Did Brigham Young Teach the Adam-God Theory?

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

For some reason, rather than giving us a transcript of Brigham Young's 8 October 1854 conference discourse, we are asked in the OP and in Post #4 to accept the journal entries of two members of the audience as accurate representations of what Brigham Young taught in this discourse. As any attorney should know, this is not the â??best evidenceâ? one should present to establish what a speaker thought and taught and is certainly not the evidence one would normally present to begin a serious discussion. Nevertheless, these quotes can be instructive.

Let us first look at the journal entry of Joseph Robinson.

There are a number of interesting facets to this paragraph, but for the purposes of this thread I will mention only the three I have underlined.

First, as the very first evidence presented in support of the allegation that Brigham Young taught an Adam-God Theory as outlined in the OP rather than as suggested by Elden Watsonâ??s concept of Two Adams, we are given a quote which teaches as its very first point that â??Adam and Eve were . . . names,â? not unique persons. Further, we are told that these names have been given to â??the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized.â? In other words, there are myriads of beings throughout the vastness of time and space who are called by the names Adam and Eve. These names are not unique to one particular couple.

Now, let us ask ourselves, which of the two interpretations of Brigham Youngâ??s teachings concerning Adam under consideration teaches that there exist more than one person named Adam? Indeed, which interpretation is constantly ridiculed for maintaining such a ridiculous concept? As we can see in the OP, no such concept is contained in the outline of Brigham Youngâ??s teachings given there. Nevertheless, this is the very first thing we learn from the initial quote provided in support of that outline.

Second, we further learn from this quote that â??Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet.â? Now, having just learned that â??Adam and Eveâ? are names rather than unique individuals and that these names have been given to vast numbers of beings, rather than jumping to the unjustified conclusion that these names can refer only to Michael and his wife, we ought to ask ourselves who this particular Adam and Eve might be. Are they Michael and his wife, or are they some other couple also known as Adam and Eve?

As shown in this quote, Brigham Young taught that these names always belong to â??the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized.â? We are, therefore, justified in assuming that this teaching applies to our own earth. So who were the â??first man and womanâ? of this earth? Of course, it is natural to reply that this obviously refers to Michael and his wife. But are they actually the â??first man and woman" of this earth? As anyone who has actually read Brigham Young's discourse knows, that is not what Brigham Young taught. Certainly Michael and his wife were the first mortal man and woman to be placed upon this earth, but that does not make them the first man and woman of this earth. For example, in a discourse he gave on 8 February 1857 Brigham Young explained,

Brigham Young, 6 Deseret News (#50) 396-397 (18 February 1857)

Here Brigham Young first teaches that we are obviously of the same species as Adam and Eve, referring to Michael and his wife. But then he teaches that if we could continue to trace our history back past Michael to â??the Father of our spiritsâ? we would see that He also is a Being of our same species. He also has been earthly, but is now heavenly. Here, then, is our true â??first father,â? the Being who is the Father of our spirits. Thus we learn both that Michael is not the father of our spirits and that there is a Being who became our Father before Michael did. This other Being is our first father and is, therefore, also an Adam.

Third, Brigham Young says that â??Adam was God, our Eternal Father.â? Is he here referring to Michael, or to some other Adam? From what we have seen in the first point, there are many beings called Adam. From the second point, we learned that the Father of our spirits, our Eternal Father, is someone other than Michael. Therefore, as a third point, Brigham Young shows here that it is proper to call this other Being by the name Adam.

Now, letâ??s look briefly at the John Pulsipher journal entry concerning this discourse. Because the text given earlier in this thread omits at least one important paragraph I have set out a more complete text here and numbered the paragraphs fro ease of reference.

Brigham Young, 2 BYA 15-16 (John Pulsipher Transcript) (8 October 1854)

Notice that in paragraph 3 Brigham Young explains that â??Godâ? is both the father of our spirits and of the bodies of the first inhabitants of this earth. In paragraph 4 we see that this reference to the first inhabitants of this earth includes Adam or Michael (and his wife, Eve). Thus, again, we see that Michael is not the father of our spirits, but that his Father is the father of our spirits. Later, in paragraphs 5 and 7, this Being who is the Father of our spirits and of Michaelâ??s body is also called by the name Adam. This is nothing unusual because we have already learned from the Robinson quote and we see in paragraph 7 of this Pulsipher quote that the name Adam belongs to the first man of this and every other earth. While Michael may have been the first mortal man on this earth, his Father, the one who gave him his earthly body and who is the Father of our spirits, was actually the [f]irst Man of this earth.

Unfortunately, that is all the time I have for these matters. Nevertheless, this should be sufficient to show that the summary of Brigham Youngâ??s teachings concerning Adam given in the OP is based on a rather shallow reading and understanding of President Youngâ??s discourses. Anyone who is really interested in learning what Brigham Young taught about Michael and who he thought was an Adam might want to start with President Youngâ??s discourse given at the dedication of the Seventies Hall on 26 December 1844 (18 BYU Studies (#2) 177-178 (Winter 1978)). Reading President Youngâ??s discourse in full and in context is the only way to come to understand what he meant to teach. Skimming and regurgitating a long list of cherry-picked â??quotesâ? is not an adequate substitute for actually studying what Brigham Young believed and taught.

All it would take to debunk your whole interpretation is one quote that states that Michael is the Father of our spirits. Correct?

[Olavarria]

Did BY teach Adam-God?

There is only two ways to answer that questian: yes or no.

If we answer yes, then the TBM(like moi) would have to invoke the "speaking as a man/fallible prophets" principle.

However, this principle cuts both ways. Either BY was teaching false doctrine or modern prophets are making a major ommision. Eitherway, we have to throw someone under the bus on this issue.

Here is an idea, it seems to me that it is very likely BY tought the Adam-God* and tought that plural marriage is essential for our exaltation*. I just perused my copy of Mormon Doctrine by BRM. In it, BRM repudiates two ideas: 1)Adam-God and 2)plural marriage as an essential for exaltation.

Surprise , surprise.

But the interesting thing is: when you look at these entries BRM makes references to mormon fundamentalism in both instances. He refers to the "cultists" and "all who pretend or assume to enter into plural marriage".

Here is my theory, it is possible that BRM's seperation of plural marriage from celestial marriage and his repudiation of Adam-God were a reaction to the new fangled mormon fundamentalism.

In otherwords, I believe BRM and others like him, were sincere in their conviction. They were not liars; but it is possible that these convictions were reactions to something, rather than convictions which they developed in a vacume(does that ever happen?).

In otherwords, these men unwhittingly were creating a doctrinal chasm between the church and the fundamentalists. The more different we are from them, the less likely we are to be confused with them...or even worse, jump ship and join them.

*I'm not prepared to state definitivly one way or the other. For me, the litmus test is not one of "does Thomas S. Monson teach what Brigham Young tought"? Maybe, maybe not.

For me the litnmus test is "Does Thomas S Monson have the same power and authority Brigham Young had"? That is the real questian. I know that he does.

[consiglieri]

This is off topic speculation, but if the CoJCoLDS is true, my speculation for the lack of such new revelation is that the general membership couldn't digest it. Though as I have studied things so far, LDS seem to believe there will be more forth coming revelation. If God must wait on his people to be ready to receive it, its a good thing he is long suffering.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

And here I think you have put your finger on an important issue, Mudcat.

The Mormon people are quite pleased and proud to announce to the world their belief in living prophets.

My perspective is that Mormons are happy to have prophets, seers and revelators upon the earth today . . . so long as the prophets don't prophecy, the seers don't see, and the revelators don't reveal.

Because when they do, all hell breaks loose.

I hope this doesn't sound too cynical.

Just the observations of one who has spent 30-years observing the scene.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

There appear to be too many sources for this to be the result of one misquote. Beyond that, you have other sources throughout church history confirming the controversy. It is clear that false doctrine was taught early in church history by Brigham Young. Brigham Young was speaking as a fallible man. Was he ever a prophet? I doubt it. This was not the first instance in church history where a prophet was called out for teaching false doctrine. You can read the Nauvoo Expositor for that.

Hi, Tithulta!

Thanks for your post. I tend to agree with pretty much everything you said.

My one concern is your use of the phrase, "false doctrine."

The word "false" is by its nature a subjective value judgment. As such, it tends to polarize the issues being discussed.

I find it more effective to speak simply in terms of "difference" rather than "falsity."

I think we can objectively say that Brigham Young taught some things that are "different" from what is taught today by the LDS Church without having to enter the murky waters of subjective truth claims.

And for the record, I am in no way saying that what Brigham Young taught was either true or false. Nor am I saying that what is taught today by LDS Church leaders is either true or false.

For purposes of this thread, I am more interested in investigating whether it is "different," which I am doing only because Jason challenged me to do so on another thread.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ERayR]

Did BY teach Adam-God?

There is only two ways to answer that questian: yes or no.

If we answer yes, then the TBM(like moi) would have to invoke the "speaking as a man/fallible prophets" principle.

However, this principle cuts both ways. Either BY was teaching false doctrine or modern prophets are making a major ommision. Eitherway, we have to throw someone under the bus on this issue.

Here is an idea, it seems to me that it is very likely BY tought the Adam-God* and tought that plural marriage is essential for our exaltation*. I just perused my copy of Mormon Doctrine by BRM. In it, BRM repudiates two ideas: 1)Adam-God and 2)plural marriage as an essential for exaltation.

Surprise , surprise.

But the interesting thing is: when you look at these entries BRM makes references to mormon fundamentalism in both instances. He refers to the "cultists" and "all who pretend or assume to enter into plural marriage".

Here is my theory, it is possible that BRM's seperation of plural marriage from celestial marriage and his repudiation of Adam-God were a reaction to the new fangled mormon fundamentalism.

In otherwords, I believe BRM and others like him, were sincere in their conviction. They were not liars; but it is possible that these convictions were reactions to something, rather than convictions which they developed in a vacume(does that ever happen?).

In otherwords, these men unwhittingly were creating a doctrinal chasm between the church and the fundamentalists. The more different we are from them, the less likely we are to be confused with them...or even worse, jump ship and join them.

*I'm not prepared to state definitivly one way or the other. For me, the litmus test is not one of "does Thomas S. Monson teach what Brigham Young tought"? Maybe, maybe not.

For me the litnmus test is "Does Thomas S Monson have the same power and authority Brigham Young had"? That is the real questian. I know that he does.

Here lies the problem with this and other "problem" "doctrines" supposedly taught by BY and others. Some of us want analyze what is written(which is usually not a complete transcript of what was said but synopsis of what the hearer understood he/she heard) with our own limited understanding and it don't fit.

I think Lachoneus had a very reasoned and probable scenario. Is he correct? Maybe, maybe not, but he does show that it certainly requires more study and prayer than the superflous dismisals, including it being only BY's opinion, have given it.

I think consiglieri has put it well. " think we can objectively say that Brigham Young taught some things that are "different" from what is taught today by the LDS Church without having to enter the murky waters of subjective truth claims. And for the record, I am in no way saying that what Brigham Young taught was either true or false. Nor am I saying that what is taught today by LDS Church leaders is either true or false." and "The Mormon people are quite pleased and proud to announce to the world their belief in living prophets. My perspective is that Mormons are happy to have prophets, seers and revelators upon the earth today . . . so long as the prophets don't prophecy, the seers don't see, and the revelators don't reveal. Because when they do, all hell breaks loose."

I for one am not so quick to dismiss BY as a guy with crakpot ideas. I am willing to table my prconceived ideas and study this from different angles. Perhaps we can harvest some truth and understanding.

[lukas_s]

Here lies the problem with this and other "problem" "doctrines" supposedly taught by BY and others. Some of us want analyze what is written(which is usually not a complete transcript of what was said but synopsis of what the hearer understood he/she heard) with our own limited understanding and it don't fit.

I think Lachoneus had a very reasoned and probable scenario. Is he correct? Maybe, maybe not, but he does show that it certainly requires more study and prayer than the superflous dismisals, including it being only BY's opinion, have given it. I think consiglieri has put it well. " think we can objectively say that Brigham Young taught some things that are "different" from what is taught today by the LDS Church without having to enter the murky waters of subjective truth claims.

And for the record, I am in no way saying that what Brigham Young taught was either true or false. Nor am I saying that what is taught today by LDS Church leaders is either true or false." and "The Mormon people are quite pleased and proud to announce to the world their belief in living prophets.

My perspective is that Mormons are happy to have prophets, seers and revelators upon the earth today . . . so long as the prophets don't prophecy, the seers don't see, and the revelators don't reveal.

Because when they do, all hell breaks loose."

I for one am not so quick to dismiss BY as a guy with crakpot ideas. I am willing to table my prconceived ideas and study this from different angles. Perhaps we can harvest some truth and understanding.

Fair enough, but I still don't buy the "BY was misquoted or misrepresented" theory, for the simple fact that a lot of people would've had to have done a lot of misquoting and misrepresenting all along the same lines. It just doesn't happen.

I think the proof is clear that he DID teach that Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits, meaning our Heavenly Father. I think the reactions to the teaching point to this unequivocally. The Lecture at the Veil taught this, as do numerous sermons in the Journal of Discourses. It just isn't possible for a bunch of people to misunderstand what he was teaching that much, and all along the same lines...especially not his counselors.

For all the defending of the Lord's Anointed that we LDS do, for all the times we can comfortably shout out "that's not doctrine," we sure have a lot of trouble accepting that BY erred in doctrine.

[ERayR]

Fair enough, but I still don't buy the "BY was misquoted or misrepresented" theory, for the simple fact that a lot of people would've had to have done a lot of misquoting and misrepresenting all along the same lines. It just doesn't happen.

Me: Neither do I. I think that we don't have all that he said and I think we are filtering through preconcieved ideas.

I think the proof is clear that he DID teach that Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits, meaning our Heavenly Father. I think the reactions to the teaching point to this unequivocally. The Lecture at the Veil taught this, as do numerous sermons in the Journal of Discourses. It just isn't possible for a bunch of people to misunderstand what he was teaching that much, and all along the same lines...especially not his counselors.

Me: I do not think it is so clear that he taught Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits. It is clear that he taught that an Adam was the father of our spirits. Again you are filtering through your preconceived ideas. Put aside your preconceived ideas and prejudices aside and meditate on this for a while. Consider what Lachoneus has written.

For all the defending of the Lord's Anointed that we LDS do, for all the times we can comfortably shout out "that's not doctrine," we sure have a lot of trouble accepting that BY erred in doctrine.

Me: It's alright to shout "that's not doctrine," but you really ought to make sure it isn't. Perhaps a better way is to quietly say that according to my understanding that can't be so. If you don't want to accept it or study it thats fine but don't dismiss it out of hand.

[Olavarria]

For all the defending of the Lord's Anointed that we LDS do, for all the times we can comfortably shout out "that's not doctrine," we sure have a lot of trouble accepting that BY erred in doctrine.

Well, someone erred in doctrine. It was either BY or SWK. Or mabe both were in agreement with each other, niether being in error but we just cant see how what each said fits together.

For me, I dont care if what he tought regarding Adam was wrong or right. The fact is, Adam-God is not tought by the Church ergo it isnt official Church doctrine.

[phaedrus ut]

Did BY teach Adam-God?

There is only two ways to answer that questian: yes or no.

If we answer yes, then the TBM(like moi) would have to invoke the "speaking as a man/fallible prophets" principle.

However, this principle cuts both ways. Either BY was teaching false doctrine or modern prophets are making a major ommision. Eitherway, we have to throw someone under the bus on this issue.

I think this is a interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. Why is Brigham automatically in the wrong here? If it's possible that Brigham was only speaking as a man when he taught this in error isn't is also just as possible that the prophet that ended the teaching could be equally in error?

On a related point regarding Brigham's understanding of Adam as God the Father. Brigham is also quoted as saying that God is the "literal" father of Jesus having come down and had sex with Mary. If God the Father was Adam ... wouldn't that make Mary his blood relative?

Phaedrus

[lukas_s]

Well, someone erred in doctrine. It was either BY or SWK. Or mabe both were in agreement with each other, niether being in error but we just cant see how what each said fits together.

For me, I dont care if what he tought regarding Adam was wrong or right. The fact is, Adam-God is not tought by the Church ergo it isnt official Church doctrine.

I agree with you 100%. It's not doctrine now, but I think it was at one time. A lot of Saints prayed about it and got confirmation. We only need to look to journal entries for that. This is why I'm a firm believer that we need to go to the Scriptures and confirm what we've prayed about...if it's not in the Scriptures, it's probably a safe bet that it isn't true. Adam-God isn't in the Scriptures, ergo it's not true.

But that's just my opinion.

[lukas_s]

ErayR: I do not think it is so clear that he taught Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits. It is clear that he taught that an Adam was the father of our spirits. Again you are filtering through your preconceived ideas. Put aside your preconceived ideas and prejudices aside and meditate on this for a while. Consider what Lachoneus has written.

I will do just that. I admit to not knowing a ton about it, but from everything I've read, to me it seems that he was teaching it as doctrine as I have previously stated. I will meditate on it for a while, however. It's an interesting topic.

[Notquitewetyet]

I think this is a interesting point and I'm glad you brought it up. Why is Brigham automatically in the wrong here? If it's possible that Brigham was only speaking as a man when he taught this in error isn't is also just as possible that the prophet that ended the teaching could be equally in error?

On a related point regarding Brigham's understanding of Adam as God the Father. Brigham is also quoted as saying that God is the "literal" father of Jesus having come down and had sex with Mary. If God the Father was Adam ... wouldn't that make Mary his blood relative?

Phaedrus

I can't find this in the JoD yet, perhaps someone here can? But I think this would clear up any concern about incest.

8 Oct, 1854 - In what Apostle Wilford Woodruff describes as "the greatest sermon that ever was delivered to the Latter Day Saints since they have been a people," Brigham Young announces from the pulpit: "I believe in Sisters marrying brothers, and brothers having their sisters for Wives. Why? because we cannot do otherwise. There are none others for me to and the opposite idea has resulted from the ignorant and foolish traditions of the nations of the earth." Young's secretary George D. Watt has already married his own half sister as a plural wife. Her letter to Young shows that he was initially "unfavorable" toward allowing them to marry, but this sermon reveals theological basis for Young's authorizing Watt's brother-sister marriage and the three children born of their union.

source: http://www.i4m.com/think/sexuality/mormon_sex.htm

Of course, like most anti-Mormons, they don't use citations.

[Olavarria]

I agree with you 100%. It's not doctrine now, but I think it was at one time. A lot of Saints prayed about it and got confirmation. We only need to look to journal entries for that. This is why I'm a firm believer that we need to go to the Scriptures and confirm what we've prayed about...if it's not in the Scriptures, it's probably a safe bet that it isn't true. Adam-God isn't in the Scriptures, ergo it's not true.

But that's just my opinion.

This is how I break it down....

Doctrine is what the Church officially teaches.

Truth is how things are.

All doctrine is true, but not all truth is doctrine.

Is Adam-God doctrine? NO!!!

Is Adam-God true? Ah, now thats a different questian for a different time.

Whether BY tought it or not, for me, is irrelavent.

[Mudcat]

Well, someone erred in doctrine. It was either BY or SWK. Or mabe both were in agreement with each other, niether being in error but we just cant see how what each said fits together.

Another option could be that both erred. If it can be recognized that one can make an error, there is no reason to assume that the other is error free.

[Olavarria]

Another option could be that both erred. If it can be recognized that one can make an error, there is no reason to assume that the other is error free.

True , true. It could be that both recieved different pieces of the puzzle and tried to extrapulate a gigantic picture based on different limited pieces. Perhaps, we will recieve all the pieces in the Millenium and then see how

[consiglieri]

For all the defending of the Lord's Anointed that we LDS do, for all the times we can comfortably shout out "that's not doctrine," we sure have a lot of trouble accepting that BY erred in doctrine.

I agree with much of what you have to say. I still think it an open question, as other posters have noted, whether Brigham Young "erred in doctrine." Once again this inserts into the issue a subjective value judgment on what is true and what is not; or as Her Amun has narrowed the issue; what is doctrine and what is not.

I think the Adam-God teaching of Brigham Young is such a hot button because it divests Mormons of most of their handy fail-safe arguments for such prophetic pronouncements.

1. One of the first arguments frequently heard by Mormons when presented with a teaching of a church leader that does not comport with their current understanding is to say that it was not taught in the church, or not taught in conference.

Obviously, Brigham Young did teach this in church, and did teach it at conference, so that objection goes by the wayside.

2. A second argument frequently encountered by Mormons is that the speaker was not "the prophet" when he made the pronouncement; he was "only" an apostle or some other office.

Once again, that argument doesn't cut it here because Brigham Young was "the prophet" of the LDS Church when he made all of these statements.

And so this issue forces Mormons to squarely engage the question of what to make of a situation where one prophet teaches something that is contradicted by another prophet.

(Clearly this is a difficult issue to engage for many Mormons, who will do whatever is necessary to avoid the issue.)

The seemingly knee-jerk reaction is to say that one prophet or the other was "wrong," or "erred in doctrine," and therefore is a "false prophet."

Once that conclusion is reached, it is a simple matter to call into question everything that any prophet has ever said about any subject.

But I think this is probably throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

More than anything else, I think this episode is instructive in that it highlights the complete dependency that many Mormons have on teachings of the prophets.

In spite of the fact that the prophets have consistently counseled members to weigh their words against the standard works and the confirmation of the Holy Ghost, I think most Mormons reveal themselves as unwilling or unable to do so, and hence put absolute confidence in anything the prophet says, just because he says it.

This is all well and good, and works extremely well, when we deal with prophetic utterances of the last 100-years after Mormon Doctrine was systemitized and correlated; after which prophets say nothing other than what has become standardized "Mormon Doctrine."

It does not work so well, however, when dealing with some prophetic utterances before that period, when Mormon Doctrine was not standardized, and when there were still new and exciting things that could be discovered by pondering the scriptures and searching out the hidden mysteries of God through the revelatory power of the Holy Ghost.

Ironically, what Brigham Young comes under condemnation for in this regard is acting like a prophet!

Current prophets do not act so much like prophets as like businessmen who tow the company line.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

True , true. It could be that both recieved different pieces of the puzzle and tried to extrapulate a gigantic picture based on different limited pieces. Perhaps, we will recieve all the pieces in the Millenium and then see how

I am glad you posted this, Her Amun, because it is critical to understand this point.

Too often, Mormons think that they have the answers to everything. Because of this, they often go astray.

While Mormons have more revelation than other Christian religions, it is imperative that they understand that they are still going off of limited information.

In fact, the more Mormons know about things, the more questions are opened up that do not have revealed answers. That is the nature of things, and at least one basis for the old adage, "The more I learn, the less I know."

It is human nature to want to fill in the blanks; more than nature abhors a vacuum. This results in Mormons filling in the blank pieces of the puzzle with their best guesses. This is, to a certain degree, what Brigham Young did in promulgating his Adam-God teaching.

But it is also what the Church, as an institution, did in the early 20th century in correlating Mormon Doctrine. Many things taught in Mormon Doctrine today (and many things taught by Brigham Young) are based upon scriptural declarations. But it is important to remember that a number of things taught by both Brigham Young and current Church leaders are not based upon scripture. (In some instances, they may even be seen as contradicting the scriptures.)

To give an example, Mormons are blessed to know about the premortal existence, and the fact that all mankind existed in the spirit prior to coming to the earth. But merely knowing this fact opens up a number of questions, many of which have been attempted to be answered; resulting in a number of unscriptural teachings; such as we knew each other in the premortal existence; we chose what family we would come to; we knew and agreed to the challenges we would face; etc.

None of these latter concepts are set forth in the scriptures, but Mormons (like everybody else) want to try to fill in the gaps and answer the unanswered questions.

Anyway, I just wanted to give a hearty "Amen," Her "Amun" to your point.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[erichard]

For some reason, rather than giving us a transcript of Brigham Young's 8 October 1854 conference discourse, we are asked in the OP and in Post #4 to accept the journal entries of two members of the audience as accurate representations of what Brigham Young taught in this discourse. As any attorney should know, this is not the â??best evidenceâ? one should present to establish what a speaker thought and taught and is certainly not the evidence one would normally present to begin a serious discussion. Nevertheless, these quotes can be instructive.

Thank you councilor.

I think second hand accounts of the Oct. 6th, 1854 discourse do serve the purpose of the OP: to verify that those listening to BY believed he was teaching things different than what is taught today.

But, as you say, the transcript of the meeting should be a more accurate record of what was said. And yet, it is also a second hand account.

The transcript is too long to cut and paste here, so here again is the link to it given earlier in post #11:

Oct 6, 1854 BY Discourse Transcript.

By my reading of the transcript, brother Robinson was fair enough in his understanding of what President Young was teaching.

Lachoneus: Let us first look at the journal entry of Joseph Robinson.

There are a number of interesting facets to this paragraph, but for the purposes of this thread I will mention only the three I have underlined.

First, as the very first evidence presented in support of the allegation that Brigham Young taught an Adam-God Theory as outlined in the OP rather than as suggested by Elden Watsonâ??s concept of Two Adams, we are given a quote which teaches as its very first point that â??Adam and Eve were . . . names,â? not unique persons. Further, we are told that these names have been given to â??the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized.â? In other words, there are myriads of beings throughout the vastness of time and space who are called by the names Adam and Eve. These names are not unique to one particular couple.

Now, let us ask ourselves, which of the two interpretations of Brigham Youngâ??s teachings concerning Adam under consideration teaches that there exist more than one person named Adam? Indeed, which interpretation is constantly ridiculed for maintaining such a ridiculous concept? As we can see in the OP, no such concept is contained in the outline of Brigham Youngâ??s teachings given there. Nevertheless, this is the very first thing we learn from the initial quote provided in support of that outline.

The idea that each earth has its own Adam and Eve is in Moses 1:34. It is scripture. The concern I and many have with Watson's interpretion is NOT that it speaks of more than one Adam, but rather that it claims that President Young was speaking of two different Adams and not clearly differenting between them. The idea is immediately incredulous to almost everyone except those who apparently want it to be true very badly.

But you make a case, so we should consider what you say.

Lachoneus: Second, we further learn from this quote that â??Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet.â? Now, having just learned that â??Adam and Eveâ? are names rather than unique individuals and that these names have been given to vast numbers of beings, rather than jumping to the unjustified conclusion that these names can refer only to Michael and his wife, we ought to ask ourselves who this particular Adam and Eve might be. Are they Michael and his wife, or are they some other couple also known as Adam and Eve?

Other than saying that each earth has its own Adam and Eve, there is no reason to believe President Young would be talking about any other Adam and Eve than the one associated with our earth.

But you say maybe he was. Well, he could have clarified much better. You make a case that in the 8 February 1857 (JD 4:217) record it seems that he is saying that the father of our Spirits was the Adam before our earth's Adam. And yet, there are many records where there is no way to make such a case.

Use the Find function using "Father of our Spirits" at his site: 230 Quotations on Adam-God

Lachoneus: ...

Third, Brigham Young says that â??Adam was God, our Eternal Father.â? Is he here referring to Michael, or to some other Adam? From what we have seen in the first point, there are many beings called Adam. From the second point, we learned that the Father of our spirits, our Eternal Father, is someone other than Michael. Therefore, as a third point, Brigham Young shows here that it is proper to call this other Being by the name Adam. ...

Brigham Young, 2 BYA 15-16 (John Pulsipher Transcript) (8 October 1854)

....In paragraph 4 we see that this reference to the first inhabitants of this earth includes Adam or Michael (and his wife, Eve). Thus, again, we see that Michael is not the father of our spirits, but that his Father is the father of our spirits.

It is not as clear as you are saying. This record by Pulsipher is in notes, and not nearly as easy to follow as the original transcript of this talk. This is clearly the same discourse as the 6 Oct 1854 discourse mentioned above, even though it is dated two days later.

From the link to it above:

All things are first made spiritual, and brought forth into his kingdom. The spirits of all the human family were begotten by one father. Now be watchful, for if I have time, and feel able, I shall communicate something in connection with this you are not expecting. Yes, every son and daughter of Adam according to the flesh can claim one parentage; the Heathen, and the Christian, (p. 13) the Jew and the Gentile, the high and the low, the king and the beggar, the black and the white, all who have sprung from Adam and Eve have one Father. "Then you make it out we are brethren and sisters." Certainly, for the whole human family are made of one blood;--of the same material; they are all begotten and brought forth by one parentage, and from one generation to another they are of one flesh and blood, and of one kindred. The God and Father [of] our Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of our spirits.

...I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. [Why not say "the Adam of Adam" is the Father of our Spirits?] He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor his calling and priesthood, and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life.

also consider this:

Now some will be ready to say, "We always heard these Mormons did not believe the Bible." I believe all the truth that is there, and that is enough for me, and for you to believe.

"Then the Lord did not make Adam out of the dust of the earth?"

Yes he did, but I have not got to that part of my discourse yet. Adam was made of the dust of the earth.

"Was he made of the dust of this earth?"

No but of the dust of the earth where on he was born in the flesh, that is the way he was made, he was made of dust.

"Did the Lord put into him his spirit?"

Yes, as the Lord put into you, your spirit, he was begotten of a Father, and brought forth as you and I were; and so are all intelligent beings brought forth from eternity to eternity. Man was not made the same as you make an adobe to put in a wall.

The OP, Consiglieri has clarified, is to show that President Young taught things differently than what is taught today. I have a hard time believing differently. Surely you agree with that point?

Lachoneus: Unfortunately, that is all the time I have for these matters. Nevertheless, this should be sufficient to show that the summary of Brigham Youngâ??s teachings concerning Adam given in the OP is based on a rather shallow reading and understanding of President Youngâ??s discourses. Anyone who is really interested in learning what Brigham Young taught about Michael and who he thought was an Adam might want to start with President Youngâ??s discourse given at the dedication of the Seventies Hall on 26 December 1844 (18 BYU Studies (#2) 177-178 (Winter 1978)). Reading President Youngâ??s discourse in full and in context is the only way to come to understand what he meant to teach. Skimming and regurgitating a long list of cherry-picked â??quotesâ? is not an adequate substitute for actually studying what Brigham Young believed and taught.

I could not easily find the BYU Studies "dedication of the Seventies Hall" article. Could you provide a link?

Richard

[zerinus]

Consig: you are well-read on this subject. I'm impressed. . . .

Hardly! This topic has been beaten to death by apostates and anti-Mormons all over the Internet. A Google search for Adam-God doctrine will reveal all! He may be well-read; but more likely in anti-Mormonism than in Mormonism; because that is where you are most likely to find this kind of information.

zerinus

[lukas_s]

Hardly! This topic has been beaten to death by apostates and anti-Mormons all over the Internet. A Google search for Adam-God doctrine will reveal all! He may be well-read; but more likely in anti-Mormonism than in Mormonism; because that is where you are most likely to find this kind of information.

zerinus

OR, one can open the Journal of Discourses and find it in dozens of different places!

[zerinus]

Any comments?

Yes, you are wasting your time.

I wish to reiterate that I would not be engaging in this exercise but for the fact that I was challenged to do so on another thread.

That is a poor excuse. Your thread is in bad taste. Jesus was also "challenged" (Matthew 4:1-11), but didn't fall for the bait.

zerinus

[zerinus]

OR, one can open the Journal of Discourses and find it in dozens of different places!

That would be too much hard work! You don't need to. The hard work has already been done by the apostates and anti-Mormons. It is a lot easier to look it up in them than in the JOD.

zerinus

[lukas_s]

That would be too much hard work! You don't need to. The hard work has already been done by the apostates and anti-Mormons. It is a lot easier to look it up in them than in the JOD.

zerinus

Not when I was in high school, it wasn't. My dad had the whole set in his library, so when some Christian church down the road sent some tract out about the "evils of Mormonism" my dad sat down with me and went through the JoD and showed me the Adam-God passages. It didn't bother me then, it doesn't bother me now. He taught it, that's all there is to it.

[consiglieri]

Not when I was in high school, it wasn't. My dad had the whole set in his library, so when some Christian church down the road sent some tract out about the "evils of Mormonism" my dad sat down with me and went through the JoD and showed me the Adam-God passages. It didn't bother me then, it doesn't bother me now. He taught it, that's all there is to it.

Your father was a wise man. He went to the source and when he found it there, he incorporated it into his world view and passed that onto his son, with the result that his son is able to accept the truth of the matter without being bothered by it.

The responses of Zerinus are instructive, as they illustrate a common response to this information from Mormons; that being to kill the messenger in hopes it will nullify the message.

In Zerinus' defense, however, it is easy to get the impression that the only people talking about this issue are anti-Mormons because the LDS Church has to a large degree succeeded in its attempts to eradicate the fact that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Theory.

But in the final analysis, it really makes no difference whether I am "wasting" my time, or whether I am falling for a "challenge" that the Savior would not have, or whether the thread is in "bad taste," or where Brigham Young's quotes are most prominently published.

Truth is truth, whether found

On Christian or on heathen ground.

And that is really what we are about, as Mormons, isn't it? The search for truth?

But on reflection, I think there may be no greater hindrance in the search for truth than the belief that we are already its sole possessors.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ERayR]

ErayR: I do not think it is so clear that he taught Adam/Michael was the father of our spirits. It is clear that he taught that an Adam was the father of our spirits. Again you are filtering through your preconceived ideas. Put aside your preconceived ideas and prejudices aside and meditate on this for a while. Consider what Lachoneus has written.

I will do just that. I admit to not knowing a ton about it, but from everything I've read, to me it seems that he was teaching it as doctrine as I have previously stated. I will meditate on it for a while, however. It's an interesting topic.

Yes it is an interesting topic and I doubt that we will solve the dilema of conflicting opinions. For one thing Brother Brigham is not here to ask what he really said or meant. Perhaps with some study, meditation and patience we can come to a resolution that will be personally acceptable to each of us without throwing BY or any one else under the bus.