two as completely separate and distinct--Adam is the God of this Earth only; Elohim is the God of the universe.

A substantial difference in pay-grade.

When was it taken out?

The better question may be, "Why was it taken out?" :P

Share this post


Link to post
That looks exactly like something I would type without the parenthesis of course.

;)

I have never been shy about stating what I actually believe. I believe that Elden Watson hit the nail on the head and that's because I came to a similar conclusion independently and then I found Watson and written of it previously.

You caught me! :P

I confess that I, like Joe Biden, totally plagiarized what you had written elsewhere without giving you credit. But the reason I didn't give you credit is because I didn't want to offend you in any way by posting here what you had posted . . . er . . . somewhere else.

And when I read what you wrote, it was like a breath of freaking' fresh air just to hear somebody actually say what it is that the Watson theory is in thumbnail form. Pretty much all I have gotten on this board is Watson Theory subscribers speaking of the Watson theory in hushed whispers as if it is sacrosanct or something; unwilling to give any details as to what it actually means; though I confess that quite frequently they would give the same link as you.

The only way I was able to get them out of the closet was to post your thumbnail version and get them to admit or deny if that is what the Watson Theory really is; and to a man, they have all admitted it, which of course was what we needed to have happen to get the ball rolling as to the actual merits of the Watson Theory as an interpretive guide to Brigham Young; which lest we forget is what this entire thread is supposed to be about.

I appreciate the fact that you are willing to simply state it right out loud, while noting at the same time that you do not subscribe to Elden Watson's interpretation of Brigham Young (which you hold to be correct) as anything more than Brigham Young's opinion, anyway.

Perhaps it is easier to just be up front about teachings we don't believe. I don't know. Thanks anyway, BC!

Share this post


Link to post
That was a good find - it ties in with Joseph F. Smith's explanation of BY's teachings nicely.

My recollection is that Joseph F. Smith did not attempt to explain Brigham Young's teachings at all!

Joseph F. Smith said that Brigham Young taught some things that we shouldn't be talking about anymore.

Not exactly an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
I think your number one mistake was to go to the conclusion directly without understanding the context. Elden Watson assumes (correctly I believe) that BY would have also believed the things that were taught previous and were doctrines and scriptures of the Church. Therefore you have as a basis things like Adam was not a resurrected being nor was he married when he first entered the garden, therefore, he (the Adam who fell) could not possibly have been Elohim.

This is the great strength of Elden's theory. He presupposes that BY is a believer. I think most people would not find that unreasonable.

I see this is the great weakness of Elden's theory.

It presupposes that Brigham Young (though obviously a believer) was really not teaching anything remarkable or worthy of the incredible controversy and acrimony that history tells us his teachings caused.

This is where Watson engages in the circular reasoning part of his argument (which is based almost entirely on circular reasoning). :P

Well, says Watson, it's obvious that the Mormons believed that Adam was not a resurrected being when he came to the Garden (a fact that is, incidentally, by no means obvious); and therefore Brigham Young could not have believed that, and therefore Brigham Young could not have taught that.

What makes it worse is that, in order to establish his proposition that "Mormons believe that Adam was not a resurrected being," Watson cites to 20th century LDS writings to make his case!

So what he is really saying is this: Because 20th Century LDS leaders taught that Mormons believe Adam was not a resurrected being, 19th century Brigham Young could not have taught that Adam was a resurrected being; in spite of the fact that on several occasons Brigham Young taught that Adam was a resurrected being.

It doesn't get a whole lot more circular than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Okay, I've looked and looked and couldn't find it, but perhaps someone can help me with this reference, because I think it somewhat speaks to the possibility of how Adam came to be on this earth. I believe it was JS (could be wrong) who taught that Adam came in to existence the same way that we all come into existence,...basically being born as we are born. I just for the life of me can't find the quote and would love it if someone could help me find it! To me, I don't see anything problematic with the possibility that Adam and Eve were born to God the Father and a Heavenly Mother. I can much better rationalize that with them just coming here from a different world.

The quote you are thinking of may be from Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith.

"Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle." (JD vol. 3, p.319).

Share this post


Link to post
I think your number one mistake was to go to the conclusion directly without understanding the context. Elden Watson assumes (correctly I believe) that BY would have also believed the things that were taught previous and were doctrines and scriptures of the Church. Therefore you have as a basis things like Adam was not a resurrected being nor was he married when he first entered the garden, therefore, he (the Adam who fell) could not possibly have been Elohim.

This is the great strength of Elden's theory. He presupposes that BY is a believer. I think most people would not find that unreasonable.

But Brigham Young did teach that Adam was a resurrected being and was married when he first entered the garden. So Watson's theory is untenable.

Edit: I see Consiglieri beat me to it. Foiled again!

Share this post


Link to post
Then it seems to me that Watson's thought on God and "Mother" coming here to physically father Adam and Eve, is a little preposterous.

This theory that seems to try and harmonize BY's statements is just as, if not more so, problematic as BY's statements themselves.

You see, even the most respectful critic on the board agrees with me! (End shameless plug and brown-nosing.)

Here is what makes the Watson Theory more than a "little preposterous."

Leaving aside the fact that Watson has little to no evidence in support of his theory, this is what his theory entails:

_______

Elohim and Heavenly Mother created this earth and begot all the spirit children who would come to this earth in the pre-mortal existence.

Elohim then created this earth.

Elohim now needs to create Adam with a physical body.

How does Elohim do this?

Elohim comes down to the Garden of Eden and eats of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Why?

So that, through some process most closely analagous to transubstantiation, Elohim and Heavenly Mother can now beget a physical child, which they know will be a boy, and who will be Adam. (It is not clear why Elohim and Heavenly Mother have to eat from a tree to have a physical child, as opposed to a spirit child, but there you have it. It is also not clear whether Adam, like Venus, sprang forth fully formed as an adult, or whether Adam was born as a little baby and then was raised in the Garden by Elohim and Heavenly Mother. These are questions left unaddressed by the Watson theory, and probably for good reason.)

Then, once Adam is an adult, Eve is created. (Here, the Watson theory fails us again in that it does not provide a means for the creation of Eve, unless she is another physical offspring of Elohim and Heavenly Mother; or unless he holds to the literal taking of Eve from the rib of Adam. Either way, Watson cannot avail himself of the idea taught by Brigham Young that Adam and Eve came here from another world as resurrected beings, because he has specifically taken those words from Brigham Young and applied them to Elohim and Heavenly Mother, reinterpreting Brigham Young's "Adam and Eve" to mean "Elohim and Heavenly Mother.")

Next Adam and Eve eat of the same tree that Elohim and Heavenly Mother previously ate of. As a result, Adam and Eve are cast out of the garden. (For some reason unexplained by the Watson Theory, Elohim and Heavenly Mother did not suffer the same dire consequence as Adam and Eve upon eating the fruit; maybe because Elohim hadn't made it a commandment to not eat of the tree before he and Heavenly Mother did so?)

In other words, Watson not only has to posit two "Adams" and two "Eves," but two "eatings of the tree."

By this time, even the most ardent Watson Theorist should be getting a little suspicious.

Share this post


Link to post
(Sorry Consig, I know you didn't want quotes :P )

Actually, I appreciate the quote you gave, mainly because it shows the high degree of improbability that Brigham Young would say Adam came to this world as a resurrected being in one sentence, and in the next recorded sentence say that Adam "assisted" in the creation of this earth and that he "agreed to fall."

There isn't so much as a hint that Brigham Young suddenly shifted from talking about Elohim as Adam in the first instance, to thereafter talking about Adam (Jr.) in the latter two instances.

These quotes and many more like them are simply not adequately dealt with by the Watson Theory, in my opinion.

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...