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

[alter idem]

Not to try to derail anything, but I think that a chavinistic and offensive idea is not correct. The woman NEEDS the seed to promulgate our species. He in no way is saying that you can't promulgate the species. In fact, you do pretty much everything BUT initially carry the seed. I don't think at all he was trying to be offensive, but I do believe it was correct in his interpretation.

No, he wasn't trying to be offensive--but as a nineteenth century male, I wouldn't expect him to even know it was chauvinistic. And also, as a nineteenth century person, I think he was limited in his understanding of biology.

This is the quote I was referring to;

Brigham Young, however, went further and explained the basic meaning behind the figure.

It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve--this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species. But not the woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses' dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. [brigham Young, "Lecture at the Veil," St. George Temple, Feb 1, 1877]

This is the part: "Man propagates his species. But not the woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it;"

Sorry, but his "seed" is worth nothing without my "egg"...which is also a seed. This is not a matter of the female being the ground where the seed is planted. There is a "seed" (in the form of what we call an "egg") within the woman as well.

Since this statement was clearly wrong, I am very glad the Lecture at the Veil" never made it into the temple ceremony!

[kamenraider]

...

Also, as a female this suggestion that men "have the seed" but women are just the ground--we are not able to promulgate our species is offensive, chauvinistic and ridiculous by 21century biology. My reaction on reading a lot of this was a big "OH BROTHER!"

...

I think what is being said is that since the x or y chromosome from the male determines the sex of a baby, then in a sense, both male and female proceed from the male.

[consiglieri]

I think what is being said is that since the x or y chromosome from the male determines the sex of a baby, then in a sense, both male and female proceed from the male.

Brigham Young knew about chromosomes?

[alter idem]

This really is the crux of the whole issue.

The only reason Watson went to such lengths to come up with his theory was to make it so that "some of BYoung's ideas were NOT incorrect."

The only reason some people seem to accept Watson's theory is because they themselves cannot come to grips with the idea that "some of BYoung's ideas were incorrect."

I think it is better to see things as they really are and then see how we stand; rather than seeing things how we would like them to be, and then forcing everything else to fit the mold.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thank you! Sometimes on this board, I feel like the little kid looking at the Emperor and from what I see, he's got no clothes on, but everyone around me is saying how elegant he looks !

For me, Elden Watson's arguments are interesting and some are worth noting, but for me at least, they don't lay to rest the controversy completely, as some have suggested.

[alter idem]

I think what is being said is that since the x or y chromosome from the male determines the sex of a baby, then in a sense, both male and female proceed from the male.

Spoken like a true apologist.

Nope, doesn't cut it for me. I think BYoung believed women provided the womb for the seed to grow in. I don't know what the prevalent theory of biology was at the time, but I bet it is fairly close to what I'm reading into his remarks.

[ERayR]

Okay, I've looked and looked and couldn't find it, but perhaps someone can help me with this reference, because I think it somewhat speaks to the possibility of how Adam came to be on this earth. I believe it was JS (could be wrong) who taught that Adam came in to existence the same way that we all come into existence,...basically being born as we are born. I just for the life of me can't find the quote and would love it if someone could help me find it! To me, I don't see anything problematic with the possibility that Adam and Eve were born to God the Father and a Heavenly Mother. I can much better rationalize that with them just coming here from a different world.

Try the following:

Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses Vol. 7, p. 285

Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses Vol. 3, p. 319

Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses Vol. 6, p. 275

Each of these are from sermons and should be read in context with the whole sermon and with what Brigham taught before and after. However, they may be indicitive of the way in which his thoughts were going.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

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

cacheman

No. I don't have the original context available to me.

Anyone else?

[ERayR]

I see this is the great weakness of Elden's theory.

It presupposes that Brigham Young (though obviously a believer) was really not teaching anything remarkable or worthy of the incredible controversy and acrimony that history tells us his teachings caused.

This is where Watson engages in the circular reasoning part of his argument (which is based almost entirely on circular reasoning).

Well, says Watson, it's obvious that the Mormons believed that Adam was not a resurrected being when he came to the Garden (a fact that is, incidentally, by no means obvious); and therefore Brigham Young could not have believed that, and therefore Brigham Young could not have taught that.

What makes it worse is that, in order to establish his proposition that "Mormons believe that Adam was not a resurrected being," Watson cites to 20th century LDS writings to make his case!

So what he is really saying is this: Because 20th Century LDS leaders taught that Mormons believe Adam was not a resurrected being, 19th century Brigham Young could not have taught that Adam was a resurrected being; in spite of the fact that on several occasons Brigham Young taught that Adam was a resurrected being.

It doesn't get a whole lot more circular than that!

Brigham Young indeed taught that Adam was an exhaulted being. See Journal of Discourses Vol. 6, p. 275. This gives some idea as to what Brigham beleived as to how the fall was accomplished.

[consiglieri]

Sometimes on this board, I feel like the little kid looking at the Emperor and from what I see, he's got no clothes on, but everyone around me is saying how elegant he looks !

From my perspective, Brigham Young is attired more handsomely in the robes of deep pondering and reflective insight than in the clothes of commonplace conformity.

Even Jacob had to wrestle all night with an angel to get his blessing.

For what it's worth.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mudcat]

The only reason some people seem to accept Watson's theory is because they themselves cannot come to grips with the idea that "some of BYoung's ideas were incorrect."

I think it is better to see things as they really are and then see how we stand; rather than seeing things how we would like them to be, and then forcing everything else to fit the mold.

The implication itself would seem highly problematic.

It sets a precedent that the Prophet can dispense false doctrine. That being said, you seem to have come to grips with the fact that BY supported concepts that were foreign to the truth. What is then the determinative factor of doctrine, if a Prophet's statements can be considered outside of the Church's doctrine?

I mean if BY was mistaken, then what comfort can you find in the reliability of statements from other Prophets?

IMO, the precedent it would set seems as though it would turn the CoJCoLDS over on its head. How do you get around that, or am I looking at this the wrong way?

[kamenraider]

No. I don't have the original context available to me.

Anyone else?

See post #55 above.

[consiglieri]

IMO, the precedent it would set seems as though it would turn the CoJCoLDS over on its head. How do you get around that, or am I looking at this the wrong way?

The way I am looking at it is to first find out what it was Brigham Young taught. I think I have come to grips with that, as you say.

And it is clear to me that Brigham Young taught some things that are not taught today.

I am okay with that.

I think that, if something is taught in the standard works, it is doctrine, and I am obliged to accept it as such.

But not everything that can be known is set for with clarity in the scriptures.

A lot of Mormons think that the restoration of the gospel means that ALL the answers have been restored and now all we have to do is agree on what those answers are (or better yet, let someone in authority agree for us), and then get in line with that.

What is closer to the truth, however, is that even though a great deal of new knowledge has been shed by the restoration, and many questions have been answered, the result is not the knowledge of all things; but rather the creation of even more questions.

It is into this gray area of things unrevealed by the restoration that Brigham Young ventured.

And, for good or ill, we have wonderful example in him of what happens when you try to probe the mysteries.

Little wonder that Joseph Smith said he had many things more he could reveal to the Saints, but every time he tried to teach them something new, they would fly to pieces like glass.

If Brigham Young was guilty of anything, it was in trying too share to much. Better to have kept his thoughts to himself and toed the party line.

Except there was no party line to toe at the time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

The implication itself would seem highly problematic.

It sets a precedent that the Prophet can dispense false doctrine. That being said, you seem to have come to grips with the fact that BY supported concepts that were foreign to the truth. What is then the determinative factor of doctrine, if a Prophet's statements can be considered outside of the Church's doctrine?

I mean if BY was mistaken, then what comfort can you find in the reliability of statements from other Prophets?

IMO, the precedent it would set seems as though it would turn the CoJCoLDS over on its head. How do you get around that, or am I looking at this the wrong way?

Well the only question that we have to ask ourselves is do we think that a Prophet can hold an opinion (and vigorously hold it) without out it having been revealed doctrine for the church. I don't think members begrudge the Prophets this ability. So then the responsibility then falls to us on finding out what is the doctrine, what is a correct opinion and what is an opinion that is not correct.

[ERayR]

I have found the discussion very interesting. One thing though is that each seems to be polarized to one approach or another. I have found it interesting to consider that there might be bits of truth in each that can be used to formulate a theory that might be more compatable with Brighams actual thoughts and teachings. I have nothing concrete but am taking a little time to meditate on it. I am of the camp that believes that Brigham was a prophet and understood a lot more than some give him credit for. I also believe that he expected others to keep up with him, which we have not so we end up wondering and arguing over his meanings.

[erichard]

The way I am looking at it is to first find out what it was Brigham Young taught. I think I have come to grips with that, as you say.

And it is clear to me that Brigham Young taught some things that are not taught today.

I am okay with that.

I think that, if something is taught in the standard works, it is doctrine, and I am obliged to accept it as such.

Caio Consiglieri,

I also have no problem with President Young teaching things that are wrong, or are now considered wrong. And I have no problem laying such teachings aside even if they have turth in them, and only accepting the Scriptures as doctrine, as long as it does not cross my conscience. I definitely lay aside the second hand "moonmen" statements attributed to President Young.

But what happens when someone believes the church is the Lord's, but that other Church President, including the one today, may also be wrong in their teachings? And wants the right to NOT sustain the church President, and to not reject the evidences for their decision?

Should they be automatically excommunicated? Should they not have the right to seek to settle the controversy by a trial, or by discussions at least, before being cast out?

Remember Orson Pratt and probably others were threatened when they disagreed with President Young's Adam-God teachings. Would it not have been better if they would have settled the matter then by a trial over President Young?

If I had been allowed the right to have a legitimate controversy over the President of the church, I would still be a member of the LDS church. The only charge against me was my beliefs. I have yet to believe I should reject what I am convinced is the truth just to toe the party line. That sounds very wimpy to me.

On my soapbox again...

Richard

[kamenraider]

Okay, that one threw me for a loop...

I'd like to read up on that if you have the reference (a PM will do if you don't want to get into it here...)

I've never heard that that doctrine was introduced later...

Here's an article about it:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/044-36-44.pdf

[mpschmitt]

I suppose the difficulty of the matter, is that the shepherd in charge seemed to have instructed the flock on the matter.

I think the formal statement by Kimball indicates only that a different shepherd would teach a different thing or at the very least try and throw a blanket over the laundry pile.

It seems a little far reaching to say that BY thought something other than what he said about it.

Choosing to ignore it, may resolve the issue for many. However, for the more inquisitive it will most likely remain an enigmatic "Huh?"

Until this thread I haven't paid much heed to the other threads on Adam-God.... I always thought it was to speculative to think about much. So I didn't.

Taking a deeper look at the issue...I believe there is more to it than meets the eye....but at present all I can say "Huh?"

Oh believe me, I've had my "Huh?" moments at times too.

Interestingly, I always seem to find the most satisfying answers through a combination of: scripture study (and by that I mean really seeking his Word for the answer), prayer (and by that I mean really pouring my heart out for the answer), listening (and by that I mean really allowing the Spirit to lead me to the answer rather than trying to impose my will on the situation). and allowing for the possibility that the Lord's answer will be at times: "Son, you've got more important and essential things to worry about. Get back to those and leave this one for another time." At other times I have received clear Spirit to spirit guidance and instruction that has filled out my understanding and helped me to know that God likes tough questions and can answer them quite adroitly when He needs to, so we need not fear asking them. I have never gotten a soul-satisfying an answer by reading scholarly writings on these kinds of subjects alone (though at times they are helpful - especially when they stop dwelling in the ether and get back to the scriptures).

I would imagine that you also find things in the Bible or in the history of traditional Christianity that sometimes make you go "Huh?" Goodness knows I have. No matter what things make us go "Huh?" there are base doctrines on which we can always stand firm (and to which we can sometimes retreat) when we find ourselves too far out on the branches and far from the sure and steady trunk of the tree in our seeking for greater understanding.

[consiglieri]

Well the only question that we have to ask ourselves is do we think that a Prophet can hold an opinion (and vigorously hold it) without out it having been revealed doctrine for the church. I don't think members begrudge the Prophets this ability. So then the responsibility then falls to us on finding out what is the doctrine, what is a correct opinion and what is an opinion that is not correct.

Hi, LDSMusic!

Do I sense from this post a change in your outlook, or are you saying this merely for the sake of argument?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[wenglund]

If some of you are still want to fuss over this insignificant and irrelevant issue (like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), you can really heat things up by factoring in the resurrection (keeping in mind that the resurrection is considered "birth" into life eternal, with Christ being the "father" of those born thereof). Was/were the "Adam(s)" resurrected being(s) prior to the physical creation of this earth? And, if the resurrection is a patriarchal function, who will resurrect the mortal "Adam(s)" following this life? Who is "Adam(s)" "father" in the resurrection?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LDSMusic483]

Hi, LDSMusic!

Do I sense from this post a change in your outlook, or are you saying this merely for the sake of argument?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think that we don't fully know what Brigham meant when he espoused the AG theory. He didn't leave us an overwhelming deal of explanation, did he? And it doesn't seem to be a theory that held too much water after he died. I could see the 2 adam theory being what he meant, and I can also see that he taught what he thought, but it was incomplete and never fully reconciled to orthodox doctrine. The only thing we can truly rely on is that we take the teachings of more recent prophets as priority. A number of them have said that the AG theory is false doctrine. Now, they have also coupled this with what BY said was misunderstood and the such. They may know more about BY's feelings and just not feel it pertinent to reveal. The biggest thing is that I do NOT believe in the AG theory. If it turns out to be true, I feel much more confident in learning about it later. It's not something that's strictly taught, so if I don't learn it to be true and stay with what the church is mainstream teaching, I'm okay.

[consiglieri]

I think that we don't fully know what Brigham meant when he espoused the AG theory. He didn't leave us an overwhelming deal of explanation, did he? And it doesn't seem to be a theory that held too much water after he died. I could see the 2 adam theory being what he meant, and I can also see that he taught what he thought, but it was incomplete and never fully reconciled to orthodox doctrine. The only thing we can truly rely on is that we take the teachings of more recent prophets as priority. A number of them have said that the AG theory is false doctrine. Now, they have also coupled this with what BY said was misunderstood and the such. They may know more about BY's feelings and just not feel it pertinent to reveal. The biggest thing is that I do NOT believe in the AG theory. If it turns out to be true, I feel much more confident in learning about it later. It's not something that's strictly taught, so if I don't learn it to be true and stay with what the church is mainstream teaching, I'm okay.

Fair enough, and I, for the record, do not believe in all the nuances and details of the Adam-God Theory, either.

I do think it is important to note, however, that Brigham Young would have had a difficult time reconciling his views to an "orthodox doctrine" that did not yet exist.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LDSMusic483]

Fair enough, and I, for the record, do not believe in all the nuances and details of the Adam-God Theory, either.

I do think it is important to note, however, that Brigham Young would have had a difficult time reconciling his views to an "orthodox doctrine" that did not yet exist.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

By the orthodox doctrine, I meant scriptural views of who Adam was in relationship to Eloheim. I guess there probably wasn't much teaching past the scriptures by his time as prophet, but I don't think he was able to ever fully reconcile his idea's to all of the scriptures anyway. And for someone who doesn't believe in all the AGT you seem determined to argue on its behalf a lot! You should argue from our side once in awhile instead of playing devils advocate!

[JangoPOW!]

By the orthodox doctrine, I meant scriptural views of who Adam was in relationship to Eloheim. I guess there probably wasn't much teaching past the scriptures by his time as prophet, but I don't think he was able to ever fully reconcile his idea's to all of the scriptures anyway. And for someone who doesn't believe in all the AGT you seem determined to argue on its behalf a lot! You should argue from our side once in awhile instead of playing devils advocate!

My perception throughout this thread has been that Consig is arguing for what BY actually taught and believed, taken at face value, rather than the literal truth or error of what he taught.

[baddonkey]

Fair enough, and I, for the record, do not believe in all the nuances and details of the Adam-God Theory, either.

I do think it is important to note, however, that Brigham Young would have had a difficult time reconciling his views to an "orthodox doctrine" that did not yet exist.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Which nuances and details do you not believe in?

[JangoPOW!]

Okay, I've looked and looked and couldn't find it, but perhaps someone can help me with this reference, because I think it somewhat speaks to the possibility of how Adam came to be on this earth. I believe it was JS (could be wrong) who taught that Adam came in to existence the same way that we all come into existence,...basically being born as we are born. I just for the life of me can't find the quote and would love it if someone could help me find it! To me, I don't see anything problematic with the possibility that Adam and Eve were born to God the Father and a Heavenly Mother. I can much better rationalize that with them just coming here from a different world.

Perhaps you are thinking of this quote, which actually IS from Joseph Smith and not Brigham Young:

If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father (see Rev 1:6), you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?

And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor?

-

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith

, p. 373; Joseph Smith, June 16, 1844.

Pretty sound substantiation for an obvious concept, in my opinion. Adam is a person, and there's a well established way that people come to be. It's called procreation. This of course doesn't solve the question of whether Adam/Michael was born on this earth from exalted parents or whether he was born and resurrected on another earth from mortal parents, but I like to think it is clear that he was at least born and his birth was the result of procreation.

("Did Adam have a belly button?" Duh. Yes.)