Bruce R. McConkie on Adam-God

[consiglieri]

In a letter to Eugene England, Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote: "Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. . . . What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. . . . I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory."

Although this is what Bruce R. McConkie wrote privately, he publicly declared a different sentiment: "Here is a list of false doctrines that if anyone teaches he will be damned. And there is not one of these that I have ever known to be taught in the Church. . . . Teach the Adam-God theory. . . . Now, any of those are doctrines that damn."

These conflicting statements by Elder McConkie seem to raise two dilemmas:

Dilemma No. 1--Which are we to believe? That the Adam-God Theory had never been taught in the Church, or that Brigham Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him?

Ironically, Elder McConkie here sets himself up for the identical dilemma he accused Brigham Young of: "What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe."

Could we not similarly say in this regard, "What I am saying is that Elder McConkie, contradicted Elder McConkie, and the issue becomes one of which Elder McConkie we will believe"?

Dilemma No. 2--There are members of the Church, such as Elden Watson, who have attempted to make Brigham Young say something other than that Adam is the father of our spirits, and all the things the cultists ascribe to him. Here I am thinking of Watson's "Two-Adam Theory."

Since Elder McConkie said that Brigham Young did, in fact, "teach that Adam is the father of our spirits, and all the related things the cultists ascribe to him," does not Elden Watson contradict Elder McConkie by trying to interpret Brigham Young as conforming with modern LDS Doctrine?

I include below sources from which the above quotes are taken.

I am interested in how members of the board resolve these twin dilemmas.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Now may I say something for your guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God.

Mr. Eugene England

February 19, 1981

Page 6

He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

* * *

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with

Mr. Eugene England

February 19, 1981

Page 7

what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation.

"You talk about teaching false doctrine and being damned. Here is a list of false doctrines that if anyone teaches he will be damned. And there is not one of these that I have ever known to be taught in the Church, but I am giving you the list for a perspective because of what will follow. Teach that God is a Spirit, the sectarian trinity. Teach that salvation comes by grace alone, without works. Teach original guilt, or birth sin, as they express it. Teach infant baptism. Teach predestination. Teach that revelation and gifts and miracles have ceased. Teach the Adam-God theory (that does apply in the Church). Teach that we should practice plural marriage today. Now, any of those are doctrines that damn" (Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, p.337).

[Jason]

I think Brigham was tyring to teach an "Adam is a title of God the Father" or "two-Adam" theory, and that Elder McConkie was incorrect when he said that Bro. Brigham taught false doctrine.

[Sargon]

Quick question.

How did MRM get that letter? I'm relatively new to this subject. How did the text of that letter originally get leaked, and how can we confirm its actual existence?

[consiglieri]

Quick question.

How did MRM get that letter? I'm relatively new to this subject. How did the text of that letter originally get leaked, and how can we confirm its actual existence?

This is an interesting question, and one for which I do not have the answer.

I would suspect that, were it leaked while Elder McConkie was still alive, he would have had something to say about it had it misquoted him.

I should also think that Eugene England, who I believe is still with us, would have issued a correction had it been misquoted.

Anybody?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Duncan]

I don't see any confusion here. I see it as Elder McConkie is saying that although Pres. Young apparently said those things he, Elder McConkie, has not personally seen anyone teach it. The later portion from his writings I see him saying that these are false ideas that have been perpetuated in the past and if you want to be damned then you are free to teach them.

[John Larsen]

This is an interesting question, and one for which I do not have the answer.I would suspect that, were it leaked while Elder McConkie was still alive, he would have had something to say about it had it misquoted him.I should also think that Eugene England, who I believe is still with us, would have issued a correction had it been misquoted.Anybody?All the Best!--Consiglieri

Eugene England passed away a few years ago.

Dilemma No. 1--Which are we to believe? That the Adam-God Theory had never been taught in the Church, or that Brigham Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him?

That the Adam-God doctrine was public taught often is incontrovertible.

[consiglieri]

Eugene England passed away a few years ago.That the Adam-God doctrine was public taught often is incontrovertible.

I am sorry to hear about Brother England's passing.

And the fact that the Adam-God doctrine was often publicly taught in the Church being incontrovertible, why did Bruce R. McConkie say it had never been taught in the Church?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't see any confusion here. I see it as Elder McConkie is saying that although Pres. Young apparently said those things he, Elder McConkie, has not personally seen anyone teach it. The later portion from his writings I see him saying that these are false ideas that have been perpetuated in the past and if you want to be damned then you are free to teach them.

Of course, Bruce R. McConkie said he had never "known" it to be taught in the Church; not that he had never "personally seen" it.

I think that is a distinction with a difference.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I think Brigham was tyring to teach an "Adam is a title of God the Father" or "two-Adam" theory, and that Elder McConkie was incorrect when he said that Bro. Brigham taught false doctrine.

Thanks for your response, Jason!

But do you think that Elder McConkie was incorrect when he said that he had never known the Adam-God Theory to be taught in the Church?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[John Larsen]

I am sorry to hear about Brother England's passing.

And the fact that the Adam-God doctrine was often publicly taught in the Church being incontrovertible, why did Bruce R. McConkie say it had never been taught in the Church?

Since I can't crawl into his mind, I can only theorize. Bruce McConkie was a study of his father in law Joseph Fielding Smith, who he really admired. Most of his work was not really original, but picked up Smith's banner. I believe that McConkie said that because Smith had stated the same thing. Smith was clearly lying.

[alter idem]

Let's look at Elder McConkie's statement;

Here is a list of false doctrines that if anyone teaches he will be damned. And there is not one of these that I have ever known to be taught in the Church,

Maybe he's able to say it was never taught because HE never heard it taught. I suspect he never did hear it taught by any official voice--so I think he could say this. While he certainly knew that Brigham Young had taught it--as he admits to Bro. Englund--because he'd "read" it in the Journal of Discourses etc., he can truthfully say he never "heard" it taught.

Personally, I see it as Elder McConkie wanting to once and for discredit that teaching and take a clear stand on what is accepted church teaching and what is not.

[alter idem]

Since I can't crawl into his mind, I can only theorize. Bruce McConkie was a study of his father in law Joseph Fielding Smith, who he really admired. Most of his work was not really original, but picked up Smith's banner. I believe that McConkie said that because Smith had stated the same thing. Smith was clearly lying.

And I can say that Joseph Fielding Smith would not have been "lying" if he used the same justification. He wasn't old enough to have "heard" Brigham Young teach it either.

If they never heard it taught in official church teachings, they could justify saying they did not "know" of it being taught. Especially when church leaders whom Joseph Fielding Smith knew, and had actually heard Brigham Young teach, claim that Brigham Young had been misquoted and his beliefs were unclear.

[stn9]

I'm willing to give Elder McConkie the benefit of the doubt since we can't speak to him about it. By "in the Church" he might have had in mind that it was never a teaching that was widespread and frequently mentioned (compare the frequency of teachings on, say, the atonement, faith, baptism, revelation, priesthood keys, or angels to the frequency of teachings on BY's views on Adam as our Father--whether in BY's lifetime or BRM's or in between); it was never an official, canonized or sustained teaching.

I also think Elder McConkie's views are allowed to evolve--even drastically--with time, per Watson's assertion that Elder McConkie received his personal view as an acceptable answer.

[Jason]

But do you think that Elder McConkie was incorrect when he said that he had never known the Adam-God Theory to be taught in the Church?

No, I'm sure he never had known it to be taught in the Church, even if he was mistaken in his letter about whether Brigham Young had ever taught it.

His letter might be seen as describing a worse-case scenario - Bro. Brigham teaching conflicting doctrines on different occasions - and showing it should still have no impact on the Church.

[stn9]

P.S. I do not believe Eldon's interpretation is correct, but the one importatn tidbit he adds to the story is Pres. Kimball's private clarification of his public statement on the issue.

[LDSMusic483]

I'm willing to give Elder McConkie the benefit of the doubt since we can't speak to him about it. By "in the Church" he might have had in mind that it was never a teaching that was widespread and frequently mentioned (compare the frequency of teachings on, say, the atonement, faith, baptism, revelation, priesthood keys, or angels to the frequency of teachings on BY's views on Adam as our Father--whether in BY's lifetime or BRM's or in between); it was never an official, canonized or sustained teaching.

I also think Elder McConkie's views are allowed to evolve--even drastically--with time, per Watson's assertion that Elder McConkie received his personal view as an acceptable answer.

This is the same idea I had to the OP question. I think BRM was meaning that the church never taught the doctrine. Obviously BY taught it, but BRM can just be saying that it was not the churches position, but BY's position.

[stn9]

Oh, and I find the claim that Brigham Young never taught such a doctrine, or that he did teach it but in reality he meant nothing different than what we teach today (i.e. he was merely teaching some advanced semantical derivatives of the then- and current-orthodoxy) to be wishful thinking. Elder McConkie wrestled with the fact that Brigham Young taught something new indeed as best he could, but certainly such wresting would not have been necessary if the above claims were true (nor would the doctrine have been referred to as "the last cat out of the bag").

[phaedrus ut]

It's also interesting that most Mormon Fundamentalist groups consider Adam-God doctrine. Apparently following Brigham's lead on this.

Phaedrus

[LDSMusic483]

If you throw in BRM's explanation of what the Adam-God theory was in Mormon Doctrine, you'd have even more controversy on his part.

[consiglieri]

If you throw in BRM's explanation of what the Adam-God theory was in Mormon Doctrine, you'd have even more controversy on his part.

Okay. I'm game.

Adam-God Theory

Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.18

See ADAM, ANCIENT OF DAYS, BIRTHRIGHT, CELESTIAL MARRIAGE, EXALTATION, GOD, GODHOOD, MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL, PATRIARCHAL CHAIN, PATRIARCHAL ORDER, PLURALITY OF GODS. Cultists and other enemies of the restored truth, for their own peculiar purposes, sometimes try to make it appear that Latter-day Saints worship Adam as their Father in heaven. In support of their false assumptions, they quote such statements as that of President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam is our father and our god and the only god with whom we have to do. This statement, and others of a similar nature, is perfectly consistent and rational, when viewed in full gospel perspective and understood in the light of the revelations relative to the patriarchal chain binding exalted beings together. Full and detailed explanations of all important teachings on these points are readily available. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 96-106.)

Faithful members of the Church worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and view Adam in his proper high place as the pre-existent Michael, the first man and presiding high priest (under Christ) over all the earth for all time, and as the one who will again lead the armies of heaven in the final great war with Lucifer. There is a sense, of course, in which Adam is a god. But so also, in the same sense, are Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; Moses and all the ancient prophets; Peter, James, and John; and all the righteous saints of all ages, including those of both high and low degree.

All exalted beings become joint-heirs with Christ and inherit the fulness of the Father's kingdom. Having entered in at the gate of celestial marriage, and having pressed forward in righteousness, overcoming all things, they pass by the angels and the gods "to their exaltation and glory in all things. . . . Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, Because they have all power, and he angels are subject unto them." (D. & C. 132:19-20.) Of all these Adam is the chief, presiding (under Christ and the Father) in the patriarchal order over all the rest. There is no mystery about this doctrine except that which persons ignorant of the great principles of exaltation and unfriendly to the cause of righteousness have attempted to make.

Hmmm.

I see what you mean.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[John Larsen]

And I can say that Joseph Fielding Smith would not have been "lying" if he used the same justification. He wasn't old enough to have "heard" Brigham Young teach it either.

If they never heard it taught in official church teachings, they could justify saying they did not "know" of it being taught. Especially when church leaders whom Joseph Fielding Smith knew, and had actually heard Brigham Young teach, claim that Brigham Young had been misquoted and his beliefs were unclear.

No, but he was Church historian and had full access to the writings. He used material in other auspice that would confirm the Adam-God teaching. He showed a remarkable ability to research, edit and comprehend history. There is no way he didn't know. He denied it. Ergo, lying.

[stn9]

No, but he was Church historian and had full access to the writings. He used material in other auspice that would confirm the Adam-God teaching. He showed a remarkable ability to research, edit and comprehend history. There is no way he didn't know. He denied it. Ergo, lying.

Wow. This seems a bit absolutist. So, given that:

A. He was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve;

B. He was Church Historian;

C. He made use of AG-related materials; and

D. "He showed a remarkable ability to research, edit and comprehend history";

therefore:

1. "There is no way he didn't know";

2. "He denied it"; and

3. He lied about it.

Hunh? What simplistic idiocy.

In order for your conclusions to be plausible, you would have to show that as Church Historian he:

A. Began to research the topic;

B. Found all extant, relevant documents;

C. Read all extant, relevant documents; and

D. Understood all extant, relevant documents; and

E. Concluded privately that Brigham Young did teach the doctrine as defined by "apostates and enemies" of the Church; and

F. Publicly or privately told others that Brigham Young did not in fact teach the doctrine.

I'll grant you A and F, but do you have any proof for B, C, D, or E? Or is it really your distrust of LDS authorities or of the Church as an institution; or your attitude towards Joseph Smith; or some other personal belief that makes you conclude he lied?

[consiglieri]

No, but he was Church historian and had full access to the writings. He used material in other auspice that would confirm the Adam-God teaching. He showed a remarkable ability to research, edit and comprehend history. There is no way he didn't know. He denied it. Ergo, lying.

Okay. I'm like freaking out here. Have you taken to responding to your own posts, John, or did I miss something?

I suppose you might have felt so disposed because it appears nobody else wanted to address the point you raised.

Unfortunately, it does appear that Bruce R. McConkie and his father-in-law engaged in some disingenuous conduct as far as their public representations of what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam.

Prior to the Eugene England letter, it was possible for those in possession of the facts to surmise that Elder McConkie was simply uninformed. But the Eugene England letter makes it clear that Elder McConkie was not uninformed, but was as familiar with the facts as anybody could be who had actually looked at the primary sources.

In his public pronouncements, however, Elder McConkie said that he never knew the Adam-God Theory to have been taught in the Church, although it is clear that he did, in fact, know that it had been taught in the Church.

The response that what Elder McConkie "meant" was that he had never personally "heard" it taught in the Church strikes me as somewhat strained.

And even if we were to suppose, for the sake of argument, that Elder McConkie "meant" he had never personally "heard" it taught in the Church, what are we to make of the fact that he intentionally misled his audience into believing that the Adam-God Theory had never been taught at all in the Church?

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Making the matter only more labyrinthine is Elder McConkie's statement in Mormon Doctrine that Brigham Young's teachings are "perfectly consistent and rational, when viewed in full gospel perspective and understood in the light of the revelations. . .."

Here, Elder McConkie asserts that Brigham Young taught a doctrine "perfectly consistent" with what Elder McConkie taught on the subject.

And yet, in his letter to Eugene England, Elder McConkie says the opposite: That Brigham Young did teach that Adam is the father of our spirits, but that Brigham Young was simply wrong.

Saying that Elder McConkie "lied" about this is a harsh word to use . . . but it does seem to comport with the facts.

In this vein, it puts me in mind of another ongoing thread about the movie, "The Day the Earth Stood Still." There, the government lies to the public in general about the imminent catastrophe speeding toward the earth in order to avoid a general panic; while at the time speaking the truth within the closed circle of scientists and government officials who are in on the secret.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I'll grant you A and F, but do you have any proof for B, C, D, or E? Or is it really your distrust of LDS authorities or of the Church as an institution; or your attitude towards Joseph Smith; or some other personal belief that makes you conclude he lied?

While I cannot speak for Brother John, I do not distrust the LDS authorities, or the Church as an institution.

I have nothing but the highest esteem and respect for Joseph Smith.

I believe that Elder McConkie was called of God and was a mighty apostle of the Lord.

And yet, it does look like he lied about this.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[stn9]

And yet, it does look like he lied about this.

I'm sure it looks to some as though he lied, but I'm still not sure anyone living can answer what he knew and when he knew it. In what year was the Mormon Doctrine entry in question written? It was first published in 1966, so the view expressed in this entry certainly originally dates to no later than then. And what is the date of the last edition of MD that Elder McConkie personally edited?

The England letter is dated 19 Feb 1981. Is it really that hard to imagine that both Elder McConkie's understanding and stance on the subject changed over time? I give him the same leeway I would any human: they can start at a wrong position and arrive at a correct one; or they can start correct and end up wrong; or they can be right the whole way through or wrong from start to end. They can even privately believe one thing while saying something else publicly (we all do it to one degree or another). And then, what if he lied? He'll have to answer for it (but not to me or any man living else they would have to go where he is). And what if he was told to lie? By a superior, mortal or otherwise? What, if like Abraham, he's told to say "Um, she's my sister"?

Well, I don't think it came to that (especially given Watson's account). I think all that can be clearly shown is that he gave different answers at different times, years apart (about 15 yrs at a maximum--today I wouldn't stand by everything I believed 15 years ago). I still think no one can show he lied.

[John Larsen]

Okay. I'm like freaking out here. Have you taken to responding to your own posts, John, or did I miss something?

Oops, I don't know how that happened. I was trying to respond to alter idem. I have fixed it.