Bruce R. McConkie on Adam-God

[consiglieri]

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

I have started a new thread devoted to just this issue.

Please feel free to join in the fun!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

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?

Are you saying that you don't believe that the LDS theology of God is scripturally supported? There's no point in my outlining teachings we both agree on.

I'm asking you to support your summary of BY's teachings because I don't believe your summary is correct and would like to see if you can build a case for it, not because I want to be pedantic.

[consiglieri]

I'm asking you to support your summary of BY's teachings because I don't believe your summary is correct and would like to see if you can build a case for it, not because I want to be pedantic.

Case-building in progress on another thread!

[John Larsen]

Are you saying that you don't believe that the LDS theology of God is scripturally supported? There's no point in my outlining teachings we both agree on.

I'm asking you to support your summary of BY's teachings because I don't believe your summary is correct and would like to see if you can build a case for it, not because I want to be pedantic.

The LDS theology of God is not supported by the common, and most likely historical, interpretation of biblical passages. However, individuals chose to interpret scriptural ambiguity in patterns that favor their predisposition. In that sense, scripture supports all views.

My problem with your tactics on this discussion is that you are trying to raise the level of scholastic proof so high as to send consiglieri back to the stacks rather than address his thesis. It would seem in the discussion that you are the odd man out in your belief that consiglieri is way off base, maybe you should take that as a hint. If you want to raise the level of scholarship, then I suggest you follow the scholarly tradition of showing evidence to the contrary rather than constantly demanding sources that should be QED, like a school yard bully.

[Jason]

Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with him, and the things that pertain to God and to heaven were as familiar among mankind in teh first ages of their existence on the earth, as...our gardesn are to our wives and children, or as the road to the Western Ocean is to the experienced traveler.

-Discourses of Brigham Young 104

This seems to clearly define God and Adam as two seperate individuals.

[amo]

Perhaps this will do for a place to start:

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

Any questions?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're, Consiglieri, quoting what a "hearer" UNDERSTOOD of the speech, and not what the ACTUAL TEACHING was. Now, every teacher here knows and is well aware of the HUGE gap between the two...

Amo

[John Larsen]

By the way, consiglieri, I think you have one thing off. I believe that Brigham/Joseph considered Jehovah and Jesus two separate beings. The God hierarchy was Elohim [The Great Grand God].....(indeterminate number of Gods).....Jehovah...Adam...Jesus....Joseph Smith.

I don't have the time today, but I will provide my case in the future.

[John Larsen]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're, Consiglieri, quoting what a "hearer" UNDERSTOOD of the speech, and not what the ACTUAL TEACHING was. Now, every teacher here knows and is well aware of the HUGE gap between the two...

Amo

Does a teaching exist outside of the hearer? By your standards, you must prove something existed without relying on any evidence from a 2nd or 3rd party? That is ridiculous.

Here is another hearer on the subject:

Wilford Woodruff recording a speech by Brigham Young in the Tabernacle given April 9th 1852:

â??Who begat the Son of God? Infidels say that Jesus was a ******* but let me tell you the truth Concerning that matter. Our Father begat all the spirits that were before any tabernacles were made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his celestial body & brought one of his wifes with him & eat of the fruit of the garden until He could begat a tabernacle. And Adam is Michael or God And all the God that we have any thing to do with. They Eat of this fruit & formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the VIRGIN MARY was begotton with Child it was By the Father and in no other way ownly as we were begotton. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world dont know that Jesus Christ Our Elder Brother was begotton by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please. It will either seal the damnation or salvation of m[e/a?]n. He was begotton by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost. When you go to Preach & believe that Jesus Christ was begotton by the Holy Ghost dont lay Hands upon the Heads of Females for the reception of the Holy Ghost lest it Beget her with Child And you be acused. I have told you nothing in this thing but what you have red in the Bible. I do not frame it.â?

Staker, Susan ed. (1993) Waiting for Worldâ??s End, Signature Books p.150

Wilford Woodruff recording a private conversation with Brigham Young on May 6th 1855:

â??Adam & Eve had lived upon another Earth. Were immortal when they came here. Adam assisted in forming this Earth & agreed to fall when he came Here & He fell that man might be & the opposite principle to good the devel, the serpent, the Evil was plased upon the Earth that man might know the good from the Evil for without an Experience in these things man Could not know that one from the other.â?

Staker, Susan ed. (1993) Waiting for Worldâ??s End, Signature Books p.166

Address by Brigham Young recorded by Wilford Woodruff August 31st 1873:

â??Afternoon. President B Young Spoke. 1 Hour & 18 Minuts. In his remarks He said that a Man who did not have but one wife in the Resurrection that woman will not be his but [be] taken from him & given to another But he may be saved in the kingdom of God but be single to all Eternity. Mother Eve was the Daughter of Adam.

Staker, Susan ed. (1993) Waiting for Worldâ??s End, Signature Books p.306

[erichard]

I wonder what Elder McConkie would think of a discussion such as ours here. Oh, yeah, I forgot; he would say, "Repent, have faith in Christ, follow the living prophet, and live the gospel." I'm now ditching this thread to try to focus on that a little better.

I noticed once that in the original and famous JD 1:50 discourse (where President Young began publically teaching what is known as Adam-God doctrine) that he first spoke of the GREATEST MYSTERY. (Putting A/G teachings in their place ahead of time.)

The greatest mystery a man ever learned, is to know how to control the human mind, and bring every faculty and power of the same in subjection to Jesus Christ; this is the greatest mystery we have to learn while in these tabernacles of clay.

And yet, the principle of FAITH is unmistakenably related to a correct understanding of God. In fact, Jesus said: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. --John 17:3"

For me, studing President Young's Adam-God teachings is in "good faith". He was ordained revelator for the church teaching the Saints to know and understand God and Christ. With increased FAITH, I will have a greater power to Repent.

Of course, I believe that President Young was basically correct in his A/G teachings-- with one significant exception-- so others may not feel the same.

Richard

[consiglieri]

By the way, consiglieri, I think you have one thing off. I believe that Brigham/Joseph considered Jehovah and Jesus two separate beings. The God hierarchy was Elohim [The Great Grand God].....(indeterminate number of Gods).....Jehovah...Adam...Jesus....Joseph Smith.

I don't have the time today, but I will provide my case in the future.

Good morning, John!

Thanks for "having my back" in this discussion.

If I gave the impression I thought Brigham Young taught Jehovah and Jesus are the same, let me correct that here.

You are absolutely correct that Brigham Young taught Jehovah to be a being superior to Adam, and that Jesus was Adam's first-born son in the premortal existence; thus occupying a subordinate role to Adam.

Contrary to what became official Mormon Doctrine on the subject, Brigham Young conceived of Jesus as a separate (and subordinate) being from Jehovah; and additionally taught that Jesus is the Savior of the inhabitants of this world only; and that every world has its own savior, just as every world has its own Adam and Eve.

So no need to provide a case to me in this regard, though others will no doubt feel differently.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. In rereading this thread, I found that I did set forth the correct view of Brigham Young's teachings regarding Jehovah and Jesus. It was in post No. 61, which was in response to jkfrost's suggestion that Jesus=Jehovah. You may have confused jkfrost's post with mine.

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.

[consiglieri]

-Discourses of Brigham Young 104

This seems to clearly define God and Adam as two seperate individuals.

This is the classic straw-man fallacy I have alluded to before.

Yes, Brigham Young did teach that God (Elohim) and Adam are two separate individuals.

That is a point of intersection between the Adam-God Theory and current LDS teaching.

But you have done what happens over and over again; to quote Brigham Young to the effect that Elohim and Adam are separate beings and think that somehow you have controverted the fact that Brigham Young taught the "Adam-God Theory."

This argument makes sense only if Mormons believe there is but one God; and it is ironic to hear Mormons making this argument when Mormons are famous among Christian religions for believing something a bit different.

Additionally, the fact that you are making this argument at this point indicates you are not reading my posts with any degree of attention.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Teancum]

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

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

I have heard that Elder McConkie was presented the two Adam idea after his letter to England. When presented this idea he agreed with it and said his letter to England was now incorrect. Perhaps his comments about it never being taught then is chronologically after that.

[consiglieri]

I have heard that Elder McConkie was presented the two Adam idea after his letter to England. When presented this idea he agreed with it and said his letter to England was now incorrect. Perhaps his comments about it never being taught then is chronologically after that.

Hi, Teancum!

I hope you are doing well.

Your question was brought up earlier in this thread by jkfrost. I have responded, giving at length my reasons for doubting the accuracy of Elden Watson's report of his meeting with Elder McConkie.

But of course, it is within the realm of possibility that this is what happened.

But I think that, if it did happen, the Elder McConkie Watson spoke with was a completely different Elder McConkie from the one England encountered.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[jkfrost]

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

Not sure I follow you on who BY said Jehovah is - knowing the title of what it means could be placed on Divine beings but usually it is place on Our Savior Jesus.

Here is a bit I put together a while back on who created the world as stated by BY in the sermon most quoted and least understood:

http://www.geocities.com/jkfrost/adamgod/agjod1.html

[Teancum]

I don't believe that what most people call the "Adam God Theory" was ever taught by anyone in the Church, including Brigham Young, so Elder McConkie's public statements that it was never taught in the Church is perfectly correct.

Why don't you believe this. What documents do you rely on to dispute it? It is clear BY taught something along these lines. One can debate whether he had two Adams in mind or whether there is some other meaning to what he said. But there we comments about Adam being god. People recorded them in their journals and understood them to mean what critics ascribe to them. The Lecture at the veil in St George Temple taught it.

So either you are naive on this or you have some compelling reason to state what you do above.

[Jason]

Yes, Brigham Young did teach that God (Elohim) and Adam are two separate individuals.

How does that teaching fit in with Adam-God then? Are you saying that he believed Adam-God at a later or earlier point and then taught this at a point when he didn't believe it? Because this teaching is celarly not in line with the idea that Adam is God.

[Jason]

Why don't you believe this. What documents do you rely on to dispute it? It is clear BY taught something along these lines. One can debate whether he had two Adams in mind or whether there is some other meaning to what he said. But there we comments about Adam being god. People recorded them in their journals and understood them to mean what critics ascribe to them. The Lecture at the veil in St George Temple taught it.

So either you are naive on this or you have some compelling reason to state what you do above.

I think he was teaching deep doctrines concerning Adam's prominent position as patriarch of the human race and possibly that Adam is also a title of God the Father, and that the diaries are good evidence that the doctrines he was teaching were confusing to his audience, but not of what Brigham Young was actually trying to teach or actually believed.

I do not believe that he was teaching that Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits because the idea contravenes some very basic doctrines of the Church.

[consiglieri]

How does that teaching fit in with Adam-God then? Are you saying that he believed Adam-God at a later or earlier point and then taught this at a point when he didn't believe it? Because this teaching is celarly not in line with the idea that Adam is God.

I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself.

Brigham Young taught that Adam was the father of our spirits and the God of this world.

Brigham Young taught that Eloheim is the father (or grand-father) of Adam.

He did not teach that Adam and Eloheim are the same person, nor is that part of the Adam-God Theory.

Please do not forget that Mormons believe in more than one God.

I hope this helps.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I do not believe that he was teaching that Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits because the idea contravenes some very basic doctrines of the Church.

Which "very basic doctrines of the Church" do you feel it contravenes?

This is an issue worthy of exploration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HiJolly]

I must be doing a horrible job of explaining myself.

I think you're doing pretty well, considering the topic. It can be tough to deal with ambiguity.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

Which "very basic doctrines of the Church" do you feel it contravenes?

This is an issue worthy of exploration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

At a guess .... Heb. 9: 27

27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

HiJolly

[consiglieri]

I think you're doing pretty well, considering the topic. It can be tough to deal with ambiguity.

HiJolly

Thanks, HiJolly!

I will take that as a compliment.

But I must confess that I see precious little in the way of ambiguity when it comes to Brigham Young's teachings on the subject. I mean, we have a mulitiplicity of his recorded utterances, all teaching pretty much the same thing for a period of over 20-years.

Where I see the ambiguity in Brigham Young's pronouncements would be on the tertiary issues of how many generations separate Adam from Elohim, and the precise identity of Jehovah.

But I think Brigham Young is pretty clear that Adam (the guy in the garden of Eden with the rib and everything) is the father of our spirits and the God of this world. That much seems pellucid.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

Which "very basic doctrines of the Church" do you feel it contravenes?

The doctrine that God the Father is the father of our spirits. It's a pretty basic doctrine. Moses 6:51 is an appropriate passage to cite, as it distinguishes between Adam and the father of our spirits.

[lukas_s]

By the way, consiglieri, I think you have one thing off. I believe that Brigham/Joseph considered Jehovah and Jesus two separate beings. The God hierarchy was Elohim [The Great Grand God].....(indeterminate number of Gods).....Jehovah...Adam...Jesus....Joseph Smith.

I don't have the time today, but I will provide my case in the future.

Truth.

The Elohim as Father, Jehovah as Son, and Holy Ghost as well, Holy Ghost distinctions weren't formalized until 1916 by James Talmage. Joseph repeatedly used Jehovah and Elohim interchangeably for the Father, and believed Jesus to just be Jesus.

[HiJolly]

Thanks, HiJolly!

I will take that as a compliment.

It was.

But I must confess that I see precious little in the way of ambiguity when it comes to Brigham Young's teachings on the subject. I mean, we have a mulitiplicity of his recorded utterances, all teaching pretty much the same thing for a period of over 20-years.

"pretty much", yes. I wouldn't say 'exactly', and you don't.

Where I see the ambiguity in Brigham Young's pronouncements would be on the tertiary issues of how many generations separate Adam from Elohim, and the precise identity of Jehovah.

Just so. That is what I had in mind.

But I think Brigham Young is pretty clear that Adam (the guy in the garden of Eden with the rib and everything) is the father of our spirits and the God of this world. That much seems pellucid.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Well, I can't really go so far as to agree on the "pellucid", mainly because of context and um, metaphysical cosmology(?). Where does Brother B say the Garden was?

It is clear to me that BB taught Adam-God; It is not clear to me exactly and specifically what Elder McConkie and Pres. Kimball were denying. It is also not at all clear to me that BB was wrong. It is amazing what the ancient (and some contemporary) Jewish mystics had to say concerning Adam.

BTW, I find it an interesting artifact that we (The Mormons) still teach that Adam is the Ancient of Days. Nice, that.

HiJolly

[Jason]

BTW, I find it an interesting artifact that we (The Mormons) still teach that Adam is the Ancient of Days. Nice, that.

HiJolly

It's scriptural. D&C 27:11, 116:1, 138:38