consiglieri Posted September 5, 2008 Share Posted September 5, 2008 Many people, such as myself, have studied Brigham Young' teachings about Adam and, taking them at face-value, have concluded he taught that Elohim, Jehovah and Michael are respectively Father, Son and Grandson. (In fact, Brigham Young said that in one place.) Specifically regarding Adam, Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father of our spirits as well as our physical bodies. (Or at least, so it is maintained by some.)On the other hand, in an apparent effort to make Brigham Young's teachings comport with current Mormon Doctrine, a number of LDS have subscribed to a theory promulgated by Elden Watson (I believe I have the name right).My understanding from one who subscribes to this theory is that it states, in thumbnail form:BY never taught such a thing (as the Adam-God Theory). His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.This thread is NOT to quote from Brigham Young and argue about what he meant. I think we have done that before on numerous occasions and made zero progress.What I would like to do with this thread is:1. Find out if this is what Elden Watson Theory subscribers understand his theory to be: and, if so,2. Find out why it is that Elden Watson's theory is any less objectionable than what Adam-God Theorists believe.The reason I started this thread is that, for some reason, Watson Theorists tend to be remarkably skittish about actually saying what it is they believe, but usually just repeat over and over that Brigham Young didn't teach the Adam-God Theory, (but that he actually taught something that only he understood and everybody else misunderstood until Watson came along). (Okay, that last part was editorializing, but it does express how I feel about the Watson Theory.)All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.