Jump to content

Adam - God


Log

Recommended Posts

I keep seeing this teaching maligned on these boards, so I thought perhaps Elden Watson's work on the subject might warrant greater exposure, especially since I find the following in FAIR Wiki - "[Watson's] theory has not been widely accepted, partly because it is not widely known...."

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

Enjoy. Someone needs to let MRM know about it too, as there is information in it which should get them to alter their commentary on Bruce R. McConkie's rebuke of Eugene England. Elder McConkie erred in his letter on precisely this teaching, and acknowledged this to Watson, giving him permission to report this publicly.

Link to comment

I don't believe BRigham Young was misquoted, or misinterpreted. He clearly believed Adam was deity along with his Father Eloheim, and Jesus his son. He believed Adam was the biological father of Jesus.

Link to comment

I don't believe BRigham Young was misquoted, or misinterpreted. He clearly believed Adam was deity along with his Father Eloheim, and Jesus his son. He believed Adam was the biological father of Jesus.

Righteous! Now, if you don't mind - answer Watson's work on that point. Or is it that you don't believe, despite the evidence and analysis, in which case further discussion is pointless?

[edit] It occurs to me that as a member of the RLDS or whatever, Dale has a vested interest in Brigham's teachings and/or belief being heterodox, as does MRM. I, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, would presumably have the opposite inclination. This has something to do with divergent paradigms, as well as what counts as evidence in the first place. As one who has actually put a lot of time into this issue, I am satisfied that Watson is correct - and I found Brigham's true meaning to be offensive in the extreme when I understood it. But, as I've said elsewhere, my sense of offense is not relevant to whether a thing is true or not.

Link to comment

Who is MRM?

I read the article linked. It sounds sensible to me. Those who try to make it appear that Brigham Young meant God the Father and Adam (Jr.) were the same person were just looking for something to cause a problem with. Those who have studied the writings of Brigham Young have never had a problem with it. Only those with immature understanding and/or a willingness to look for problems.

It amazes me that it still comes up.

Link to comment

Righteous! Now, if you don't mind - answer Watson's work on that point. Or is it that you don't believe, despite the evidence and analysis, in which case further discussion is pointless?

[edit] It occurs to me that as a member of the RLDS or whatever, Dale has a vested interest in Brigham's teachings and/or belief being heterodox, as does MRM. I, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, would presumably have the opposite inclination. This has something to do with divergent paradigms, as well as what counts as evidence in the first place. As one who has actually put a lot of time into this issue, I am satisfied that Watson is correct - and I found Brigham's true meaning to be offensive in the extreme when I understood it. But, as I've said elsewhere, my sense of offense is not relevant to whether a thing is true or not.

I don't know about Dale's religious affiliation, but I am a true blue flaming Mormon and I agree with what Dale says. Brigham Young was not misinterpreted nor was he misquoted. Without going into the ultimate truth of the question, I will say that Brigham Young had some views on the subject which he expressed openly, clearly and frequently, and which subsequently fell out of favor with the church and were changed, and in many cases, suppressed and denied.

Brigham Young taught that Adam was a god in the premortal existence, not that he will simply become a god in the resurrection.

Brigham Young did not teach an Adam, Sr., and an Adam, Jr. This is an imaginative post-Brigham idea created with the sole purpose of trying to square what Brigham Young taught with the current teachings of the church. I don't buy it.

It reminds me of another time when people tried to harmonize the "one God" of the Old Testament with the "three Gods" of the New Testament and ended up with "The Trinity." Sometimes bad things happen when we seek to harmonize conflicting ideas without regard to the consequences.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

Brigham Young did not teach an Adam, Sr., and an Adam, Jr. This is an imaginative post-Brigham idea created with the sole purpose of trying to square what Brigham Young taught with the current teachings of the church. I don't buy it.

Righteous! Now, if you don't mind - answer Watson's work on that point. Or is it that you don't believe, despite the evidence and analysis, in which case further discussion is pointless?
Link to comment

What's your summary of his point? The discussion is with you not with him. I believe Joseph Smith was unorthodox at times. That Brigham Young had his Adam God idea is no truer to me than Joseph Smith's God was once a man idea. So some of us Community of Christ are just as admitting Joseph Smith's errors as on Brigham Young. No need to defend either man for doctrinal blunders.

LDS radio show host Van Hale discounts the misquoted, or misinterpreted idea that he used to believe in. He also discounts the idea Brigham Young's sermons were on this point erroneously transcribed. I am not going to place Watson over Van Hale on this point. I have read all the Adam God citations in context for myself & do not agree Watson has explained them away as orthodox LDS ideas of Adam.

Do me a favor cite an Adam God quote & offer me an summary explanation based on Watson's answer to that citation. Let's discuss an Adam God citations one at a time. Brigham Young applied the only God title to Adam literally in the 1852 sermon. He did not mean based on anything in the context I can see that Adam was merely the grandfather of the human race. I think some people in order to avoid the charge Brigham Young taught less heretical ideas read better ideas back onto the sermons.

I looked through Watsons article & was not in agreement with him. Do you think I have misunderstood Watsons ideas? I think he is just repeating the same thing I and Van Hale used to believe.

Link to comment

What's your summary of his point? The discussion is with you not with him. I believe Joseph Smith was unorthodox at times. That Brigham Young had his Adam God idea is no truer to me than Joseph Smith's God was once a man idea. So some of us Community of Christ are just as admitting Joseph Smith's errors as on Brigham Young. No need to defend either man for doctrinal blunders.

LDS radio show host Van Hale discounts the misquoted, or misinterpreted idea that he used to believe in. He also discounts the idea Brigham Young's sermons were on this point erroneously transcribed. I am not going to place Watson over Van Hale on this point. I have read all the Adam God citations in context for myself & do not agree Watson has explained them away as orthodox LDS ideas of Adam.

Do me a favor cite an Adam God quote & offer me an summary explanation based on Watson's answer to that citation. Let's discuss an Adam God citations one at a time. Brigham Young applied the only God title to Adam literally in the 1852 sermon. He did not mean based on anything in the context I can see that Adam was merely the grandfather of the human race. I think some people in order to avoid the charge Brigham Young taught less heretical ideas read better ideas back onto the sermons.

I looked through Watsons article & was not in agreement with him. Do you think I have misunderstood Watsons ideas? I think he is just repeating the same thing I and Van Hale used to believe.

Although busy on my Shepherd of Hermas threads (like spinning three plates at once), I read this by Dale and have to say I agree totally with everything he says about Brigham Young. (And would distinguish my beliefs solely on the issue that I do not think Joseph Smith's teaching about God constituted a doctrinal blunder, but is actually the grand key of understanding the entire plan of salvation.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

I only gave the Joseph Smith example to show I wasn't being prejudicial towards Brigham Young. I can be hard on Restoration leaders even the ones my denomination favors. I am not anti-Brigham Young. I do not accept him as successor to Joseph Smith, but my comment about his idea was not meant as an attack. Who I favor as leader does not effect my reading of Brigham Young's Adam God quotes.

Brigham Young never confused Adam & Eloheim. He just in my view gave him the delegated roles everyone in the LDS church believes was Eloheim's alone. So I think Brigham Young meant Adam was God the Fathers subordinate agent. Brigham Young was normal in his ideas about Adam's relationship with Eloheim. I just believe he believed Adam had achieved his exaltation prior to his going to the garden.

One of his points was that Adam had come to the garden with Eve one of his wive's? Do not recall Watson mentioning that. In LDS theology marriage must be achieved in mortality, or by proxy. It's not LDS theology that married spirits existed in the pre-existence.

I recall Brigham Young saying Adam was created from the dust of the earth, but not this earth. That would indicate to me he believe Adam came from some place else with a body already in existence.

In LDS theology Jesus shares the only God title with Eloheim. Since LDS believe the Godhead is three beings what's more one more more person sharing the status, or title of God?

Link to comment

I don't believe BRigham Young was misquoted, or misinterpreted. He clearly believed Adam was deity along with his Father Eloheim, and Jesus his son. He believed Adam was the biological father of Jesus.

I did read Elden's writing carefully again before posting. It had been so long since I read it that I did not remember some of his finer points.

I still find the two Adam idea contrived, and obviously as consiglieri says, an effort to reconcile all the recorded Adam-God statements of President Young and what the church teaches today. I do not believe the church will ever try to teach Elden's version openly. For one thing, I believe that trained Historians would cut it to pieces.

However, Elden deals with the real evidence, which is refreshing.

I do find it interesting that he brings out evidence that a few church leaders have taught that Adam and Eve were conceived and born literally by Heavenly Father (and Mother) in a Celestial Sphere before coming here with adult bodies. Meaning the scriptural accounts of them being created from the dust and from a rib are not literal.

What exactly was President Young teaching? Why not send this or a similar list out to all church members and let them decide for themselves? Then, have a worldwide church discussion to try to find the most honest, intelligent answer.

But, would it not be really best if the LORD simply gave further revelation on the matter, making it so simple that a child could understand? I continue to believe the Second Book of Commandments is just such further revelation.

Richard

Link to comment

I did read Elden's writing carefully again before posting. It had been so long since I read it that I did not remember some of his finer points.

I still find the two Adam idea contrived, and obviously as consiglieri says, an effort to reconcile all the recorded Adam-God statements of President Young and what the church teaches today. I do not believe the church will ever try to teach Elden's version openly. For one thing, I believe that trained Historians would cut it to pieces.

However, Elden deals with the real evidence, which is refreshing.

I do find it interesting that he brings out evidence that a few church leaders have taught that Adam and Eve were conceived and born literally by Heavenly Father (and Mother) in a Celestial Sphere before coming here with adult bodies. Meaning the scriptural accounts of them being created from the dust and from a rib are not literal.

What exactly was President Young teaching? Why not send this or a similar list out to all church members and let them decide for themselves? Then, have a worldwide church discussion to try to find the most honest, intelligent answer.

But, would it not be really best if the LORD simply gave further revelation on the matter, making it so simple that a child could understand? I continue to believe the Second Book of Commandments is just such further revelation.

Richard

This is the first time I have heard of the second book of commandments .

What is it from? Who made it ? I read some parts of it and did not regognize the feeling of it being from God that I feel with the Bom, the Bible and the D&C and PGP. I don't mean any disrespect or am not saying that it is wrong ,I'm just am making a personl observation .

I like the Watson paper I have posted it before . I think it is a very reasonable paper .

I would like to see it discussed on this board peice by peice .

Link to comment

Let's discuss an Adam God citations one at a time.

OK, here we go.

Brigham Young delivered this discourse just six months after the death of Joseph Smith. It is the first recorded statement by Brigham Young following the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith in which Brigham Young explains the identity of God the Father. This report of this discourse was recorded by George Laub in his personal journal.

Commencing the Kingdom. At the dedication of the Seventys Hall. Now concerning the organisation of the kingdom of God is brought to pass. The Saviour told his deciples as he Seen the father do so does he, & as Joseph Smith seen Jesus doo so did Joseph do, & as I seen Joseph do so do I also, though follow me & I will lead you into the Kingdom & If I do not then my Soul for yours. All I want you to do is to obey my council to what I tell you.

The Kingdom is first organized with putting a head to it, then the various members belonging to the body, first Joseph, then the Twelve, then the High Priests, then the Seventies and Elders, then the lesser priesthood and Teachers and Deacons and members. This fills the whole body and if we take any of these offices away the body has a vacancy or schism is in the body. But Christ is the head of all, for he is our head and Elder Brother. For we was once organized before God, and Jesus was the first born or begotten of the Father and we were sent here upon this Earth to choose bodies and dwell here in the flesh as our Father who is in heaven. God sent our father Adam first and Eve. He placed them in the garden. Then he gave Adam a commandment to people this Earth, to multiply and replenish the Earth, and told him not to eat of the tree of forbidden fruit, but the devil, being one of the organized of the heavenly body, third in power, prince of the Air, he had a spirit like Cain. He saw that Jesus was the most accepted before the Father, for he loved righteousness and hated iniquity. This gave a jealousy to him and he began to accuse the brethren, which soon hurled him out, Adam and Eve then being sent to this Earth. Satan then went forth and told Eve that she should know good and evil if she eat of the forbidden or of the tree of knowledge, and she did eat, for he told her many truths and some lies. But yet this was the decree of the Father, for when he sent Adam on this Earth he decreed it too that he might forget all about his former estate, and this is the way that God first introduced sin into the world that man might be exalted and bring about the great purpose of God. For this was foreordained from before the foundation of the world, that men might be exalted and first to descend below all things that he or they might rise above all things as the Father did before us and be able to created worlds and go from [one] world to another. Therefore the heavens cannot contain him because he can go where he pleases and any that are no higher than himself, and this is what he wants us to do and the relationship we sustain to God is that we are sons of God and heirs, Joint heirs with Jesus. For he came and partook a body as we did, left the Father that he might exalt himself and redeem this world among his brethren by establishing the priesthood after the order of Melchisedek and was a Saviour to the brethren, and now we are to be saviours of men of our brethren to redeem our dead friends and the friends of those who will not save their own friends, to exalt ourself until we are all linked together again. For one dispensation will hand in their work after another, till the Son Jesus hath them all or our elder Brother. And so we will return home to our Father who sent us that we may exalt ourselves and glorify him who sent us. Then we shall have power to create worlds ourselves and rule them as Jesus did, for Jesus when on the earth called the twelve disciples his brethren and all who do the will of the Father in heaven, and the scripture also tells us of the prodigal son who left his fathers house and went [on] a far journey, also that there is none our father but one who is in heaven.

Brigham Young, 18 BYU Studies (#2) 177-178 (Winter 1978) (George Laub Journal, 26 December 1844)
Link to comment

I do not think Brigham Young taught Adam God until 1852. So parts of what he said in 1844 might be more in line with what LDS belief is today.

I think Charles Rich claimed to hear the 1852 sermon. His son doubted the claim. And I vaguely recall him not being present to hear the sermon as he claimed. Does anybody have the facts to refresh my memory? I ran into some of this information in my reading in the last 22, or more years. But from what I recall he said he claimed to have heard that sermon differently.

----

Van Hale's "What About The Adam-God Theory?" can be found online at http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm

Link to comment

I do not think Brigham Young taught Adam God until 1852. So parts of what he said in 1844 might be more in line with what LDS belief is today.

Brigham Young claimed that he got his teachings about Adam from Joseph Smith, so why would he suddenly change what he taught in 1852?
Link to comment

Think about it: "I AM" is the name of Jehovah. AdAM is the name of the first man. Both contain the words AM, so maybe that makes Adam, God.

Faulty conclusion FTW!

Link to comment

I do not think Brigham Young taught Adam God until 1852. So parts of what he said in 1844 might be more in line with what LDS belief is today.

I think Charles Rich claimed to hear the 1852 sermon. His son doubted the claim. And I vaguely recall him not being present to hear the sermon as he claimed. Does anybody have the facts to refresh my memory? I ran into some of this information in my reading in the last 22, or more years. But from what I recall he said he claimed to have heard that sermon differently.

----

Van Hale's "What About The Adam-God Theory?" can be found online at http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm

I still like the Watson paper on Adam-God more that the Van Hale paper.

.

Link to comment

Think about it: "I AM" is the name of Jehovah. AdAM is the name of the first man. Both contain the words AM, so maybe that makes Adam, God.

Faulty conclusion FTW!

Actually, "I AM" is a mispronunciation of "a yam".

"Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, a yam hath sent me unto you." - Exodus 3:14

Link to comment

I'm wondering if the TBMs on this board actually believe the Adam-God doctrine.

If not, why not? (Just BY's personal opinion?)

If so, how to reconcile this belief with the fact that this teaching has gone out the window in more recent LDS teaching?

Best.

CKS

Link to comment

I'm wondering if the TBMs on this board actually believe the Adam-God doctrine.

If not, why not? (Just BY's personal opinion?)

If so, how to reconcile this belief with the fact that this teaching has gone out the window in more recent LDS teaching?

Best.

CKS

I have my own personal views of what Brigham meant and they are connected with issues like Adam-ondi-Ahman. So what one person's view of the "Adam-God" doctrine might not be the same as another person's view.

I hold to the general premise that the standard works is the official doctrines of the Church. If what Brigham Young said is more than his opinion, it must agree or be compatible with the Standard Works. If they don't then either B.Y. statements are either opinion or the interpretation of them need to be modified to be made compatible with the Standard works.

Link to comment

I believe Brigham Young made Adam one of the Godhead, or Trinity. I believe he has Adam as the creator of spirits. That Adam was the Father of Christ under Eloheim. Plus Adam was a polygamist in his view at the time he entered the garden with Eve. That is not LDS theology. And it does not fit the scriptures.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...