Adam - God

[freakin a man]

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.

I don't know how well Brigham Young's words where recorded. Where words added or deleted by the scribe of which changes the whole meaning of what Brigham said? I don't know. I do believe that Brigham probably is misunderstood and if Brigham where to be come out of the grave and hear what people have interpreted his words they way many have, he would roll his eyes and yell at people on how they could be so stupid to misunderstand what he was saying. I look forward to hearing what Brigham Young has to say in the Spirit World from the horse's mouth.

[Olavarria]

I think the best explaination of what Brigham Young really meant was given by Joseph Fielding Smith, as recorded in Doctrines of Salvation.

The idea that Heavenly Father(the father of our spirits/Elohiem) was Adam(th eater of the fruit) is a misentepretation of what Brigham tought or thought.

It is a dangerous idea, for no other reason, because polygamous sects, anti-mormons and false prophets use the idea a lure. Dont bite the worm guys.

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it. Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced. " Bruce R. McConkie

[salvar774]

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.

Are you LDS?

I don't know how you would would come to those conclusions on the Adam -God theory .

I think you are not being fair to yourself and to B.Y. If you read the watson document http://www.eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

Interpretation as a Guide to Understanding

It has been alleged by some that we are not allowed to interpret Brigham Young's statements at all, but we must take them in the most direct and straightforward understanding of his words as they appear, and allow them to thus interpret themselves. To this, I answer "Why?" This is not the way we approach any other doctrine or teaching of the Church. Why must we make a special exception for Brigham Young's statements about Adam-God? .....

Interpreting Brigham Young's Discourses

It is my belief that in order to understand Adam God correctly, we must take Brigham Young's statements and interpret and understand them in such a manner that they harmonize with other known statements of Brigham Young as well as with what is known to be true from other reliable sources such as the four Standard Works, teachings of Joseph Smith, the temple ceremony etc. If we do not do this, then we are alternatively assuming by default that Brigham Young was incapable of logical thought, that he was inconsistent, and that he did not understand the four Standard Works, the temple endowment or the teachings of Joseph Smith etc., none of which is acceptable to me.

If you start with a bias view againt B.Y. then naturally you will only see him as a man teaching false doctrine

Try seeing him as an intelligent man and a man that knows his church doctrine . He never taught that Adam was one of the Godhead, or Trinity or that Adam is the creator of spirits or that Adam was the Father of Christ under Eloheim. People that say he did, are not looking for truth ,they are looking for a ignorant man and they find one.

[Dale]

I have seen an 1856 Hymn publish by the LDS that had an Adam God hymn in it.

I see no evidence these sermons contents were erroneously transcribed. And we are dealing with a stack of quotation. I thin Van Hale's article I linked to came to mostly true conclusions. That might be what Watson thinks, but I believe the person that recorded the sermons got it right.

Daniel 7 is interpreted by Evangelicals as the Lord sitting upon his throne. So they believe by Joseph Smith saying the Ancient of Days was Michael, or Adam he taught it unknowingly. The proof-texts I recall being several from the Book of Revelations that deal with the description of the throne. And Jesus being brought to the throne is being brought to the Lord. This argument was how a relative of mine came to see some truth in the Adam God idea. The figure if not God the Father was clearly an agent in the place of God as if he was God himself.

I am not LDS. I am Community of Christ/RLDS. My conclusion is based on Van Hale's research who is LDS. Watson does not convince me. Plus I have read the sermons in context without needing Watson to explain away what I believe Brigham Young clearly taught. I think Watson is wrong. The only way to save Brigham Young from the idea he made a doctrinal blunder is to re-interpret them, or re-write them until they fit LDS orthodoxy.

[cougarfan]

Whatever BY taught, the LDS authorities today teach us emphatically that the idea of multiple mortal probations is false.

Without BY in person to give and take on this issue, I don't believe we can truly know what he taught. Therefore much of the discussion on this matter is really circular.

I think it is fair to discuss Elden Watson's discourse on this matter. I am specifically unimpressed with his implication that Adam was literally God's son. We clearly know that Jesus was the only begotten of the Father. I do believe that the biological human race may be (universally) descendant from the original human creation eons and worlds ago (I am leaning toward this position). This thought is that humanity has been transplanted (as had been the pattern in prior worlds) to the Earth. In this way, man may in fact be physically descendant (genealogically) from Elohim and other Gods, but not literally "begotten" by Elohim.

The implication of this belief is that Adam was always a mortal man, but that he had been "changed" (perhaps translated) and placed into an environment that allowed his extended life. Keep in mind that while Adam was forbidden to eat from the Tree of Knowledge when he entered the Garden, Adam and Eve were only prevented from eating of the Tree of Life after the Fall.

[Brade]

I enjoyed the read. This is the first time I have read the whole of the text. I believe I've read parts of it before. Personally I prefer the notion of "two adams." As has been mentioned by others, I think the linked text is refreshing because it does, in my opinion, a fair job at sticking to an analysis of sources. I don't have much else to say on the topic. I think more then enough has already been said. I don't know that any more "new" ideas can come out of the "adam-god" discussion. At this point it seems as if it's just a matter of picking sides.

[cougarfan]

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

Look at the poll thread I recently ran on Adam. 80+ responses and a very small minority voted for the Adam God theory.

I have seen an 1856 Hymn publish by the LDS that had an Adam God hymn in it.

Irrespective of this debate, I would like to read the hymn. Do you have an available source for it?

[Dale]

The hymns online in Changing World of Mormonism by Jerald & Sandra Tanner. It's in chapter * entitled The Adam-God Doctrine in case my link doesn't work. You can also find it by searching Adam God Hymn throrough a search tool. http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap8.htm

[Lachoneus]

My conclusion is based on Van Hale's research who is LDS. Watson does not convince me. Plus I have read the sermons in context without needing Watson to explain away what I believe Brigham Young clearly taught. I think Watson is wrong. The only way to save Brigham Young from the idea he made a doctrinal blunder is to re-interpret them, or re-write them until they fit LDS orthodoxy.

Van Hale does not convince me. I think he is wrong. I have read all of Brigham Young's statements concerning Adam in context and I have found nothing contradictory to what Watson has explained. Until those who reject Watson's explanation say something more than "I think Watson is wrong," there appears to be little need to say anything more. Watson has given any excellent explanation and so far no one has given a single reason not to accept it.

[Dale]

L-I don't see Watson as explaining anything. Would you mind trying to take one of the Adam God quotes from the book I linked to that's the meat of their case & show me how Watson has explained it? Give me a summary answer to that quote stated in your own words as you think he would give it.

[cougarfan]

The hymns online in Changing World of Mormonism by Jerald & Sandra Tanner. It's in chapter * entitled The Adam-God Doctrine in case my link doesn't work. You can also find it by searching Adam God Hymn throrough a search tool. http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap8.htm

Well, Jesus is considered the son (descendant) of Adam and David per all the scriptures. Adam does stand at the head of our (human) race, and will thus hold status as ruler of the Celestial Kingdom (under the direction of Jesus who will rule all of the celestial kingdoms).

Thanks for the reference, but I really hate to use the Tanners for anything.

[Dale]

Other than the Tanners sometimes taking things out of context they do still use many authentic sources. I have seen the hymn in other resources so is accurate as to how it's cited. The Tanners Adam-God case should not be a problem if the LDS article linked to really answers them.

[salvar774]

I have seen an 1856 Hymn publish by the LDS that had an Adam God hymn in it.

I see no evidence these sermons contents were erroneously transcribed. And we are dealing with a stack of quotation. I thin Van Hale's article I linked to came to mostly true conclusions. That might be what Watson thinks, but I believe the person that recorded the sermons got it right.

Daniel 7 is interpreted by Evangelicals as the Lord sitting upon his throne. So they believe by Joseph Smith saying the Ancient of Days was Michael, or Adam he taught it unknowingly. The proof-texts I recall being several from the Book of Revelations that deal with the description of the throne. And Jesus being brought to the throne is being brought to the Lord. This argument was how a relative of mine came to see some truth in the Adam God idea. The figure if not God the Father was clearly an agent in the place of God as if he was God himself.

I am not LDS. I am Community of Christ/RLDS. My conclusion is based on Van Hale's research who is LDS. Watson does not convince me. Plus I have read the sermons in context without needing Watson to explain away what I believe Brigham Young clearly taught. I think Watson is wrong. The only way to save Brigham Young from the idea he made a doctrinal blunder is to re-interpret them, or re-write them until they fit LDS orthodoxy.

It is evident that you have not read the Watson document because of this statement "I see no evidence these sermons contents were erroneously transcribed. And we are dealing with a stack of quotation" and that because you are RLDS you have already made up your mind that B.Y. is a false prophet and therefore teaching a false doctrine.

It is common courtesy to give people the benefit of the doubt. This nation ,being a nation with justice also states a man is innocent until proven guilty.

In other countries a man is guilty and must prove his innocents. You start with B.Y. already guilty of false doctrine and try and keep this by deciding the evidence shows this , but your evidence is tainted ,It comes from other anti B.Y. sources.

When I first heard of the Adam-God Doctrine ,I too was shocked . Trying to be a fair man and to live the law of innocent until proven guilty I started my research.That is why it is important to do as Watson states in

Interpreting Brigham Young's Discourses

"It is my belief that in order to understand Adam God correctly, we must take Brigham Young's statements and interpret and understand them in such a manner that they harmonize with other known statements of Brigham Young as well as with what is known to be true from other reliable sources such as the four Standard Works, teachings of Joseph Smith, the temple ceremony etc. If we do not do this, then we are alternatively assuming by default that Brigham Young was incapable of logical thought, that he was inconsistent, and that he did not understand the four Standard Works, the temple endowment or the teachings of Joseph Smith etc., none of which is acceptable to me."

I have read your link to the Tanners and find everything quoted of B.Y. to be accurate .What I find wrong is the pre-concieved Idea that B.Y was teaching false doctrine. I believe If you take the Adam-god doctine and apply the Watson ideas with out any pre-concieved ideas of false doctrine you come to an acceptable understanding of it.

I know I did .

[Joseph Antley]

I think it was Elder Bruce R. McConkie who explicitely stated that the "Adam-God theory" was a "heresy" that the Lord allowed President Young to believe and teach.

[Dale]

The Adam God quotes I have seen I have in an LDS book of Brigham Youngs discourses by Harold W. Pease. The books entitled if I recall right The Mind & Will of the Lord. It's a collection of Brigham Young's discourses from LDs Conferences. I double check the Tanner citations on Adam-God whenever possible.

Watson's case is the only escape Brigham Young has from the charge he was wrong.

[Lachoneus]

L-I don't see Watson as explaining anything.

Then you have not read what he wrote.

Read what he wrote and show me that what he wrote is wrong.

[salvar774]

I think it was Elder Bruce R. McConkie who explicitely stated that the "Adam-God theory" was a "heresy" that the Lord allowed President Young to believe and teach.

Elder McConkie changed his mind as stated in the Watson paper .

[stn9]

(Why can't I stop myself from commenting... just stop... no... can't... resist... )

Here's my version of "The Numbers":

200+: The number of available, AG relevant, LDS quotes and sources.

1897: The year the First Presidency and Twelve agreed (covenanted by one account) to remain silent on the doctrine in order to "rescue" (one participants word) it from derision and ignorance.

2: The number of Adams in the theory of Watson and some others.

1: The number of Adams in the AG "theory" from a plain reading of Brigham Young and others.

Infinite: The number of Adams in the AG "theory" from a plain reading of Brigham Young and others. [heh could not resist that one either]

0: The number of theories and explanations I've read on this board that harmonize the available sources without adding to or taking from them (or that even consider them all).

(I should have stopped myself....)

[Dale]

L-I did read what he said. I read it a few times since you posted it. I just think he is wrong.

[Lachoneus]

I just think he is wrong.

You have made this unsupported statement before. Until you give a reason to support your statement, there is no evidence that you have read what he said.

[salvar774]

The Adam God quotes I have seen I have in an LDS book of Brigham Youngs discourses by Harold W. Pease. The books entitled if I recall right The Mind & Will of the Lord. It's a collection of Brigham Young's discourses from LDs Conferences. I double check the Tanner citations on Adam-God whenever possible.

Watson's case is the only escape Brigham Young has from the charge he was wrong.

So you did read the Watson document. Do you disagree with every thing he wrote or just parts of it ?

Do you think it is reasonable to assume B.Y. was misunderstood or that it is possible he was misunderstood ?

[stn9]

Watson's case is the only escape Brigham Young has from the charge he was wrong.

The only? Hrm. I can think of at least one other.... heh.

[Dale]

L-I don't need to support my belief. I simply read through his article and disagree with it. My own reading of the Adam God quotes and the Adam-God quotes is enough for me. Perhaps you just find him more convincing than I do.

In any case whatever Brigham Young taught unless true he hasn't believed it since he died in 1877. I think Brigham Young died in 1877.

[cougarfan]

I think it was Elder Bruce R. McConkie who explicitely stated that the "Adam-God theory" was a "heresy" that the Lord allowed President Young to believe and teach.

I think it is possible )even likely) that BY (as quoted) was wrong and BRM is correct.

I also know that at least in the matter of Blacks and the priesthood, that BRM openly admited that everything he thought he knew on the matter was wrong.

So, I don't think we can preclude the possibility that BRM was wrong twice in his life.

[Lachoneus]

L-I don't need to support my belief. I simply read through his article and disagree with it.

In other words, you are unable to provide anything in support of your opinion.

In any case whatever Brigham Young taught unless true he hasn't believed it since he died in 1877.

This sentence makes no sense. I think Brigham Young still believes what he taught.