Adam-god Theory--let's Really Talk About This!

[Obiwan]

I've alway's said Brigham Young didn't teach "Adam/God" according to the Anti-mormon version of understanding it, namely because it even contradicts Brigham Young himself before, during AND after in MANY MORE instances than the few he supposudly taught this.

However, it is possible Brigham may have been thinking what Watson states, but, I don't even think that. I think Brigham was simply teaching what is/was already taught in the Temple on the subject, and occasionally in other LDS settings. And I don't remember anything about God (Father/Mother) copulating to create Adam. It could be a reasonable view from his words given LDS theology, but I think Brigham was simply teaching Temple subjects as he occasionally did from the pulpit and in more private groups.

[kamenraider]

I also don't think that by saying that Elohim Jehovah and Michael were father, son and grandson, that Brigham Young necessarily meant that Michael was Jehovah's son. I think that he just meant that Michael was a descendant, and hence a grandson, (whether ggrandson, gggrandson, ggggrandson, or whatever) of Elohim and Jehovah.

edit: Also, if Jehovah were a patriarchal superior to Michael, then Jesus, if he were the firstborn spirit son of Michael, could not be the Jehovah of the creation presidency.

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.

--Brigham Young, quoted in L. John Nuttall Journal, Feb. 7, 1877

Elloheim spoke, "Yehovah, Michael—see matter all around, go and organize a world," Yehovah Michael went and carried material: Then Michael came down with his wife, & began to people it. Michael had his body from the dust of the planet he was begotton on, he obeyed his Lord, was faithful and obedient, died and was resurrected, he did not resurrect himself. An Angel resurrected Jesus—what Angel? I know not. When Jesus has completed his work, Adam shall have a fulness: Adam’s descent was to organize people & redeem a world, by his wife he peopled it by his first born he redeems.

--Brigham Young, Thomas D. Brown report of Oct. 8, 1854 sermon in: Juanita Brooks, ed., Journal of the Southern Indian Mission (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1972), pgs. 87-89.

[Log]

I mean, there's nowhere else to go. Watson carefully avoids the charge of circular reasoning by showing that Brigham's contemporaries, as well as Joseph Smith in what is now canonized revelation, used Father Adam to clearly indicate Elohim in contradistinction to the man Adam (or Michael); moreover, what would otherwise be inexplicable statements by Brigham Young ("Mother Eve was the daughter of Adam") become perfectly clear.

Oh bloody well. I lose my appetite for discussion in the face of a bald refusal to responsibly engage the facts.

[Mudcat]

Just a thought....

Adam was the name of the first man on this Earth.

Would this situation be any different on any world?

Who chose his name?

.....makes me think that someone could draw a parallel between Christ doing what he saw his Father do and this.

edit add...

open criticism very welcome, since I don't really have a clue.

[cacheman]

Actually, that's not the context of the quote. That book is a compilation of different quotes put together as one continuous sermon. It's useless.

Ah. My bad. Any info on the original context?

cacheman

[Log]

Just a thought....

Adam was the name of the first man on this Earth.

Would this situation be any different on any world?

No, indeed - the first man is always Adam, and the first woman is always Eve.

Who chose his name?

Father Adam, or Elohim.

.....makes me think that someone could draw a parallel between Christ doing what he saw his Father do and this.

Yep - Christ is even called Adam in the Bible.

[Mudcat]

Father Adam, or Elohim.

Maybe I am being daft here. Is Watson suggesting and infinitude of Adam's?

[kamenraider]

Let's sing one of the hymns from back in Brigham Young's day, shall we?

We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,

The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for His children again.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who in love

To His brothers and sisters came down from above,

To die, to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the gospel we preach.

[Mudcat]

Let's sing one of the hymns from back in Brigham Young's day, shall we?

We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,

The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for His children again.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who in love

To His brothers and sisters came down from above,

To die, to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the gospel we preach.

So what are you really saying here?

[lukas_s]

Let's sing one of the hymns from back in Brigham Young's day, shall we?

We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,

The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for His children again.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who in love

To His brothers and sisters came down from above,

To die, to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the gospel we preach.

I think that pretty much says it. Here Adam (Michael) is definitely referred to as God. Not God in the sense that he holds some calling, but God as in Elohim.

[Log]

Maybe I am being daft here. Is Watson suggesting and infinitude of Adam's?

Not Watson - it is intrinsic to LDS thought that there are countless worlds where God's children undergo the same type of test as we do here.

Indeed, we live in the worst of all worlds.

Kamenraider, what's your source on that hymn?

[Mudcat]

I think that pretty much says it. Here Adam (Michael) is definitely referred to as God. Not God in the sense that he holds some calling, but God as in Elohim.

It sets a precedent that there is some value to an Earthly parenting of children. That somehow the relation between parent and child goes beyond the provision of a body for a spirit to inhabit. If all spirits are brothers and sisters...then it stands to reason that such a 'special' relation shouldn't exist with your child or your father anymore than it does with the spirit of Jacque Coustea.

[cksalmon]

No, indeed - the first man is always Adam, and the first woman is always Eve

Just to dispense with a minor linguistic question. Do all originary sentient beings speak Hebrew (or, is each creation myth recorded in Hebrew?) or is every originary male called the equivalent of "red dirt" and every originary female called "life"?

The obvious answer, I think, might be that these are titles only. But, then, the linguistic question is begged at that point, to my mind.

Why "Adam," specifically? Why "Eve," specifically? I don't believe one can argue the titular position unless one admits that the specific phonemes employed are irrelevant. But, in that case, "Adam" and "Eve," as names, lose any sort of particularity and must mean merely "First Man" and "First Woman."

Again, an ancillary point, to be sure. But, I'm curious.

Best.

Chris

[blackstrap]

Consig, I was watching one of Hugh Nibleys lectures on the PoGP ,lecture7,I think. In it he talks about the Egyptian temple ceremony and how the initiate is taken to the throne of Pharoah and placed upon it by Pharoah himself. Sort of connected to your question .

[Log]

Just to dispense with a minor linguistic question. Do all originary sentient beings speak Hebrew (or, is each creation myth recorded in Hebrew?) or is every originary male called the equivalent of "red dirt" and every originary female called "life"?

There is no record of what language they spoke; there is also no evidence that the name Adam nor the name Eve were original to Hebrew.

I don't believe one can argue the titular position unless one admits that the specific phonemes employed are irrelevant. But, in that case, "Adam" and "Eve," as names, lose any sort of particularity and must mean merely "First Man" and "First Woman."

It is in our scriptures that Adam means not "first man" but "first father." From this, we may infer Hebrew is not the default language of humanity.

Consig, I was watching one of Hugh Nibleys lectures on the PoGP ,lecture7,I think. In it he talks about the Egyptian temple ceremony and how the initiate is taken to the throne of Pharoah and placed upon it by Pharoah himself. Sort of connected to your question .

Sort of undermines Consig's criticism of Watson on that point, actually...

[kamenraider]

Kamenraider, what's your source on that hymn?

Sacred Hymns & Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1856, 11th edition, hymn #306, pg. 375.

[Log]

When was it taken out?

[cksalmon]

There is no record of what language they spoke; there is also no evidence that the name Adam nor the name Eve were original to Hebrew.

This is perhaps an academic point, Log, but "Adam" and "Eve" are Hebraic names found in Hebraic texts. I suppose you're suggesting that they are perhaps translations (or even transliterations) from an earlier, lost language.

I certainly can't refute an argument from silence.

Still, I'm interested in your answer to the question I asked.

Best.

cks

[Markk]

HI

How does Youngs feud with OP on this come into play, wouldn't you think he would just explain the real reason to the twelve? Why would he take it so far as to threaten OP with excommunication if OP didn't believe what he was teaching?

Mark

John 1:12

[BCSpace]

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.

That looks exactly like something I would type without the parenthesis of course.

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,

I have never been shy about stating what I actually believe. I believe that Elden Watson hit the nail on the head and that's because I came to a similar conclusion independently and then I found Watson and written of it previously.

However, I believe it is also just an opinion of BY. I subscribe to evolution as the way God created the earth and mankind.

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).

It is a tad long to explain in detail. I usually just link to the site.

DIFFERENT THOUGHTS - #7 ADAM - GOD

[Log]

This is perhaps an academic point, Log, but "Adam" and "Eve" are Hebraic names found in Hebraic texts. I suppose you're suggesting that they are perhaps translations (or even transliterations) from an earlier, lost language.

They're also English names found in English texts. And yes, I am suggesting just that.

I certainly can't refute an argument from silence.

Still, I'm interested in your answer to the question I asked.

Best.

cks

I thought I had.

[kamenraider]

When was it taken out?

Good question, but I dont know. I'll have to look into it sometime. I do know that some of the Adam-God stuff was still in the hymnal as late as the 1980's when our current hymnal was released with it changed. I'm talking about Sons of Michael, He Approaches.

[Log]

That was a good find - it ties in with Joseph F. Smith's explanation of BY's teachings nicely.

Now, it is a fact that Adam is our god; we are and will be subject to him; he will preside over all of his posterity and will be the immediate personage unto whom they will look for counsel and direction. Adam holds the keys of salvation for this earth, under the Holy One of Israel. The Holy One is, of course, Jesus Christ. See D.& C. 78:16. Adam, as Michael, will stand at the head of his posterity, just as each father will over his immediate family, but all under the direction of Jesus Christ. What Presidents Young and Kimball had in mind was this very thing.

[cksalmon]

They're also English names found in English texts. And yes, I am suggesting just that.

I don't wish to derail the thread, but this is an item of interest for me, just from a linguistic perspective.

That they are "also English names found in English texts" is, of course, totally irrelevant, as we're both groping toward something back down the linguistic chain that predates even Old English. As you admit, you are suggesting that Hebrew "Adam" and Hebrew "Eve" are "are perhaps translations (or even transliterations) from an earlier, lost language."

Again, I can't refute an argument from silence. I can't refute a controlling assumption posited without evidence. So, I'll leave you with it. I'd note that your suggestion stands in no danger of being objectively falsified as, again, it appears to be simply assumed on no evidential basis.

This isn't some attempt at a "gotcha," by the way.

I was really hoping for some sort of positive interaction.

cks

[BCSpace]

Okay. I have done my homework and shown my results.

Is there anything else I should know that will convince me that Brigham Young used the word "Adam" for "Elohim"?

I think your number one mistake was to go to the conclusion directly without understanding the context. Elden Watson assumes (correctly I believe) that BY would have also believed the things that were taught previous and were doctrines and scriptures of the Church. Therefore you have as a basis things like Adam was not a resurrected being nor was he married when he first entered the garden, therefore, he (the Adam who fell) could not possibly have been Elohim.

This is the great strength of Elden's theory. He presupposes that BY is a believer. I think most people would not find that unreasonable.