0
This topic is locked
Before leaving Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s teachings about the Father, we will discuss a controversial aspect of Mormon theology commonly known as Young?¢â?¬â?¢s Adam-God doctrine. This teaching is simply that ?¢â?¬??Adam?¢â?¬â?¢ is God the Father. Young claimed he learned this doctrine directly from Smith. Since there has been dispute about whether Young?¢â?¬â?¢s theology on this matter is in fact consistent with Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s own conceptions of the Father (and thus, Young misrepresented Smith), it seems appropriate to discuss some of the issues involved.
Based on some statements by Young, it appears he believed the man Adam and God the Father are the same personage. Robinson notes this conclusion has been reached by some Mormon critics: "According to them [Mormon critics] Brigham Young taught that Adam, the husband of Eve and father of Cain, is identical to that Elohim who is God, the Father of spirits and the Father of Jesus Christ."
In Robinson?¢â?¬â?¢s mind, this teaching is an aberration within Mormon thought:
The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time.
Some of the statements by Young which seem to contradict his Adam-God citations tell us several important things about Young?¢â?¬â?¢s views of Adam. First, God created Adam. Second, since Adam did not understand the works of God and received revelation from him, then God has superior knowledge to Adam. Finally, Adam is the son of God. Therefore, from this second set of citations, it should be obvious Young believed Adam and the Father are not only distinct personages, but Adam also has a lower station than his Father in Heaven. We will now attempt to resolve these apparent contradictions.
Contemporary Mormon thinkers have traditionally avoided discussion of this issue because of its apparent conflict with normative Mormon teaching and the supposed lack of historical articulation and evidence on the doctrine. I believe this perspective is at least partially wrong. Young does not contradict himself or Smith, as I hope to now show.
I would like to begin this analysis by noting Young, a contemporary and close friend of Smith, professed Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s holy calling: ?¢â?¬??I know that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, and that he had many revelations.?¢â?¬? Young said his only discontent with Smith was on some minor issues regarding financial management of the Church and he specifically said he never felt discontented with Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s theology or divine revelations. Young was noted for his high regard for Smith personally and for his devotion to Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s theology.
Since Smith was the direct source of Young?¢â?¬â?¢s doctrinal knowledge and was Young?¢â?¬â?¢s intimate associate, Young was in a much better position to understand Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s theology than contemporary thinkers. After all, contemporary thinkers are left in the position of drawing conclusions from incomplete textual material, while Young received personal theological tutoring from Smith. It may be true, as Robinson suggests, we do not have enough evidence to articulate the fullness of Young?¢â?¬â?¢s theology (or Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s for that matter), but for a contemporary thinker to assume he can understand Smith better than Young is an error of arrogance. Even the most careful examination of extant records cannot replace the person-to-person theological discussions Young enjoyed with Smith over a several year period. Morton Smith suggested, "Important indirect evidence of what a man did and taught is what his followers believed and expected. We anticipate some distortion and innovation, but the proposition that a man?¢â?¬â?¢s devoted followers radically misrepresented his teachings is a priori improbable."
Given Young?¢â?¬â?¢s strong theological endorsement of Smith, the absence of any displeasure by Smith of Young, and the lack of any evidence in the historical record to indicate Young tried to introduce innovative theology which was not consistent with what he learned directly from Smith, and Young?¢â?¬â?¢s insistence that he learned the doctrine from Smith, it seems improbable Young?¢â?¬â?¢s Adam-God theology is not based in Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s theology.
I now want to call attention to how similar the terminological problems regarding Young?¢â?¬â?¢s conceptions of Adam-God are to the inconsistent terminology used by Smith (see chapter 3). In both cases, Smith and Young used inconsistent terminology, which is an example of the second point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought (see chapter 1). On the one hand, both men usually spoke in language consistent with Nicaean understanding. On the other hand, both Smith and Young occasionally used language that drew (and still draw) charges of heresy from Nicaeans (and even some Mormons. )
Interestingly, in the case of both Smith and Young, the terminological issues center on the nature and identity of God. The similarities between the respective terminological difficulties are too similar to simply dismiss as coincidental. In fact, the key to understanding Young is to use the understanding that arose from our earlier examination of Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s theology on the nature of God. By understanding Young in this manner, we will enhance our knowledge of Smith as well, especially in areas where the extant record is not explicit.
For historical context, it must be remembered Smith taught in an era of extreme persecution for the Mormon people. On the other hand, most of Young?¢â?¬â?¢s teachings were made during the Utah theocratic period when the Mormons had temporarily escaped Nicaean persecution. Thus, Young was freer to publicly express more controversial doctrines than Smith had been. As an example, Smith did not publicly espouse polygamy and only taught the doctrine privately. However, Young openly taught the practice once the Mormons were safe in Utah. For many years, the RLDS and others insisted that plural marriage was a Young innovation (just as some believe Adam-God was a Young innovation)?¢â?¬â?though today such thinking has largely been abandoned in light of massive amounts of historical evidence proving Smith originated the plural marriage doctrine and practiced it himself.
Thus, we see at least one major doctrine of Smith was secretly taught during his own lifetime and only publicly taught by his followers after his death. While this does not prove Smith taught Adam-God, it shows precedence that such a thing might have happened. However, my chief argument for associating Adam-God with Smith is theological analysis.
I believe Young adopted the ancient Near Eastern understanding of God (in terms of elohim | ntr; see chapter 3) based mainly upon personal theological instruction he received from Smith. As part of his understanding of the nature of God, Young taught a mantic understanding of Adam and Eve.
Eliade claimed sacred narratives are ?¢â?¬??true stories?¢â?¬? about things ?¢â?¬??which really happened.?¢â?¬? Further, Eliade notes ethnologists, sociologists, and historians of religion view sacred narratives in ?¢â?¬??the sense of ?¢â?¬??sacred tradition, primordial revelation, exemplary model.?¢â?¬â?¢?¢â?¬? If a person interprets Young?¢â?¬â?¢s Adam-God comments as a true exemplary model, as opposed to an articulation of literal history, then these comments make more sense, and are consistent with Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s wide-spread usage of sacred narrative in his teachings.
Young believed Adam and Eve were not strictly actual persons but name-titles (or exemplary models) of the divine race (elohim | ntr). A name-title is a way of designating a person based upon his or her function. For example, terms like Father, Mother, Son, Daughter are name-titles referring to a specific individual within a certain context, but can also refer to a separate and distinct individual in another context. My Mother is 'Mother' to me, but 'Daughter' to her 'Mother.' In effect, a name-title describes both a person and a function.
Barker suggests in ancient texts it was not always easy to tell whether a divine name is being used to describe a specific divine personage or a function in a specific text. The ancients were much less concerned about identifying a specific personage than modern man seems to be. Collins notes angels had multiple names in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In ancient Jewish sacred narrative, multiple Great Angels bore the name ?¢â?¬??the Lord God of Israel,?¢â?¬â?¢ and none of them obviously was the Supreme Being whom they served. The supra-angel Metatron also goes by the names ?¢â?¬??God of the heavens, and God of the earth, God of gods, God of the sea, and God of the dry land.?¢â?¬? Some ancient Jewish sacred narrative also suggests repentant humans are superior to the angels. If so, repentant humans are superior to those angels designated as God, which correlates with Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s deification theology.
Barker suggests even the name-title Yahweh was probably used as a function. Interestingly, there are Jewish traditions which suggest Yahweh, who appeared to Moses at Mt. Sinai, was not the Supreme Being, but a servant acting via divine investiture of authority. This concept ties back to Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s view of our ?¢â?¬??God?¢â?¬â?¢ as an appointed vice-regent (see chapter 3). As long as we understood our ?¢â?¬??God?¢â?¬â?¢ was the appointed ?¢â?¬??God?¢â?¬â?¢ for us, then Smith believed no additional specificity was required. Earlier we cited this statement from Young, but will do so again because of its importance here: "?¢â?¬?¦it is no matter whether we are to consider Him [Adam] our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species?¢â?¬â?of one family?¢â?¬â?and Jesus Christ is also of our species."
Thus, it makes no difference whether the Supreme Being addresses us, or one of his servants, who we mistakenly believe is the Supreme Being, because of divine investiture of authority. While this usage caused some confusion among sophic rationalists, the mantics who accepted this concept had obviously little issue with it.
This is a reflection of modern man?¢â?¬â?¢s sophic tendency to categorize. On the other hand, Smith, having an ancient mantic mindset was not as concerned about this kind of specificity. Because sophic specificity and consistency was not always helpful or important, Smith did not always give enough information to determine identity. For example, Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s usage of divine names in the Mormon temple is inconsistent with OT usage and he never explicitly taught which name is supposed to represent which personage. It is likely this lack of explicitness is because the divine names do not refer to specific personages at all, but to roles performed within the sacred narrative that might be performed by a number of different people acting via divine investiture of authority as well.
Thus, Adam-God is simply the use of Adam and Eve as name-titles by Young (and Smith). Similarly, Barker notes in some Jewish sacred narrative with ancestry back to antiquity, God is the ?¢â?¬??primordial Man?¢â?¬? whose name was the same as Adam. Likewise, DeConick says some ancient texts refer to the Father as the Heavenly Adam or Spiritual Adam. These concepts correlate with the ancient narrative identifying the Garden of Eden with the holy of holies in the celestial temple. To summarize, some ancient sacred Jewish narrative equates the Father with Adam; and the most sacred place in the celestial kingdom (i.e., God?¢â?¬â?¢s dwelling) with Garden of Eden (i.e., Adam?¢â?¬â?¢s dwelling). This is not to say that Young taught exactly what is contained in this ancient sacred narrative, but it does show some very strong parallels between Young?¢â?¬â?¢s (and Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s) usage of Adam and Eve and what is contained in the ancient sacred narrative.
By suggesting Adam and Eve were not strictly actual persons in Young?¢â?¬â?¢s (and Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s) view, I am not saying they believed Adam and Eve were not real historical figures?¢â?¬â?in the sense there was a first human male and a first human female from whom the human family is descended (though it is possible that multiple Adams and Eves were placed on the earth simultaneously, which would match some ancient Jewish sacred narrative). Instead, I am suggesting the story of Adam and Eve, as portrayed in the Mormon temple story and scriptures, as transmitted by Smith, is largely an allegorical one. While the Adam and Eve narrative is indeed the story of the first human beings of this world, it is also the story of every human being in this world. Thus, in this context, every human male in the world is the Adam of the allegory, while every human female is Eve. This aspect of an exemplary Adam is discussed more fully in chapter 8.
As importantly, the Father is also Adam?¢â?¬â?since the Father is an exalted member of the human species. As we discussed in chapter 3, Smith taught the Father has provided a way for human beings to be exalted into godhood based on the same laws and principles in which God the Father and all of his progenitors ascended into this privilege. Thus, as the Adam narrative is the story of every human male, it is the story of the Father, since the Father was once a human male who has been exalted into godhood. As every human male is Adam, and the Father is an exalted human male, the Father is Adam.
Arthur Darby Nock suggested ancient rites often invited the initiates to participate in the joys and sorrows of their God. There is a correlation between this ancient way of using the metaphors of sacred narrative and the way Young discusses Adam as God. When participants assume the role of Adam and Eve in the Mormon temple rituals, they are partaking in the joys and sorrows of their God, who was the original Adam, or ?¢â?¬??first father,?¢â?¬? as Smith interprets the name. Likewise, Smith interpreted Eve as the ?¢â?¬??mother of all living?¢â?¬?¦ first of all women?¢â?¬?¦?¢â?¬? As our Father in Heaven would have the right to use the title ?¢â?¬??first father,?¢â?¬â?¢ it certainly seems appropriate our Mother would have the right to use the title ?¢â?¬??first of all women,?¢â?¬â?¢ as much as any human female.
When Young discusses Adam as God the Father, he is simply reminding his listeners that the story of Adam and Eve is the story of deific ascension. This is why it is used in the Mormon temple rites and this is why Young used it on rare occasions in his sermons.
One possible critique of my view is Young also called the Father by the name Michael, in addition to Adam. Yet, this presents no additional complexity. As suggested above, in ancient Jewish sacred narrative, it was understood all names were not unique, but divine investitures of authority. Smith wrote, "And also with Michael, or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days?¢â?¬?¦"
In this text, we learn Smith believed some personage (or role) deserved the name-titles Michael, Adam, Father of All, the Prince of All, and the Ancient of Days. Certainly, in Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s theology, our God qualifies for all these name-titles. And if it is acceptable for several of the Great Angels to be called ?¢â?¬??The Lord God of Israel,?¢â?¬â?¢ because the Supreme Being placed one of his many names within them, then it is certainly possible for a personage to be called by any of the above names if the Supreme Being placed that particular name within him as an endowment of partial divinity (see chapter
. To illustrate, Deutsch (and many others) notes the title Ancient of Days as used in Daniel is almost certainly given to God, but other documents in antiquity give the same title to lower angelic powers. On the other hand, one text appears to attribute the title sar (?¢â?¬??Prince?¢â?¬?) to God. This attribution is confusing to those who do not accept that perhaps the Father himself might only have been a vice-regent, but it makes perfect sense in a Mormon context. If Michael (?¢â?¬??Prince of the Host of the Lord?¢â?¬? ) is a name of the Supreme Being, he might have chosen an angel (or even more than one) and placed that name within that servant, thus allowing him now to be called by the divine name Michael. In Smith?¢â?¬â?¢s view, this type of naming and divine investiture would occur to allow a lesser Intelligence to grow and progress, from exaltation to exaltation, until he is ready to assume the fullness of deification. The ambiguity in this system (e.g., how can you tell which Michael is being discussed?) is an example of the second point of distinction between mantic and sophic thought (see chapter 1).
Another possible critique of my view is that Young taught that a deified Father (Adam) and Mother (Eve) must leave the celestial kingdom enter a ?¢â?¬??decelestializing?¢â?¬? process themselves to create spirit offspring:
After men have got their exaltations and their crowns?¢â?¬â?have become Gods, even the sons of God?¢â?¬â?are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.
To some, this possible ?¢â?¬??decelestializing?¢â?¬â?¢ is problematic because it might imply God can step down from being God. While that might be one way to look at it, we must remember that Young is speaking metaphorically, using the Eden sacred narrative to hint at higher mysteries; and thus, we must guard against insisting upon too much literalism. For example, it is unlikely that the Heavenly Parents had to literally eat of some type of fruit, as Mormons generally understand the Eden narrative of eating to be allegorical even when applying to the human Adam and Eve. The ?¢â?¬??decelestializing?¢â?¬? process may simply be a shielding of divine celestial glory, which outside of the celestial kingdom, cannot be safely be manifested to any not of the celestial glory (see chapter
.Another possible critique is Young?¢â?¬â?¢s suggestion that ?¢â?¬??Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam.?¢â?¬? This statement is problematic for some Mormons because they are used to associating divine names with specific personages. But, as discussed above, there is no reason to assume these divine names are not simply roles fulfilled by different beings at different times, as in ancient Hebraic sacred narrative.
As a final point, in the Testament of Abraham, Adam sits on a heavenly throne with glory comparable to that of God. In many ancient sacred narratives, the angels always stand as they even lack the joints to sit, and God is the only being that sits in heaven; thus, Adam?¢â?¬â?¢s posture means he is deified. Young may very well have similar conceptions to this primitive tradition. Interestingly, Alan F. Segal notes, ?¢â?¬??a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven?¢â?¬?¦equivalent to God?¢â?¬? (emphasis in original) was a widespread Hebraic belief dating before Jesus. This belief was considered a heresy by later Talmudic rabbis and that was eventually extinguished from what became rabbinic Judaism. Since these sacred narratives have parallels with the Metatron and Akatriel traditions, and those traditions involve deification, there is obviously a very primitive tradition involving the deification of Adam that has influenced later traditions.
To summarize, while Young?¢â?¬â?¢s Adam-God doctrine is very confusing and troubling to those of a logical and sophic perspective, it has many conceptual parallels with how divine names were used by ancient mantics.
