Adam-God teachings

[StuddleyG]

I brought this point up in another thread but I think this topic needs to have its own discussion. There has been a lot of disagreement among LDS on here about the extent to which Latter-Day prophets provide us with truth. The so-called fundamentalist thinkers claim that believing in everything the prophets have said is a measure of how much we trust them as prophets. For example, if a prophet says that there was a literal global flood, many argue that this is proof that there was certainly a global flood..

I used to to think this way, but my perspective has changed a bit. One of the factors that contributed to this my change of perspective was learning about Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings. The fact that he taught the Adam-God theory is indisputable. How do the more literalist LDS deal with this fact? The Adam-God teaching is proof that prophets can be wrong. Does it mean that prophets are capable of leading us away from Christ. I don't think so. But, it shows that prophets can be wrong about things that aren't exactly critical to salvation. I would say that they can be especially wrong scientific and historical matters.

How do you deal with the Adam-God theory?

[CQUIRK]

I brought this point up in another thread but I think this topic needs to have its own discussion. There has been a lot of disagreement among LDS on here about the extent to which Latter-Day prophets provide us with truth. The so-called fundamentalist thinkers claim that believing in everything the prophets have said is a measure of how much we trust them as prophets. For example, if a prophet says that there was a literal global flood, many argue that this is proof that there was certainly a global flood..

I used to to think this way, but my perspective has changed a bit. One of the factors that contributed to this my change of perspective was learning about Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings. The fact that he taught the Adam-God theory is indisputable. How do the more literalist LDS deal with this fact? The Adam-God teaching is proof that prophets can be wrong. Does it mean that prophets are capable of leading us away from Christ. I don't think so. But, it shows that prophets can be wrong about things that aren't exactly critical to salvation. I would say that they can be especially wrong scientific and historical matters.

How do you deal with the Adam-God theory?

Obviously you're quite uneducated about this.

The AG theory cannot be viewed in black and white. Many of BY's sermons on the matter are quite vague and open to interpretation; many of the quotes on Adam-God can be twisted one way or the other.

Want me to bring up the quotes and links to reliable websites that discuss the matter?

Another thing, we don't view Prophets or Leaders in our church as infallible, but BY's talks on Adam is a poor subject to base your accusations/theories on.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

For me, if I was to again believe in the LDS teaching of eternal progression, Adam-God would have to be an integral part- It is the only thing that makes the whole thing work, IMO.

[StuddleyG]

Obviously you're quite uneducated about this.

The AG theory cannot be viewed in black and white. Many of BY's sermons on the matter are quite vague and open to interpretation; many of the quotes on Adam-God can be twisted one way or the other.

Want me to bring up the quotes and links to reliable websites that discuss the matter?

Another thing, we don't view Prophets or Leaders in our church as infallible, but BY's talks on Adam is a poor subject to base your accusations/theories on.

I have read many of his statements and they seem pretty out line to me. I've read quite a bit from apologists who state that he was simply wrong about it. From what I've read about the Adam-God theory, I can't come up with an interpretation that fits within the teachings of the scriptures.

Go ahead and bring up those quotes and links. I'd be interesting in hearing other viewpoints.

[erichard]

...

Go ahead and bring up those quotes and links. I'd be interesting in hearing other viewpoints.

Hi,

I could never explain away President Young's Adam-God teachings.

For instance, Wilford Woodruff's Journal has at least a dozen Adam-God quotes, and I simply cannot believe brother Woodruff had any reason to misquote President Young. Elder Woodruff was the epitome of faithfulness.

The simple truth is that President Young taught things about Adam that the church today does NOT teach.

Since the church President today supports teachings that contradict what President Young taught, then one of the two, or both, are at least somewhat in error.

When I studied Adam-God quotes years ago, I would feel exhilaration at times reading the quotes from President Young. Yet I never tried to teach anybody that was not really interested in it. And in fact, I could never completely resolve between President Young's teachings and what the scriptures teach.

Eventually I found the Second Book of Commandments. Like many who read 2BC 22 and 23, these revelations make so much sense and convey so much spirit, that there was no more need to worry about what President Young taught.

The 2BC shows that there was a very major error in what President Young was teaching, but most of it was correct. The Church leaders today are correct in not teaching what President Young taught.

Richard

[Deborah]

Someday you can have the chance to ask him. I don't have a problem with his teaching this and I think I understand what he was trying to say but it amazes me that this is a stumbling block for some. Believing or not believing in Adam-God has no affect on our salvation.

[David T]

I have read many of his statements and they seem pretty out line to me. I've read quite a bit from apologists who state that he was simply wrong about it. From what I've read about the Adam-God theory, I can't come up with an interpretation that fits within the teachings of the scriptures.

Go ahead and bring up those quotes and links. I'd be interesting in hearing other viewpoints.

BY speculated, trying to correlate some of the highly uncorrelated and un-systematized teachings of Joseph, as welling as adding some of his own insights, interpretations, and ideas into the mix. On this topic, he was wrong. But I don't blame him for trying

For your reading, this is an excellent and well-documented and contextualized paper on the subject presented at the FAIR conference a couple of years ago: Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam

[StuddleyG]

Someday you can have the chance to ask him. I don't have a problem with his teaching this and I think I understand what he was trying to say but it amazes me that this is a stumbling block for some. Believing or not believing in Adam-God has no affect on our salvation.

I would love to hear an explanation of what he was trying to say the actually correlates with the scriptures.

[StuddleyG]

For your reading, this is an excellent and well-documented and contextualized paper on the subject presented at the FAIR conference a couple of years ago: Brigham Young's Teachings on Adam

I actually have read this article. I found it very fascinating and informing.

The point I'm trying to make is that that the Adam-God teaching is a good example of a church president formulating his own ideas about doctrine that the church ultimately disagrees with. It makes one wonder how to know when a prophet's teachings can be trusted as God's word.

[David T]

I actually have read this article. I found it very fascinating and informing.

The point I'm trying to make is that that the Adam-God teaching is a good example of a church president formulating his own ideas about doctrine that the church ultimately disagrees with. It makes one wonder how to know when a prophet's teachings can be trusted as God's word.

When it is upheld unanimously by the First Presidency and the Council of the 12 Apostles, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator. Brigham's teachings most decidedly weren't.

My favorite recent quote on this matter, "When Brigham Young decided to advance his now infamous Adam-God doctrine, Orson Pratt had no problem advancing his Brigham-Young-doesn

[Fifth Columnist]

An Adam-God thread would not be complete without citing Bruce R. McConkie's letter to Eugene England. http://www.myplanet.net/mike/LDS/McConkie_England_letter.html. At least McConkie acknowledges that BY taught false doctrine. He goes way too far though when he says the members will be held accountable for believing BY's false doctrine.

[BCSpace]

The fact that he taught the Adam-God theory is indisputable.

Not true. To propose that BY taught an Adam-God theory is, among other things, to say that BY did not accept key doctrines already extant. One of the reasons why Adam Sr. Adam Jr. is the better explaination. However, this preserves your over all point because Adam Sr. Adam Jr., like Adam-God, is not doctrinally accepted by the Church.

Here's how I handle things like the global flood, which I currently don't accept as accurate. There are traditional Christian teachings that the LDS Church has adopted as doctrine because there is no other specific revelation on the subject. So I don't see anything catastrophic about doctrines like this that may be inaccurate. It simply means the Lord has not revealed them to us. However, we must admit they are doctrines because they are. It's also not catastrophic that doctrine changes which in and of itself is doctrine.

[David T]

Not true. To propose that BY taught an Adam-God theory is, among other things, to say that BY did not accept key doctrines already extant.

He didn't.

One of the reasons why Adam Sr. Adam Jr. is the better explaination.

Only if you ignore lots of explicit transcripts, and how his contemporaries understood him and explained what he was saying. Nobody nobody contemporary to BY expressed or explained his teachings in a Adam Sr/Adam Jr context.

[BCSpace]

Not true. To propose that BY taught an Adam-God theory is, among other things, to say that BY did not accept key doctrines already extant.

He didn't.

The problem with that is some are found so explicitly in scripture that it is unreasonable to think that even BY would not believe them.

Only if you ignore lots of explicit transcripts, and how his contemporaries understood him and explained what he was saying. Nobody nobody contemporary to BY expressed or explained his teachings in a Adam Sr/Adam Jr context.

Maybe. But it is also true that many of BY's direct statements and those of his contemporaries can be interpreted just as well with Adam Sr. Adam Jr..

[David T]

The problem with that is some are found so explicitly in scripture that it is unreasonable to think that even BY would not believe them.

Keep in mind he was readily willing to admit that some Biblical accounts were "Baby stories", the Pearl of Great Price texts weren't canonized or very well known yet, the JST texts (such as Moses) were distrusted, and adding that Brigham was wont to say things to the tune of, "such and such says this, but that doesn't make sense to me, so I think this...etc." - Brother Brigham was very fluid with his understanding of the concept of permanence of literal scriptural authority - taking a page, I'd note, from Joseph himself.

[WalkerW]

The Adam, Sr./Adam, Jr. explanation seems very ad hoc and takes a very Protestant-like "inerrancy" view of BY's sermons.

I've actually had my interest in Adam-God renewed, however. The more I learn about Adam as the Great High Priest, the more I wonder how much of BY's sermons fit into that ancient context.

[David T]

I've actually had my interest in Adam-God renewed, however. The more I learn about Adam as the Great High Priest, the more I wonder how much of BY's sermons fit into that ancient context.

Actually, as I believe the above linked essay shows very well, it appears the new scholastic understanding of the ancient temple element of First Man being present in a visionary context at the Creation, and the concept of Kings representing and becoming the First Man (as well as an avatar of YHWH) are the missing link which, not being known by BY, caused him go off in another direction.

As Maxwell Smart would say, "Missed it by this much!"

[WalkerW]

Actually, as I believe the above linked essay shows very well, it appears the new scholastic understanding of the ancient temple element of First Man being present in a visionary context at the Creation, and the concept of Kings representing and becoming the First Man (as well as an avatar of YHWH) are the missing link which, not being known by BY, caused him go off in another direction.

As Maxwell Smart would say, "Missed it by this much!"

Ah. I didn't see the article you had linked. That's actually one I've been saying, "I need to read that," but put it off. Now I will actually do so. Thanks.

[BCSpace]

The problem with that is some are found so explicitly in scripture that it is unreasonable to think that even BY would not believe them.

Keep in mind he was readily willing to admit that some Biblical accounts were "Baby stories", the Pearl of Great Price texts weren't canonized or very well known yet, the JST texts (such as Moses) were distrusted,

I don't think he would propose that Adam did not actually die after being cast out from the garden do you? It is also clear that BY believed that Adam and Eve were the children of God just like we are:

The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, "we are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. JD 13:311-312

It really is too difficult to justify BY believing an Adam-God theory. Too many conflicts that are still contemporary with his time.

and adding that Brigham was wont to say things to the tune of, "such and such says this, but that doesn't make sense to me, so I think this...etc." - Brother Brigham was very fluid with his understanding of the concept of permanence of literal scriptural authority - taking a page, I'd note, from Joseph himself.

Sure, yet FAIR seems willing to admit that Watson "has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher"

The Adam, Sr./Adam, Jr. explanation seems very ad hoc

Being analogous to the way Elias is used as a title (or God/Jehovah/Elohim for that matter), I think it's not nearly as limited in applicability as you suppose.

and takes a very Protestant-like "inerrancy" view of BY's sermons.

Watson seems to understand that BY didn't "equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do" so I think the hypothesis does flex when BY flexes.

[Bob Crockett]

I like Van Hale's analysis from 1983. This has been circulating on the internet from the earliest days the internet went up to the public.

Van Hale has since rejected the historicity of the Book of Mormon but at the time he penned this analysis he was a 100 percenter. He still believes he is.

[David T]

I don't think he would propose that Adam did not actually die after being cast out from the garden do you?

That was exactly what he asserted...later on in his life.

[David Bokovoy]

I don't think he would propose that Adam did not actually die after being cast out from the garden do you?

"When Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came." Brigham Young, L. John Nuttall Journal, 1:21.

"I have been to the altar where Adam offered sacrifices and blessed his sons and then left them and went to heaven." Heber C. Kimball, JD 12:188.

It seems, BC, that you need to do a little research on Brigham's views regarding "Celestial Bodies." I'll get you started with a citation from the Liahona, or Elders Journal, an official Church publication from 1909:

"When Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden of Eden they had resurrected bodies, in which there was no blood. A spiritual fluid or substance circulated in their veins instead of blood. Consequently, they had not power to beget children with tabernacles of flesh, such as human beings possess. The fall caused a change in their bodies, which, while it rendered them mortal, at the same time gave them power to create mortal bodies of flesh, blood and bone for their offspring" Liahona, vol. 6, pg. 33.

Here's Brigham teaching this doctrine:

"Our Father begat all the spirits that were begotten before any tabernacles were made. When our Father came into the Garden, he came with his celestial body and brought one of this wives with him, and ate of the fruit of the Garden until he could beget a tabernacle. Adam is Michael or God and all the God that we have anything to do with. They ate of this fruit and formed the first tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child, it was by the Father and in on other way, only like we are begotten." Brigham Young as cited by Wilford W. Woodruff, Journal April 9, 1852.

[kamenraider]

Can anyone here claim personal revelation as the foundation of their belief as to whether or not Adam is the father of our spirits and of Jesus Christ, or should we wait until there should stand up a priest with urim and thummim?

[David T]

Can anyone here claim personal revelation as the foundation of their belief as to whether or not Adam is the father of our spirits and of Jesus Christ, or should we wait until there should stand up a priest with urim and thummim?

As whatever inspired insight anyone were to gain on the subject would be a) given for their personal benefit, and that no one on these boards falls under their personal stewardship, and b) it would be non-falsifiable, I think this is not a useful question per this discussion.

[Obiwan]

I brought this point up in another thread but I think this topic needs to have its own discussion. There has been a lot of disagreement among LDS on here about the extent to which Latter-Day prophets provide us with truth. The so-called fundamentalist thinkers claim that believing in everything the prophets have said is a measure of how much we trust them as prophets. For example, if a prophet says that there was a literal global flood, many argue that this is proof that there was certainly a global flood..

I used to to think this way, but my perspective has changed a bit. One of the factors that contributed to this my change of perspective was learning about Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings. The fact that he taught the Adam-God theory is indisputable. How do the more literalist LDS deal with this fact? The Adam-God teaching is proof that prophets can be wrong. Does it mean that prophets are capable of leading us away from Christ. I don't think so. But, it shows that prophets can be wrong about things that aren't exactly critical to salvation. I would say that they can be especially wrong scientific and historical matters.

How do you deal with the Adam-God theory?

Brigham taught Adam/God, but he didn't teach the anti-mormon (and rare LDS who are confused) version of Adam/God.

Brigham was simply teaching what is still taught in the Temple today. I frankly don't understand why it's so difficult. Even further, many more times during the same period we have many more records of him teaching the "traditional" understanding of Adam. Clearly then, he wasn't teaching the commonly repeated perversion of his words, he was teaching something else.

Any mormon that thinks Brigham was teaching what anti's especially think he was teaching simply need to study more and think differently more, look at things in a different way. It's the same with the "sex with Mary" idea. That was NEVER what those LDS leaders were teaching, such is an extreme pervision and an ignoring of LDS teachings and contexts.

Of course, prophets sometimes do make mistakes, and such is easily determined/dicerned for ourselves by the scriptures, Holy Ghost, other prophets, and the Priesthood we also have. Most of the so-called mistakes claimed by anti-mormons are perversions of their words and our theology, not actual mistakes. What's left over is the rare human error and some personal views that aren't and never were the Restored Gospel, no matter how much anti-mormons and the rare misinformed more wish to make such, such as the idea that the Church was once racist.