Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
inquiringmind

Two Adams?

Recommended Posts

Did Brigham really say this, and is it possible the whole Adam-God thing was just a misunderstanding?

To complement the above view, some Mormons also claim that Brigham Young used the name "Adam" for two distinct entities.[citation needed] It is argued that Brigham Young often distinguished between "Father Adam", referring to the God of the Universe, and "Adam" or "our father Adam", referring to Adam, the first mortal man. In many of Brigham Young's controversial discourses, including the alleged "Adam-God" discourse, he attempted to make that distinction that there were two Adams. For example, on 28 December 1845 Brigham Young made an explicit reference to a "more ancient" Adam after whom Michael received the name Adam. "Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood." (Intimate Chronicle (William Clayton Journal) 238-239 (28 December 1845)). On 25 April 1855 Brigham Young spoke of Adam (Michael) as having lived for a long time with another Being whom Brigham Young explicitly calls "father Adam." "Well, you see from this that when you and I have been with and lived with the Lord, we shall know his voice. If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [father Adam] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps, but reading the history will not teach you these things." (3 Brigham Young Addresses ¶7 (25 April 1855))]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine#Two_Adams:_Adam_and_Elohim

Share this post


Link to post

Yes. An Adam-God theory is incompatible with various other BY expressions as well as clear LDS doctrines. It is more likely that BY was speaking of an Adam Sr.-Adam Jr. theory as illustrated here:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

Basically, God the Father (Adam Sr.), by partaking of the physical food on the earth with His wife(Eve Sr.) was able to beget the Adam(Jr.) and Eve(Jr.) who eventually partook of the forbidden fruit and went through the Fall.

Of course this is also incompatible with LDS doctrine, but it actually fits what BY was saying.

Edited by BCSpace

Share this post


Link to post
Of course this is also incompatible with LDS doctrine, but it actually fits what BY was saying

Why would the Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory be incompatible with LDS doctrine?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

If he was making a distinction between Adam Sr. Adam Jr, none of his contemporaries seem to know about it, and Brigham never appears to have corrected even Apostles who were very vocally against the generally understood A/G principle (That Michael was a resurrected being, God the Father of our spirits, who became mortal to beget his spirit children's physical bodies).

The evidence for Adam Jr/Sr is EXTREMELY weak, and circumstantial. Arguments that Brigham Young would never teach the A/G (as understood by his contemporaries and most who plainly read Brigham's discourses) because of the ideas that Brigham would never contradict clear scripture or previous doctrine are silly, because Brigham Young publicly stated he was okay with doing such things. Joseph did the same thing.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

If he was making a distinction between Adam Sr. Adam Jr, none of his contemporaries seem to know about it, and Brigham never appears to have corrected even Apostles who were very vocally against the generally understood A/G principle (That Michael was a resurrected being, God the Father of our spirits, who became mortal to beget his spirit children's physical bodies).

The evidence for Adam Jr/Sr is EXTREMELY weak, and circumstantial. Arguments that Brigham Young would never teach the A/G (as understood by his contemporaries and most who plainly read Brigham's discourses) because of the ideas that Brigham would never contradict clear scripture or previous doctrine are silly, because Brigham Young publicly stated he was okay with doing such things. Joseph did the same thing.

But if he thought Adam was God, why would he say "Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood" (Intimate Chronicle (William Clayton Journal, 238-239 [28 December 1845])?

And "If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [father Adam] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps..." (3 Brigham Young Addresses ¶7 [25 April 1855])?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post
But if he thought Adam was God, why would he say "Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood"?

"Adam", like all names in the Bible, is a title as much as it is a name, per se.

Brigham also said that the first man [on any planet] is always named "Adam".

Adam, in Hebrew, means, literally, "ruddy", and, by extension, "of the red dirt/mud".

I have a book by a Jewish scholar who claims that "A" + "dama" means "First Blood", from the use of letters as numbers in Hebrew, "Aleph" being the first letter, and "dama" being "blood". (I do not have Hebrew, so I am relying wholly on his explanation.)

Adam was indeed the "First Blood" on earth. He deserved the title. If, as Brother Brigham told us, the first man is always "Adam", and if "Adam" is a title, as Brigham's statement implies, then the quotation you raised is perfectly clear.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe he was a Jewish Gnostic and was talking about Adam Kadmon in the demiurgic sense?

Probably no.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe he was a Jewish Gnostic and was talking about Adam Kadmon in the demiurgic sense?

Probably no.

What are you talking about?

It really helps if you use the "Reply" button, rather than just plunking down a string of text.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

But if he thought Adam was God, why would he say "Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood" (Intimate Chronicle (William Clayton Journal, 238-239 [28 December 1845])?

This is a significant very early reference, about a year and a half after Joseph's death, and still in Nauvoo. It goes in line with Brigham's developing view of Eternal Progression, where each God becomes an Adam for their own world. According to this, at one time, both Jehovah and Elohim had been Adams (an early version of the Endowment was reported to have Jehovah's response to Elohim's question, "Is it good that Man should be alone?" to be, "No, for we are not alone."). According to this, Michael's Fathers had each taken on the roles of Adams as a stage in their Progression. The same with their Eternal Spouses, in regards to being Eves.

A version of this teaching still managed to get through correlation in theTeachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual in relation to the women:

Eve was a name or title conferred upon our first mother, because she was actually to be the mother of all the human beings who should live upon this earth. I am looking upon a congregation designed to be just such beings

Back to your question:

And "If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [father Adam] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps..." (3 Brigham Young Addresses ¶7 [25 April 1855])?

I'm not familiar with this source or reference, and would have no idea how to look it up. What is it, who recorded it, and where can I see the source for the full context? There are some brackets in there where I'd like to see if the context justifies them before commenting further or speculating.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

This is a significant very early reference, about a year and a half after Joseph's death, and still in Nauvoo. It goes in line with Brigham's developing view of Eternal Progression, where each God becomes an Adam for their own world. According to this, at one time, both Jehovah and Elohim had been Adams (an early version of the Endowment was reported to have Jehovah's response to Elohim's question, "Is it good that Man should be alone?" to be, "No, for we are not alone."). According to this, Michael's Fathers had each taken on the roles of Adams as a stage in their Progression. The same with their Eternal Spouses, in regards to being Eves.

A version of this teaching still managed to get through correlation in theTeachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young manual in relation to the women:

Back to your question:

I'm not familiar with this source or reference, and would have no idea how to look it up. What is it, who recorded it, and where can I see the source for the full context? There are some brackets in there where I'd like to see if the context justifies them before commenting further or speculating.

See the Wikipedia article quoted in the OP.

The source is theirs (though I replaced the double perenthises with brackets.)

And btw: I would like to know if these are reliable sources too.

Anyone?

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post
Of course this is also incompatible with LDS doctrine, but it actually fits what BY was saying
Why would the Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory be incompatible with LDS doctrine?

Because it conflicts with the notion that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father in the flesh. In a Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory, Adam and Eve are also begotten.

Share this post


Link to post
The evidence for Adam Jr/Sr is EXTREMELY weak, and circumstantial. Arguments that Brigham Young would never teach the A/G (as understood by his contemporaries and most who plainly read Brigham's discourses) because of the ideas that Brigham would never contradict clear scripture or previous doctrine are silly, because Brigham Young publicly stated he was okay with doing such things. Joseph did the same thing.

We've been through this before and Adam Sr. Adam Jr. trumped. IIRC, there was a BY reference that supposedly couldn't be explained by Adam Sr. Adam Jr. and as it turned out, it could.

Share this post


Link to post

We've been through this before and Adam Sr. Adam Jr. trumped. IIRC, there was a BY reference that supposedly couldn't be explained by Adam Sr. Adam Jr. and as it turned out, it could.

CFR. I recall differently.

This is the last I remember 'being through this'. (this was right before I went on a short leave of absence from the boards for personal reasons). But I don't see anything past that that "trumped" anything.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post
We've been through this before and Adam Sr. Adam Jr. trumped. IIRC, there was a BY reference that supposedly couldn't be explained by Adam Sr. Adam Jr. and as it turned out, it could.
CFR. I recall differently.

Can't CFR an IIRC by definition.

This is the last I remember 'being through this'. (this was right before I went on a short leave of absence from the boards for personal reasons). But I don't see anything past that that "trumped" anything.

It's not the one I recall though post #73 may contain the relevant quote(s) I was referring to. However, regarding this thread, the premise that BY would not hesitate to contradict existing doctrine can't help the Adam-God case unless one can find were he specifies which doctrine he has a mind to contradict.

Share this post


Link to post

Can't CFR an IIRC by definition.

It's not the one I recall though post #73 may contain the relevant quote(s) I was referring to.

I think is the one you were talking about:

"Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not [p. 24] lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came."

Your argument, I believe, was that because Jesus is presented as the only begotten of Father Adam, therefore, Father Adam cannot be being taught as the Adam who was our physical ancestor, the first man, 'after the flesh'.

If I understand right, you read it like this:

Father Adam's [Sr/Elohim's] oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams [Sr/Elohim's] first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten [of Sr/Elohim] as it is written. (In his divinity he [Sr/Elohim] having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve [Sr]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.

So, again, to clarify, if I understand right, your premise is that BY was teaching in this phrase that when Elohim and His Wife finished the work of Creation, they didn't die on the earth, but went to the spirit world, where Elohim came in the spirit to Mary, which as a result she conceived conceived Jesus, Elohim's only begotten in the flesh?

Before I respond, I want to be clear that this is really how you understand this, and what you think is a trump card for Adam Sr/Jr, which was consistent with the text in the same document:

"We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child."

Did I correctly express your position? If not, please point out explicitly where I was wrong concerning your interpretation, and then I'll proceed.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

Because it conflicts with the notion that Jesus is the only begotten son of the Father in the flesh. In a Adam Sr./Adam Jr. theory, Adam and Eve are also begotten.

I'm confussed here.

Given the Adam Sr. theory, were Adam Sr., and Eve Sr., in exaultation when they conceived (or begot) Adam and Eve?

Were Adam and Eve conceived (or begotten) "in the flesh" (in mortality), or did they become flesh (mortal) only after the fall?

I'm still not sure how this theory conflicts with LDS doctrine (can you explain?)

Share this post


Link to post

I think is the one you were talking about:

"Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not [p. 24] lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came."

Your argument, I believe, was that because Jesus is presented as the only begotten of Father Adam, therefore, Father Adam cannot be being taught as the Adam who was our physical ancestor, the first man, 'after the flesh'.

If I understand right, you read it like this:

Father Adam's [Sr/Elohim's] oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams [Sr/Elohim's] first begotten in the spirit World. who according to the flesh is the only begotten [of Sr/Elohim] as it is written. (In his divinity he [Sr/Elohim] having gone back into the spirit World. and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve [Sr]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.

So, again, to clarify, if I understand right, your premise is that BY was teaching in this phrase that when Elohim and His Wife finished the work of Creation, they didn't die on the earth, but went to the spirit world, where Elohim came in the spirit to Mary, which as a result she conceived conceived Jesus, Elohim's only begotten in the flesh?

Before I respond, I want to be clear that this is really how you understand this, and what you think is a trump card for Adam Sr/Jr, which was consistent with the text in the same document:

"We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child."

Did I correctly express your position? If not, please point out explicitly where I was wrong concerning your interpretation, and then I'll proceed.

BY seems to be saying that the Adam mentioned in Genesis 1-3 is God the Father, but if that's really what he was teaching here, how do you explain the Wikipedia quote?

"Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood." (Intimate Chronicle (William Clayton Journal) 238-239 (28 December 1845)). On 25 April 1855 Brigham Young spoke of Adam (Michael) as having lived for a long time with another Being whom Brigham Young explicitly calls "father Adam." "Well, you see from this that when you and I have been with and lived with the Lord, we shall know his voice. If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [father Adam] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps, but reading the history will not teach you these things." (3 Brigham Young Addresses ¶7 (25 April 1855))

http://en.wikipedia....Adam_and_Elohim

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

Adam was indeed the "First Blood" on earth. He deserved the title. If, as Brother Brigham told us, that the first man is always "Adam", and if "Adam" is a title, as Brigham's statement implies, then the quotation you raised is perfectly clear.

Lehi

And of course we have mentioned in Hebrews (I think) Christ being the "second Adam"- as the "father" of our salvation- so it is clear that the name is in fact used as a title as well.

From the title of the thread, I thought that this was what the thread would be about- Christ as the second Adam.

Edit:

Oops- no, Corinthians- I should have known that- it is our favorite LDS chapter 1Cor 15

20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. ....

42So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Edited by mfbukowski

Share this post


Link to post

BY seems to be saying that the Adam mentioned in Genesis 1-3 is God the Father, but if that's really what he was teaching here, how do you explain the Wikipedia quote?

http://en.wikipedia....Adam_and_Elohim

I feel no obligation to address the wikipedia quote when its source citation makes no sense, is given no context, and [brackets] are inserted to fill in the context that is not present. As I said before, if someone can present a source citation for this that makes sense that I can read, I would be happy to consider it.

Share this post


Link to post

I feel no obligation to address the wikipedia quote when its source citation makes no sense, is given no context, and [brackets] are inserted to fill in the context that is not present. As I said before, if someone can present a source citation for this that makes sense that I can read, I would be happy to consider it.

The citations are aparently from something called "Intimate Chronicle,William Clayton Journal, pgs.238-239 (28 December 1845), and " Brigham Young Addresses," section 7 (25 April 1855.)

Are you saying they're fictitious?

Has no one here heard og them????

Edited by inquiringmind

Share this post


Link to post

The citations are aparently from something called "Intimate Chronicle,William Clayton Journal, pgs.238-239 (28 December 1845), and " Brigham Young Addresses," section 7 (25 April 1855.)

Are you saying they're fictitious?

Has no one here heard og them????

The first quote citation from Intimate Chronicle makes perfect sense, and I'm familiar with it. In fact, I already addressed that here. the "Brigham Young Addresses" is the one that is vague, and doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited by nackhadlow

Share this post


Link to post

Please ignore the backets.

I find double parenthises confussing, so I took the liberty of replacing them with brackets in one post.

Does the citation (as it appears on Wikipedia) make any sense without them?

Share this post


Link to post

What are you talking about?

It really helps if you use the "Reply" button, rather than just plunking down a string of text.

Lehi

I was replying to the OP.

Just pointing out that what was described there was interestingly similar to certain peripheral Jewish beliefs.

Didn't mean to offend you.

Share this post


Link to post
Didn't mean to offend you.

Not offended, I'm not foolish enough to give anyone that kind of power over me.

I was just confused. It is so easy to use the "Reply" button that I am perplexed as to why people do not use it.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post

Did Brigham really say this, and is it possible the whole Adam-God thing was just a misunderstanding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine#Two_Adams:_Adam_and_Elohim

Hi,

The W article says this:

"On 25 April 1855 Brigham Young spoke of Adam (Michael) as having lived for a long time with another Being whom Brigham Young explicitly calls "father Adam"."

This would be an actual evidence for the "splitting the Adams" theory.

But then the W article quotes from the 25 April 1855 discourse:

"Well, you see from this that when you and I have been with and lived with the Lord, we shall know his voice. If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [father Adam] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps, but reading the history will not teach you these things." --(3 Brigham Young Addresses ¶7 (25 April 1855)

The only thing that supports the claim is the [father Adam] in parenthesis. And even that is confusing. Who put this parenthenizied part in?

I can read it with [the Lord] instead and it makes perfect sense that way.

Well, you see from this that when you and I have been with and
lived with the Lord
, we shall know his voice. If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [
the Lord
] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps, but reading the history will not teach you these things"

I am not at all convinced that this obscure quote really supports in the least the "Splitting the Adam" theory.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...