Bruce R. McConkie on Adam-God

[jkfrost]

Have you seen this on the Two Adams?

and this little bit:

The Eugene England Letter

In October of 1982 a letter was made public which had been written on February 19, 1981 by Bruce R. McConkie in response to some questions which had been asked him by Eugene England. In this response Br. McConkie told Brother England that Brigham Young had apparently taught that Adam [Jr.] was God, but that he was simply wrong. When this letter was printed and distributed by an anti-Mormon group, we went to Br. McConkie and told him that we had been teaching differently than him, and we did not want to be teaching anything that was incorrect. We told Br. McConkie that if we were wrong, we wanted to know, and we would quit teaching it. After considerable discussion Br. McConkie told us to keep teaching what we had been teaching, because it was he that was wrong. He said if he had known of our views, he never would have said what he did in his letter to Eugene England, and we had his permission to tell anyone we wanted that Br. McConkie had said he was wrong in saying that Brigham Young had taught that Adam was God.

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

[consiglieri]

There is some evidence that church leaders have been misleading about Adam-God in the past.

From Dialogue:

That is some letter! Thanks for sharing it. The author even uses a phrase that sounds eerily reminiscent:

I pointed out that this approach created a double dilemma for church members aware of the facts.

What are the odds?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Have you seen this on the Two Adams?

and this little bit:

The Eugene England Letter

In October of 1982 a letter was made public which had been written on February 19, 1981 by Bruce R. McConkie in response to some questions which had been asked him by Eugene England. In this response Br. McConkie told Brother England that Brigham Young had apparently taught that Adam [Jr.] was God, but that he was simply wrong. When this letter was printed and distributed by an anti-Mormon group, we went to Br. McConkie and told him that we had been teaching differently than him, and we did not want to be teaching anything that was incorrect. We told Br. McConkie that if we were wrong, we wanted to know, and we would quit teaching it. After considerable discussion Br. McConkie told us to keep teaching what we had been teaching, because it was he that was wrong. He said if he had known of our views, he never would have said what he did in his letter to Eugene England, and we had his permission to tell anyone we wanted that Br. McConkie had said he was wrong in saying that Brigham Young had taught that Adam was God.http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

Thanks for sharing this tidbit, jkfrost!

I approach this account with some suspicion, I must confess.

First, it would seem that, in spite of the numerous references to others associated with Elden Watson in the venture to see Elder McConkie, we have only Watson's word for what transpired.

I wonder who these other people were, and whether they say the same thing happened in the meeting.

I also admit to being skeptical of Bruce R. McConkie's sanctioning the somewhat strange and unorthodox teachings of Elden Watson & Co. regarding Adam, Jr. and Adam, Sr., including the bit about Eloheim eating of the fruit of the tree so that he could produce Adam and Eve's physical bodies through sexual intercourse with the wife he brought with him to the garden; and being so impressed by the obvious correctness of the "Two-Adam Theory" that Elder McConkie would not only encourage them to continue teaching it (he actually would have told them to leave it alone), but to admit that he himself was wrong about his views regarding Brigham Young, and that Watson & Co. could tell anybody they wanted that BRM had said he was wrong about that.

This entire story is obviously calculated to put the imprimatur of Elder McConkie on the Watson Theory, which it manages so nicely and absolutely that I cannot help being incredulous regarding its authenticity.

First, perhaps someone could show me a place where Bruce R. McConkie ever admitted he was wrong. The sole exception I can recall is when President Kimball received the revelation that the priesthood go to all men. And there, Elder McConkie either had to admit he was wrong or get booted from the Quorum of the Twelve.

I cannot imagine Elder McConkie admitting he was wrong to a committee of lay members paying him a call at his office; much less telling them they could tell anybody that Elder McConkie said he was wrong . . . about anything.

And then to never mention this somewhat important meeting to anyone else? And never to write of it, even in his personal papers? Or even in his diary? It is rare for so illuminating a discussion to go unmentioned, especially by Elder McConkie.

I suppose stranger things have happened; but I don't believe it for one minute.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

The original letter is at the University of Utah Library. I'm not sure how they got it but I'm assuming it was part of a Eugene England papers collection or something like that.Or maybe he was just lying.

Initially, I believe Eugene England was not happy about this letter getting out. It was pilfered (or more likely, he passed it on) to someone who decided it would be kosher to send to the Tanner's, who (as their typical lack of scruples allowed) published and sold it. There is an essay wherein England mentions it and he is clearly not happy about it.

http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/ldsapo...aught_ub066.htm

[sethpayne]

The original letter is at the University of Utah Library. I'm not sure how they got it but I'm assuming it was part of a Eugene England papers collection or something like that.

Ok... I have to restate this. *I THINK* the original letter is at the University of Utah Library. For the life of me I can't find the source for this information right now.

Initially, I believe Eugene England was not happy about this letter getting out. It was pilfered (or more likely, he passed it on) to someone who decided it would be kosher to send to the Tanner's, who (as their typical lack of scruples allowed) published and sold it. There is an essay wherein England mentions it and he is clearly not happy about it. http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/ldsapo...aught_ub066.htm

I think you are absolutely right. England was a man of integrity and I dont' believe that he would have violated the trust of private correspondence intentionally.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Ok... I have to restate this. *I THINK* the original letter is at the University of Utah Library. For the life of me I can't find the source for this information right now.I think you are absolutely right. England was a man of integrity and I dont' believe that he would have violated the trust of private correspondence intentionally.

I can't find the essay (is it in Making Peace?) wherein England mentions the incident.

[jkfrost]

Thanks for sharing this tidbit, jkfrost!

I approach this account with some suspicion, I must confess.

First, it would seem that, in spite of the numerous references to others associated with Elden Watson in the venture to see Elder McConkie, we have only Watson's word for what transpired.

I wonder who these other people were, and whether they say the same thing happened in the meeting.

I also admit to being skeptical of Bruce R. McConkie's sanctioning the somewhat strange and unorthodox teachings of Elden Watson & Co. regarding Adam, Jr. and Adam, Sr., including the bit about Eloheim eating of the fruit of the tree so that he could produce Adam and Eve's physical bodies through sexual intercourse with the wife he brought with him to the garden; and being so impressed by the obvious correctness of the "Two-Adam Theory" that Elder McConkie would not only encourage them to continue teaching it (he actually would have told them to leave it alone), but to admit that he himself was wrong about his views regarding Brigham Young, and that Watson & Co. could tell anybody they wanted that BRM had said he was wrong about that.

This entire story is obviously calculated to put the imprimatur of Elder McConkie on the Watson Theory, which it manages so nicely and absolutely that I cannot help being incredulous regarding its authenticity.

First, perhaps someone could show me a place where Bruce R. McConkie ever admitted he was wrong. The sole exception I can recall is when President Kimball received the revelation that the priesthood go to all men. And there, Elder McConkie either had to admit he was wrong or get booted from the Quorum of the Twelve.

I cannot imagine Elder McConkie admitting he was wrong to a committee of lay members paying him a call at his office; much less telling them they could tell anybody that Elder McConkie said he was wrong . . . about anything.

And then to never mention this somewhat important meeting to anyone else? And never to write of it, even in his personal papers? Or even in his diary? It is rare for so illuminating a discussion to go unmentioned, especially by Elder McConkie.

I suppose stranger things have happened; but I don't believe it for one minute.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That is some good insight!

on another subject Having read a lot of JOD comments by BY himself on Adam and God - he knew who he was talking about.

Not everyone who heard him teach on the subject was able to sort it out right away.

The earth was created by

Eloheim = God the Father

Yahovah = Jesus Christ

Michael = Adam

here is just a few of his quotes on the subject:

"The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?"

But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters

of that God whom we serve. Some say,

"we are the children of Adam and Eve."

So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father.

We are all the children of Adam and Eve,

and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens,

the highest Intelligence that dwells

anywhere that we have any knowledge of.

(Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young,

April 17, 1870,

SUNDAY, APRIL 17, 1870.

The prophet Brigham Young knew this as well:

What do the human family know of God or

Jesus, or of the words which I have quoted, "If ye love me, keep my

commandments?" "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have

eternal life," says Jesus, "and they are they which testify of me." They

testify of the Savior, of his doctrines and requirements, and of the

ordinances of his house; the plan of salvation is there portrayed, and any

person who follows its dictation may redeem himself from the thraldom of

sin, and know, by the Spirit, that Jesus is the Christ. All who will take

this course will know by revelation that God is our Father; they will

understand the relationship they hold to him and to their fellow-beings.

The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells

us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some

say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the

children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve,

and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the

highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of.

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BRIGHAM YOUNG,

DELIVERED IN THE NEW TABERNACLE, SALT LAKE CITY, MAY 7, 1871

(Reported by David W. Evans.)

GOOD AND EVIL " THE TESTIMONY OF THE SPIRIT "

THIS EARLY RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

I am under obligation to take a course which will sustain life within

myself and others, on rational principles, without any special

manifestation from God. You can all see this; but some think if they do

not receive some special manifestation from God that he has accepted them,

they are rejected of him. Do you not all know that you are the sons and

daughters of the Almighty? If you do not I will inform you this morning

that there is not a man or woman on the earth that is not a son or

daughter of Adam and Eve. We all belong to the races which have sprung

from father Adam and mother Eve; and every son and daughter of Adam and

Eve is a son and daughter of that God we serve, who organized this earth

and millions of others, and who holds them in existence by law...

TO KNOW GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE " GOD THE FATHER OF OUR

SPIRITS AND BODIES " THINGS CREATED SPIRITUALLY FIRST "

ATONEMENT BY THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD.

A Discourse by President Brigham Young, Delivered in the

Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857.

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge

is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the

Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same

species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are

earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the

same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we

should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery

to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter

whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or his

Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species " of one family "

and Jesus Christ is also of our species.

INTELLIGENCE, ETC.

Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, delivered in the

Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, October 9, 1859.

REPORTED BY G. D. WATT.

Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth,

When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the

earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the

beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle

words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities

where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of

parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was

given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply

and replenish the earth. The offspring of Adam and Eve are commanded to

take the rude elements, and, by the knowledge God has given, to convert

them into everything required for their life, health, adornment, wealth,

comfort, and consolation. Have we the knowledge to do this? We have.

Who gave us this knowledge? Our Father who made us; for he is the only

wise God, and to him we owe allegiance; to him we owe our lives. He has

brought us forth and taught us all we know. We are not indebted to any

other power or God for all our great blessings.

[consiglieri]

England was a man of integrity and I dont' believe that he would have violated the trust of private correspondence intentionally.

Elder McConkie made it clear that the letter was not private between him and Eugene England in the postscript:

P.S. I am taking the liberty of sending copies of this response to those to whom you sent your communication.

Elder McConkie's only expressed concern is snippets of his letter being taken out of context, and there is nowhere an admonition to secrecy regarding its contents:

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. p. 5.

The letter having been published in its entirety, Elder McConkie's concerns should be allayed in this respect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

Elder McConkie made it clear that the letter was not private between him and Eugene England in the postscript:

Elder McConkie's only expressed concern is snippets of his letter being taken out of context, and there is nowhere an admonition to secrecy regarding its contents:

The letter having been published in its entirety, Elder McConkie's concerns should be allayed in this respect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If I find the essay I'll let you know. England certainly didn't care for it to be published by the Tanners.

[sethpayne]

Elder McConkie made it clear that the letter was not private between him and Eugene England in the postscript:

Elder McConkie's only expressed concern is snippets of his letter being taken out of context, and there is nowhere an admonition to secrecy regarding its contents:

The letter having been published in its entirety, Elder McConkie's concerns should be allayed in this respect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Good points.

I would like to add that while the content of this letter is certainly interesting, it is the tone of the letter which I find most disconcerting.

[consiglieri]

Not everyone who heard him teach on the subject was able to sort it out right away.

The earth was created by

Eloheim = God the Father

Yahovah = Jesus Christ

Michael = Adam

Thanks for the great quotes!

May I suggest a key by which you may decipher all of Brigham Young's comments in this regard?

One of the places we can get confused is by equating Jehovah with Jesus Christ. This is a relatively recent phenomenon that became standardized in the early part of the 20th century.

It is clear that Brigham Young differentiated between Jehovah and Jesus Christ, because he taught that Jesus Christ is the first born spirit child of Adam in the premortal existence. Hence, Jesus Christ is subordinate to Adam. Jehovah, being obviously superior to Adam, must be somebody else in Brigham Young's thought.

Here is the Adam-God Theory as Brigham Young taught it:

Adam is a resurrected being from another world and the father of the spirits of all mankind; Jesus, being the firstborn spirit son, became the savior of this earth. (Brigham Young believed every world had its own savior, similarly being the firstborn son of the God of each particular world.)

Adam came to the garden with his exalted body and ate of the fruits of the trees of the garden until a change was made in the physical nature of his body, such that it became mortal and capable of producing mortal children along with his wife, Eve. (This was Brigham Young's explanation for the fall.)

Elohim is not Adam. Elohim is a God above Adam, and hence also our God. Elohim is the father, or grand-father, etc. of Adam, and hence Elohim is also our father.

Here, Brigham Young did not care to distinguish how far removed Elohim was from Adam, whether one generation, or two or more. He felt it sufficent to say that Adam is directly descended from Elohim, as are we; only in our case, we are one more generation removed from Elohim than is Adam.

Brigham Young did not talk much about Jehovah, likely because he was a bit of a mystery to him. Brigham Young knew that Jehovah was somewhere between Elohim and Michael, but having made Jesus subordinate to Adam, Brigham Young did not equate Jehovah with Jesus as is common for modern Mormons to do.

Those "cultists" who subscribe to the Adam-God Doctrine have come up with various theories for the identity of Jehovah, one of them being that Jehovah is the savior from Adam's first world where Adam lived in mortality prior to his resurrection. I am virtually certain, however, that Brigham Young was never so forthright in any of his pronunciations regarding Jehovah.

Hope that helps!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Good points.I would like to add that while the content of this letter is certainly interesting, it is the tone of the letter which I find most disconcerting.

No kidding!

"This may well be the most important letter you will ever receive."

That gets it off to a nice start, don't you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

Sorry, I don't think you're giving an accurate depiction of what Brigham Young taught Consig.

CFR all your points - let's see if you can back them up with in-context quotes from BY himself rather than writing a summary like this.

[John Larsen]

Sorry, I don't think you're giving an accurate depiction of what Brigham Young taught Consig.

CFR all your points - let's see if you can back them up with in-context quotes from BY himself rather than writing a summary like this.

The view must be great from you lofty ivory tower.

[Obiwan]

Then I take it you disagree with Elder McConkie's private statement to Eugene England that the "Adam God Theory" was taught by Brigham Young, who, if memory serves, was actually in the Church when he taught it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And right there you have put your finger squarely on the issue!

Consig.... Your misrepresenting McConkies words....

McKonkies specifically stated that Brigham made said STATEMENTS... He say's nothing about that he believed Brigham actually taught this AG theory that the anti's claim. In fact, his second comment makes it VERY CLEAR that this "theory" never was taught in the Church.

So you calling McConkie a deciever and liar now?

Aren't you a lawyer consig...? You really need to brush up on some of your parsing of peoples words and the meanings from them.

I know some things you do good, but other's you put on the anti brain, or the lack there-of.

[Nevo]

If I find the essay I'll let you know. England certainly didn't care for it to be published by the Tanners.

You remembered correctly. England discussed this episode in his essay "On Spectral Evidence, Scapegoating, and False Accusation" in Making Peace.

Here is the relevant excerpt:

In the summer of 1980 Elder Bruce R. McConkie gave an address at BYU entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies" in which he ranked the belief that God is progressing in knowledge as heresy number one. I was surprised and confused, as were a number of students who came to me pointing out the discrepancy between his view and those of various prophets. I studied the matter carefully and found that there were other leaders besides Elder McConkie, including Hyrum Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith, who had expressed the belief that God is absolute, perfect, and not progressing.

I also found that Brigham Young and B. H. Roberts had developed a concept that could explain such an apparent contradiction: God is perfect in relation to our mortal sphere, has all knowledge regarding it, but is learning and progressing in spheres beyond ours that have nothing to do with ours--thus not endangeringin any way his perfect redemptive plan and power in our sphere. It thus was possible to talk of God as perfect and unchanging when praising him in regard to us and our sphere--or to speak of him as developing and enjoying new ideas and experiences in spheres beyond ours--and to be right and orthodox in both cases.

I wrote Elder McConkie explaining all this and how it had helped me resolve students' anxieties about seemingly contradictory teachings by the prophets. In the meantime I left for London on a term abroad program for BYU. I heard nothing for six months, when I received a phone call from a friend from Provo asking if a letter being circulated, purportedly from Elder McConkie to me, was authentic. I was shocked as my friend read the letter to me and could not confirm it as genuine until weeks later when the original arrived in England by surface mail. The letter rejected my position and the sources I had cited and instructed me not to speak or write about the subject again. I wrote back saying I would comply.

Unfortunately, a copy of Elder McConkie's letter had somehow been taken from his office or circulated by someone he may have sent a copy to, and it was reproduced by anti-Mormons and became widely read.

I was deeply embarrassed and concerned about the damage it might do, but I did not criticize Elder McConkie and I objected when others did so in my presence. I listened carefully to his speeches and opened my heart to believe all I could that he taught, and I was careful to be obedient to my promise. I was especially moved, along with many others, by his very personal and humble testimony of Jesus Christ in his last address, in April 1985 general conference.

(pp. 34-35)

[consiglieri]

Sorry, I don't think you're giving an accurate depiction of what Brigham Young taught Consig.

CFR all your points - let's see if you can back them up with in-context quotes from BY himself rather than writing a summary like this.

My summary is based upon years of research in this area. I should think you are already aware of the primary citations, including Journal of Discourses 1:50-51. The problem is that typically, Mormons find Brigham Young confusing because they refuse to allow him to say anything other than what they have been taught is the orthodox religion. They insist on making Brigham Young's statements not contradict current teaching.

When approached from that perspective, Mormons will obviously find Brigham Young confusing, or will think he is contradicting himself.

That is usually the first phase of the process.

Then, when they come to quotes from Brigham Young that cannot be made to fit the orthodox mold, the second phase is to claim he was misreported.

Then, when they find that Brigham Young was not misreported, a number of options open up for the third phase: (1) They set it aside and ignore it and chalk it up to one of those "mysteries" that is not essential to salvation; (2) They find a creative means, such as Elden Watson, of forcing the square peg into the round hole by "making" Brigham Young be orthodox; or, (3) They understand that Brigham Young meant what he said, and that he taught things that are not countenanced by modern Church leaders as being correct doctrine.

Number 3 is easiest for non-Mormons to do, because they have no stake in making Brigham Young "fit" current LDS teachings. Critics have no problem going to number 3 because they often see it as a handy weapon against Mormonism.

The majority of Mormons, sensing that number 3 can be a weapon against their faith, tend to resist it with all their might, engaging in the most wonderful mental gymnastics in order to avoid the plain meaning of Brigham Young's words.

The problem is that number 3 is correct.

Would it not be wiser, as the leadership of the Church did about a hundred years ago, to simply acknowledge that Brigham Young did teach some unusual things in that regard, but to focus the members' attention on the essential gospel facts that Jesus is the Christ and the Savior of the world?

Unfortunately, Mormons have no one to blame but themselves for this dilemma; it is the Mormons who have placed their prophets on so high a pedestal that it approaches infallibility when speaking from the pulpit. The Mormons are the ones who have handed the critics the weapon in this regard.

Mormons have put too high a value on conformity of teaching as the sine qua non of truth.

If Mormons placed as high a value on pondering the eternal truths of the gospel in order to seek out the hidden things of God, and allowed the prophets to engage in this practice to see where it might lead, and accept that even prophets can be wrong about their conclusions in this regard without it affecting their calling as prophets; the entire dilemma would dissipate, "and like this insubstantial pageant faded, leave not a rack behind."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consig.... Your misrepresenting McConkies words....

He say's nothing about that he believed Brigham actually taught this AG theory that the anti's claim.

I think you must have missed this line from Elder McConkie's letter to Eugene England:

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

The view must be great from you lofty ivory tower.

If Brigham Young really taught it he should be able to show it.

[Jason]

My summary is based upon years of research in this area. I should think you are already aware of the primary citations, including Journal of Discourses 1:50-51.

I've read these particular sermons, and I don't agree with your summary of what Brigham Young was teaching in them.

If you want to make your case you had best start citing which part of which sermon supports each of your points so we can see if your summary is really grounded in BY's own words.

[consiglieri]

You remembered correctly. England discussed this episode in his essay "On Spectral Evidence, Scapegoating, and False Accusation" in Making Peace.

Here is the relevant excerpt:

Thank you for finding that and posting it, Nevo. I had never read Eugene England's side of the story before.

Reading this has elicited the following thoughts:

1. The only person who comes off well in this whole episode is Eugene England. I cannot imagine how the affair could have been more hamfistedly handled. In the first place, this is not something that should have been communicated in a letter; it should have been done in a face-to-face meeting.

2. But then to send the letter in such a way that it did not even reach Eugene England for weeks after it had been circulated far and wide back in Utah, and for Eugene England to have to hear about it from a friend over the phone? I can only imagine how Eugene England must have felt. To his credit, he displayed a humility not extended to him by an apostle of the Lord.

3. If Elder McConkie had sent the letter only to Eugene England, it would never have seen the light of day. But Elder McConkie was not satisfied with that; he felt compelled to send copies of the letter to other people, whom he identifies as the people to whom Eugene England had also sent copies of England's material. Elder McConkie wanted his letter to be disseminated. He wanted other people to see how he had put this uppity BYU professor in his place. And it was this hubris on the part of Elder McConkie that, in classic Greek fashion, brought about his own downfall.

4. The reason it brought about Elder McConkie's "downfall" is because there was a ticking bomb hidden in the pages of the letter, wherein Elder McConkie inadvertently let show his true feelings regarding what Brigham Young had taught about the Adam-God Theory; a position completely at variance from Elder McConkie's public pronouncements on the subject.

5. The reason Elder McConkie slipped in this regard appears to be because he was not talking about the Adam-God Theory per se in the letter; rather, he wanted to show Eugene England that Brigham Young had taught "wrong" things on other subjects in addition to the idea that God is still progressing, and used the Adam-God material as an example of this, arguing that Brigham Young had been wrong on Adam-God just the same way Brigham Young was wrong on God's progression. Because Elder McConkie was focused so intently on proving Eugene England wrong, and ordering him to stop teaching his "heretical" doctrine, he somehow missed the fact that he was putting in writing proof that he was dissembling in his other public statements about what Brigham Young taught regarding Adam-God.

6. Finally, I think this story gives the lie to the encounter described by Elden Watson; who for all intents and purposes is in the same boat as Eugene England. England says he has students coming to him with questions about statements made by Brigham Young that are contradictory to those of Elder McConkie regarding God's progression; England comes up with a theory that can harmonize both and make all the prophets consistent and correct on the issue. But what is Elder McConkie's reaction? It is not to say what a good job England has done, and to continue teaching his theory. It is rather to say that if you do not teach what I teach, you must stop under penalty of damnation.

But here comes Elden Watson who says he goes to Elder McConkie's office and offers his own theory that reconciles what Brigham Young said regarding Adam-God with what Bruce R. McConkie teaches about the Godhead; Watson's theory, like that of England, can harmonize both and make all the prophets consistent and correct on the issue. But what is Elder McConkie's reaction, according to Watson? Elder McConkie is in complete agreement with him and tells Watson to continue teaching his "Two-Adam Theory."

Whatever we can say about the veracity of Elden Watson's account, we know that the McConkie he approached about his "Two-Adam Theory" was not the same McConkie England approached about his "God Progressing Theory."

England's McConkie would have told Watson to stop teaching his "Two-Adam Theory" under penalty of damnation. Plain and simple.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I've read these particular sermons, and I don't agree with your summary of what Brigham Young was teaching in them.

If you want to make your case you had best start citing which part of which sermon supports each of your points so we can see if your summary is really grounded in BY's own words.

No doubt you are right, Jason, that Brigham Young taught only what has come to be accepted as orthodox LDS doctrine concerning Adam.

That is why there was absolutely no controversy surrounding his statements at the time, and why a rift was not created among the membership of the church over the issue.

It also accounts for why Elder McConkie felt the need to state in public that Brigham Young never taught such a thing, while admitting in a less-than-private personal letter that he actually did.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

No doubt you are right, Jason, that Brigham Young taught only what has come to be accepted as orthodox LDS doctrine concerning Adam.

That is why there was absolutely no controversy surrounding his statements at the time, and why a rift was not created among the membership of the church over the issue.

It also accounts for why Elder McConkie felt the need to state in public that Brigham Young never taught such a thing, while admitting in a less-than-private personal letter that he actually did.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Are you stalling?

I didn't say Brigham Young didn't teach some unnusual stuff here, or that his audience didn't think it was odd, or that Elder McConkie didn't mis-understand it, merely that it's not what you said he was teaching in your summary.

I await the breakdown of your summary point-by-point with BY quotes supporting each with bated breath.

[John Larsen]

Are you stalling?

I didn't say Brigham Young didn't teach some unnusual stuff here, or that his audience didn't think it was odd, or that Elder McConkie didn't mis-understand it, merely that it's not what you said he was teaching in your summary.

I await the breakdown of your summary point-by-point with BY quotes supporting each with bated breath.

Why don't you lead the way be providing a break down of the current LDS theology of God (to show how it is not Adam-God), with a summary and point-by-point break down including supporting quotes--all given in perfect context and including background information. That is not too much to ask is it?

[Obiwan]

I think you must have missed this line from Elder McConkie's letter to Eugene England:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No.... Your missing the nuance. Yes, he agreed that Brigham made the statements, but he further qualified that Brigham contradicted himself, mostly teaching at all other times what we all believe of Adam, etc. Thus, the ultimate conclusion is that Brigham Young did made said statements/teachings but what they actually MEAN is another story, and in McConkies later statement, such as the anti's understand it never has been taught in the Church.

Case in point.... which will maybe explain what I'm trying to tell you.

Years ago in the Military, I defended verbally someone weaker than I from a bully, that bully who happened to be black, got his other black friends and pulled me out of my hooch that night (I was also hooching with the victim) and they proceeded to beat on me, the rest was told I was a racist, which I had said nothing of the sort, but that was his way to get back at me. Anyway, later I called that person in my anger when sharing the story with other Military men, I called him a "nigger". Now, my statement was towards him only, due to his character, not that I consider blacks niggers or otherwise. I haven't a racist bone in my body, I even left the Church prior to this primarily because of the Priesthood ban. So, my point is, is that my usage of this word cannot be made to become that I'm somehow a racist, even if I said it a couple of other times. But, that is basically what your trying to do with Brigham Youngs and McConkies comments. Making him out to believing what the anti's say he believed, rather than what he was actually meaning and talking about.

Get the point?

[consiglieri]

Are you stalling?

I await the breakdown of your summary point-by-point with BY quotes supporting each with bated breath.

Perhaps this will do for a place to start:

Journal of Joseph L. Robinson; Oct. 6th, 1854.

Attended conference, a very interesting conference, for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father. This as Brother Heber remarked, was letting the cat out of the bag, and it came to pass, I believed every word, for I remembered saying to the Brethren at a meeting of High Priests in Nauvoo, while I was speaking to them under the influence of the Spirit, I remarked thus, that our Father Adam had many wives, and that Eve was only one of them, and that she was our mother, and that she was the mother of the inhabitants of this earth, and I believe that also, but behold ye there were some that did not believe these sayings of the Prophet Brigham, even our Beloved Brother Orson Pratt told me he did not believe it. He said he could prove by the scriptures it was not correct. I felt very sorry to hear Professor Orson Pratt say that. I feared least he should apostatize, but I prayed for him that he might endure unto the end, for I knew verily it was possible that great men might fall.

Any questions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri