Adam - God

[Log]

There really doesn't seem to be a purpose anymore to this thread. The negative responses all boil down to "nuh-uh".

[Dale]

I decided to read, but not post on the thread anymore. Perhaps more exciting contributions from others will come along.

[salvar774]

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.

Dale, having read the watson document ,do you still belive this . If you do ,then you must believe B.Y. to be a complete idiot or worse .

This is totaly against any LDS teaching and B.Y. was the president of the church , he had to know this .I don't think it would be possible for any member much less the leader of the church to believe this .

[stn9]

Dale, having read the watson document ,do you still belive this . If you do ,then you must believe B.Y. to be a complete idiot or worse .

This is totaly against any LDS teaching and B.Y. was the president of the church , he had to know this .I don't think it would be possible for any member much less the leader of the church to believe this .

wow. What strikes me is the complete disconnect between what Alvarado and others are saying and Brigham Young's own analysis: "Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam <being our father and God>, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Isreal because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. Yet It is one of the most glorious of revealments of the economy of heaven, yet upon it the world hold dirrision" (8 October 1861, Church Archives; emphasis mine).

[stn9]

I have seen nothing on this thread to lead me to believe that President Young was or is wrong on this point: the elders are still grovelling and the world deriding. Well, I wish neither to grovel nor deride. I consider myself "TBM," educated, and faithful; I am serving in the Church, have a testimony, etc. But I will not pronounce a teaching to be in error because I can't understand it, and certainly not before I do my homework. More light is now available on this topic than 40 years ago, so I don't blame anyone (in the Church) for getting it wrong. The deriders can have their fun with this as they do with eveything else. But the best (public) policy is the one decided upon in 1897 (as I alluded to earlier), basically the same policy espoused by President Woodruff in 1895:

"Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? God has revealed Himself, and when the 121st section of the Doctrine and Covenants is fulfilled, whether there be one God or many gods they will be revealed to the children of men, as well as all thrones and dominions, principalities, and powers. Then why trouble yourselves about these things? God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. If we want to know any more, wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this. Humble yourselves before the Lord; seek for light, for truth, and for a knowledge of the common things of the kingdom of God. The Lord is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever. He changes not. The Son of God is the same. He is the Savior of the world. He is our advocate with the Father. We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, to-day and forever. That should be sufficient for us to know" (CD, 4:292).

I have never seen better advice yet, but if you must probe, by all means become informed. Harmonize. Be comparative. My studies have built faith, not destroyed it. But I have not seen my views represented or reflected by anyone here. Others more informed than I and whose names you would recognize have studied it and come to the same or similar views, but I (like they) are reluctant to discuss much further precisely because of what I have quoted above and because of the non-sense that comes out of both sides, the "elders" and the "world."

[Black Moclips]

I haven't read the linked paper before, but I started it and then came upon this section:

One of the worst misconceptions which has been caused by incorrectly interpreting some of Brigham Young's statements is that Adam and Eve were resurrected beings when they entered the garden of Eden. Correct doctrine respecting this topic is most easily demonstrated by reviewing some of Amulek's teachings in the 11th chapter of the Book of Alma in the Book of Mormon. In verse 45, Amulek states:

Alma 11:45

Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption.

From this verse it is evident that once an individual is resurrected, he can never die again, because the spirit and body are inseparably connected through the resurrection. Not only can resurrected beings never die, they can never even become mortal again, because mortality is corruption, and after the resurrection they can no more experience corruption. That Adam did die is universally acknowledged throughout the four standard works:

Obviously he believes that once someone is resurrected, they cannot die again. However, look at D&C 76:59:

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christâ??s, and Christ is Godâ??s.

I think this definitely leaves the door open to a resurrected being choosing to become an Adam or Eve. Isn't this one way to have an eternal progression, by becoming an Adam or Eve? Anyway, just food for thought.

[Lachoneus]

What strikes me is the complete disconnect between what Alvarado and others are saying and Brigham Young's own analysis: "Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam <being our father and God>, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Isreal because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. Yet It is one of the most glorious of revealments of the economy of heaven, yet upon it the world hold dirrision" (8 October 1861, Church Archives; emphasis mine).

And how would you restate "Brigham Young's own analysis" in your own words? I do not think that Brigham Young is saying what you think he is saying. The fact that you see a disconnect is very telling. If you will restate in your own words what you think he is saying, I think it will become obvious that you have not understood him correctly.

Have you read the entire 8 October 1861 discourse? It is one of my favorites. For those interested in reading it in its entirety, Watson reproduces it in volume 4 of his Brigham Young Addresses. The original is located in the Church Archives - Ms d 1234, Box 49, fd 8. You can read an "unedited" version online here. (Note that the paragraph divisions are different from the original set out in Watson's version.)

I think this discourse explains a lot about what Brigham Young was really trying to say when he spoke of "Adam," but so far we have only a couple of sentences Let's back up just a bit to the first paragraph of this discourse.

I will give you a few words of doctrine upon which there has been much inquiry and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Br. Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published, therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories.

Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God. That will be a curse to many of the elders of Israel because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious of revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold it [in] derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead instead [of] Joseph Smith, there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until doomsday, but they are ignorant and stupid, like the dumb ***.

Now, what do these two paragraphs say?

[salvar774]

I haven't read the linked paper before, but I started it and then came upon this section:

Obviously he believes that once someone is resurrected, they cannot die again. However, look at D&C 76:59:

I think this definitely leaves the door open to a resurrected being choosing to become an Adam or Eve. Isn't this one way to have an eternal progression, by becoming an Adam or Eve? Anyway, just food for thought.

You interpete that to mean a resurected being can die? How do you reach that conclusion ?

I don't follow.

[stn9]

Have you read the entire 8 October 1861 discourse?

lol. I think he is saying precisely what he is saying: He taught a doctrine concerning Adam and the elders of the Church of his day remained in darkness concerning it and that this darkness would continue over their minds. But it is a glorious doctrine.

Who can doubt that he understood what he was teaching? Was it received well by the Church? Did they understand it? Do they today? I simply reject the teo very imaginative and profoundly deep theories that he either was wrong or else he meant nothing other than what the average LDS understands about Adam.

What do you think he was saying?

[Log]

Have you read the entire 8 October 1861 discourse? It is one of my favorites. For those interested in reading it in its entirety, Watson reproduces it in volume 4 of his Brigham Young Addresses. The original is located in the Church Archives - Ms d 1234, Box 49, fd 8. You can read an "unedited" version online here. (Note that the paragraph divisions are different from the original set out in Watson's version.)

Wow. That's some of the best stuff I have read in a long time.

[Black Moclips]

You interpete that to mean a resurected being can die? How do you reach that conclusion ?

I don't follow.

ME: Well, I think it leaves the door open. The D&C verse, 76:59 talks about those who make it to the celestial kingdom, and I presume, by being there, they have been resurrected with a celestial body. However, the verse indicates that all things are theirs "whether life or death". I think this phrase is interesting and I've never heard anyone expound upon what that could possibly mean. One possibility (among many) is that as a resurrected celestial being, you have the choice to continue living as you do, never to experience mortal probation again, or you have the choice to be subject to death again and have additional mortal probations (like being an Adam and Eve on a new world).

[Lachoneus]

lol

You did not answer the question. Have you read the entire 8 October 1861 discourse?

I simply reject the teo very imaginative and profoundly deep theories that he either was wrong or else he meant nothing other than what the average LDS understands about Adam.

What is your explanation? We are agreed that he was not wrong, nor did he teach only what is commonly known about Adam.

[stn9]

You did not answer the question. Have you read the entire 8 October 1861 discourse?

What is your explanation? We are agreed that he was not wrong, nor did he teach only what is commonly known about Adam.

My "lol" (lots of laughs) refers to my earlier post where I state that there are over 200 sources on this topic. I suppose it could be considered pedantic for one to ask if after doing all of that research and compiling that a person would not actually read the sources. I have read every one of them, most multiple times.

My explanation, despite my obvious interest in the subject and desire to let this "last cat out of the bag" yet again, to borrow one application of the phrase (veiled reference, heh), will remain with me. Suffice it to say that exploring a third theory is where it is at. I am convinced that a faithful person with patience and study and a thorough examination of the sources can make a great deal of progress away from the "wrong/non-issue" claims. It also helps to have someone who knows point out some key ideas (which helped me out of the McConkian view to which I had arrived without knowing his viewâ??I might also add that learning that i shared his view really made me fell good about being on the right track for all of 5 to 10 seconds, and then the real discussion began!).

[Lachoneus]

. . . there are over 200 sources on this topic.

Actually, there are many more than that.

I suppose it could be considered pedantic for one to ask if after doing all of that research and compiling that a person would not actually read the sources. I have read every one of them, most multiple times.

Stating that there are over 200 sources is not the same as saying you have done any research or have read those 200 sources. We will have to take your word for it that you have done any research. Since there are many more than 200 sources, one has to wonder which sources you have actually read and which ones you have missed.

My explanation, despite my obvious interest in the subject and desire to let this "last cat out of the bag" yet again, to borrow one application of the phrase (veiled reference, heh), will remain with me. Suffice it to say that exploring a third theory is where it is at.

We only have your word for that since you refuse to enlighten us. So far I have no reason to believe you. BTW, your so-called "veiled reference" is rather obvious to those who have actually studied this topic. (e.g., 16 Millennial Star (#31) 482 (5 August 1854))

I am convinced that a faithful person with patience and study and a thorough examination of the sources can make a great deal of progress away from the "wrong/non-issue" claims.

On this we are agreed.

It also helps to have someone who knows point out some key ideas (which helped me out of the McConkian view to which I had arrived without knowing his viewâ??I might also add that learning that i shared his view really made me fell good about being on the right track for all of 5 to 10 seconds, and then the real discussion began!).

What do you mean by "the McConkian view"? Unfortunately, you have refused to engage in any "real discussion" here, so your posts really have not added to the conversation.

[stn9]

lach,

I admit that I have been reluctant to jump in fully to this discussion as neither your tone nor line of accusatory questioning in this thread is appealing to me. But, I will go a little further.

Yes, I have read the 200+ sources (transcriptions, of course) in my possession, again, as mentioned before, many of them multiple times. I suppose there would be sources with which I am unfamiliar, but I am certain all the major ones are present in my collection. I would be happy to have that collection added to. You say there are many more sources and I would be interested in your count.

I am grateful for your graciously accepting my word on my views. Very gracious indeed. BTW, the veiled reference may be obvious to you, but I am willing to bet to most others on this site it is, even now after you posted the source.

I was referring to the 2-Adam 2-Eve "McConkian" view.

And finally, I'm not sure what "real" discussion I've seen on this thread so I do not know what I am supposed to be refusing to participate in. I jumped in merely because of some comments that appeared to me to narrow the possibilities on this issue to "wrong/non-issue." You say you don't hold either of those views, but--to take your tone--I don't recall reading anything of substance from you on this point. I could be wrong. I'll go back and read your posts today.

[erichard]

Wow. That's some of the best stuff I have read in a long time.

The October 8, 1854 unpublished discourse of President Young is far better as far as Adam-God information. You might want to read it. This next link gives both a typescript of the original, and then after that a corrected version.

October 8, 1854 President Young discourse

Elder Wilford Woodruff had this to say about this October 8, 1854 discourse:

"President Young preached to a congregation of several thousand, out of doors and I believe that he preached the greatest sermon that ever was delivered to the Latter day Saints since they have been a people"

Here are some quotes from it:

I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern your or my welfare

...

There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced, they are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption. After they are organized, they experience the good and evil; the light, and the dark, the bitter and the sweet, as you and I do. There never was a time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to exaltation. Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.

Every world has had an Adam, and an Eve: named so, simply because the first man is always called Adam, and the first woman Eve; and the oldest son has always had the privilege of being ordained, appointed, and called to be the heir of the family, if he does not rebel (p. 12) against the Father; and he is the savior of that family. Every world that has been created, has been created upon the same principle. They may vary in their varieties, yet the eternity is one; it is one eternal round. These are things that scarcely belong to the best of this congregation. There are items of doctrine, and principles, in the bosom of eternity that the best of the Latter Day Saints are unworthy to receive.

...

"Then the Lord did not make Adam out of the dust of the earth?"

Yes he did, but I have not got to that part of my discourse yet. Adam was made of the dust of the earth.

"Was he made of the dust of this earth?"

No but of the dust of the earth where on he was born in the flesh, that is the way he was made, he was made of dust.

...

Moses said Adam was made of the dust of the ground, but he did not say of what ground. I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was made of the dust of the earth were he lived, where he honored his calling, believing in his Savior, or Elder Brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed, and got a glorious resurrection.

...

I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life.

...

I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial kingdom they were crowed with glory, immortality, and eternal lives, with thrones, principalities, and powers: and it was said to him it is your right to organize the elements; and to your creations and posterity there shall be no end, but you shall add kingdom to kingdom, and throne to throne; and still behold that vast eternity of unorganized matter. Adam then, was a resurrected being; and I reckon, our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve.

"How are we going to know this?" I reckon it.

...

I tell you, when you see your Father in the heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bears your spirit, you will see mother Eve. And when you see yourselves there, you have gained your exaltation; you have honored your calling here on the earth; your body has returned to its mother earth; and somebody has broken the chains of death that bound you, and given you a resurrection.

...

When you meet your Father in Heaven, you will know him, and realize that you have lived with him, and rested in his bosom for ages gone passed, and he will hail you as his sons and daughters, and embrace you, and you will embrace him, and, "Hallelujah, thank God, I have come to Father again, I have got back home," will resound through the heavens.

...

Richard

[salvar774]

ME: Well, I think it leaves the door open. The D&C verse, 76:59 talks about those who make it to the celestial kingdom, and I presume, by being there, they have been resurrected with a celestial body. However, the verse indicates that all things are theirs "whether life or death". I think this phrase is interesting and I've never heard anyone expound upon what that could possibly mean. One possibility (among many) is that as a resurrected celestial being, you have the choice to continue living as you do, never to experience mortal probation again, or you have the choice to be subject to death again and have additional mortal probations (like being an Adam and Eve on a new world).

No it is talking about the ordinances that exhalted beings will be doing such as the resurection of the dead and about the creation of spirit children. That scripture is talking about something totally differant that has not been talked about much.

It was touched slightly by President Kimbal. B.Y. talked about a few times also.

[Log]

The October 8, 1854 unpublished discourse of President Young is far better as far as Adam-God information. You might want to read it. This next link gives both a typescript of the original, and then after that a corrected version.

October 8, 1854 President Young discourse

I own the book in which that is in. I have read it and see it as quite compatible with Watson's interpretation. What I meant was the good stuff was not the reference to God in the name of Adam, but the doctrine on the nature of marriage, men, and women; the sensitivity to the sacrifice that polygamy represented to women, and answered that one woman's case, what was her name, Zina something Smith Young whatever while her husband was still alive. It gives me great insight.

[Black Moclips]

No it is talking about the ordinances that exhalted beings will be doing such as the resurection of the dead and about the creation of spirit children. That scripture is talking about something totally differant that has not been talked about much.

It was touched slightly by President Kimbal. B.Y. talked about a few times also.

Alvarado - I think your interpretation is certainly a possibility, but as it stands, the verse is quite vague and could mean any number of things. There could even be more than one applicable interpretation.