Did Brigham Young Teach the Adam-God Theory?

[consiglieri]

I like your posts Consiglieri. Keep it up.

You are far too kind, Black Mo!

And I must confess a temptation to add your salubrious post to my signature.

But the air of false humility I attempt to portray forbids it.

(Oh, to heck with it!)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[ERayR]

consiglieri:

I agree with most of what you have written. I too find that is better to make friends with the zombie thereby gaining a better understanding.

I think that the basic parts of the gospel have almost become credal(faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the holy ghost and temple ordinances). For many members this is enough. I think a lot of BY remarks were designed to push the members beyond this comfort zone. It is my thinking that once one gets beyond these basics that it is a personal journey and so we may take different paths and are at different levels of understanding or error whichever the case may be.

Just some of my thoughts, not said well but I hope that I may be understood anyway.

[mpschmitt]

Thanks for your supportive words, my NoMoBro!

Fortunately, I do not consider it my work to persuade others to the correctness of my view. Well, maybe that is not entirely correct, or I would never have bothered to create this thread!

Perhaps it is more correct to say that I do not care whether I am able to persuade others. (Yes, I think that is closer to the truth.)

But Zerinus is for real, I think, based on other posts he has made in other threads. Anything that comes into contact with his view of the "orthodox religion" is automatically wrong, and anybody who suggests such a thing is "wasting his time," and likely in need of a good psychological evaluation.

But Zerinus' posts have been important, in that they help provide a more representative sample of the responses Mormons have to this type of information.

Jason has dismissed it with a wave of his hand and a sniff.

Zerinus wishes to kill the messenger. This has been easy for him in the past because he has perceived the messenger of these tidings to be strictly anti-Mormons. When a 30-year faithful and active Mormon presents the same information, however, his knee-jerk reaction is to do the same, and to conclude that I am in league with the anti-Mormons. (See Obiwan.)

I think the Adam-God Theory is like a zombie that you think is safely buried 6-feet under. It can be disconcerting to later see the zombie crawl out of the grave and go shambling along the street outside your house. And what do you do when the zombie starts shuffling up your front walk?

I used to be terrified of the zombie. I would close my eyes and pretend he wasn't there. (See Jason.) Or I would tell myself that it wasn't really a zombie, it was actually just a regular person who looked a lot like the guy who got buried. (See Elden Watson.) Or I would grab a garden shovel and try to decapitate it. (See Zerinus.)

Ultimately, I found that the best method for dealing with this particular zombie was to invite him inside for a cup of hot tea and make friends. When I did so, much to my surprise the zombie ended up being an amiable sort, and the hot tea transformed him back into a pleasant and genial guest.

Having made his acquaintance, I sometimes forget that he still looks like a frightful zombie to most everyone else on my street.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I like the Zombie metaphor...

But Consig, I need to continue this discussion further. I don't think anything I've shared is trying to create the Mormon version of the Nicene council.

I'm going on the assumption that God is the same yesterday, today and forever. Which is a reasonable view in my thinking...

Joseph Smith said that the first principle of revealed religion was to have a correct understanding of the Nature of God. If God says one day to one prophet "I am the Glorified, omnipotent, omniscient, and loving Father of mankind" and then says another day to another prophet "I'm an eggplant with the head of a dolphin and a million tiny feet." we have a problem. This is not the kind of matter we are discussing. What we are discussing is the ever progressing and expanding understanding that God is granting to men through the channel of divine revelation of who and how he is. Former statements to former prophets must be included in this process in order for us to gain the full picture. It is not in my view, being dogmatic and overly rigid for someone to say, "Okay, here's a new piece of information about the nature of the Godhead from another prophet. Let's lay that along side what the Lord has already made known about Himself and see how the puzzle (mystery, portrait) becomes clearer." God is not the author of confusion, nor is he the father of lies.

Brigham's statements are no more important than Moroni's, or the Brother of Jared, or Joseph Smith, or Abraham, or Moses, or Paul, and they must somehow fit together if we are going to accept all of these men as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. But they are also no less important. The glue that ties these descriptions of God together and makes them comprehensible is the Holy Ghost. Through the Holy Ghost we come to iron out alleged discrepancies and our understanding expands. And we come to know the true and living God.

Brigham's statements regarding Adam don't scare me. I know there is a satisfactory answer somewhere and I'm not pretending to have a full understanding of this issue yet. I'm really just sharing where I am in my thinking on the matter. I have been taught a number of things by the Spirit on this subject though, as I've studied it, and that has brought me a measure of peace, joy and greater understanding and respect for Adam that I did not have before. This is an ever-unfolding tapestry of glory, wisdom and intelligence God is providing through these prophets and if we get too hung up on one idea or think we've got it all figured out we may miss the beautiful (and ever increasing) big picture.

I am loath to come to conclusions on matters that I don't think are clearly laid out in the scriptures and on which I have not received personal revelation. I am not called to be a Prophet for the church and so, feel uncomfortable with the notion that I would expound publicly upon topics that have not been clearly addressed by the sustained authorities of the Church. I may have personal views or impressions, but I keep them to myself. The things I've shared are (mostly ) those things I have learned from reading the sources in the Church that have met the D&C 107 standard of approval by the councils of the Church (The Scriptures, Jesus the Christ by Talmage - and yes it was endorsed by the First Presidency, Conference, Official unanimous statements from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, etc). I see a great consistency of doctrine and theology between these sources that testifies to me of the divine origins of these documents. They are sound. Tried and true. I have confidence in them and they strengthen me in my faith and understanding. I follow Joseph Smith's council and cling to the trunk of the tree and that keeps me practicing simple Christianity in a very real way in my life. It makes me useful to my brothers and sisters and helps me to make a difference in their eternal paths. Straining at theological gnats has never done that for me (and I'm not suggesting that's what you're doing by the way). It is important to me however to understand and follow truth and to discern and reject error. My standard for determining that is what the Lord sees fit to reveal through his servants the prophets. That is a firm foundation that has never failed me and I would dare to say never will.

[Jason]

I don't have enough spare time to sift through all the "who did early saints think Jehovah was," to look for the items relevent to the original topic.

Consig, you have seemed to provide a quote that shows that BY wasn't really sure of the relationships of the trinity to Adam, but I remain unconvinced that all points of your summary are exactly what BY was trying to teach.

EDIT: Let me compliment you that you have indeed put more time into this than I have been able to.

[consiglieri]

Brigham's statements are no more important than Moroni's, or the Brother of Jared, or Joseph Smith, or Abraham, or Moses, or Paul, and they must somehow fit together if we are going to accept all of these men as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

Thanks for your post, mp!

(This post is going to be pretty long, but I wanted to share some personal feelings with you, and some important steps in my faith journey.)

I am focusing on the above snippet because I think there is an important point to be made here.

Your view is that all scriptural or doctrinal utterances must somehow fit together if we are going to accept all of these men as Prophets, Seers and Revelators.

I understand where you are coming from. For a long time I felt the same way.

Let's take the Bible for example. About 20-years ago, I became aware that trying to make all biblical statements on a certain issue harmonize with every other biblical statement was a lost cause; that invariably I ended up emphasizing the passages with which I agreed, while ignoring the other passages, or explaining them away.

In other words, I became aware that I was forcing the scriptures to say what I believed, rather than believing what the scriptures said; a "tail wagging the dog" type of scenario.

I also saw that the New Testament writers accused the Jews of the same thing; of not understanding all the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament as predicting Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ. It was so obvious to early Christians that the Old Testament was talking about Jesus! Why couldn't the Jews see that?

The answer was that the Jews did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, and therefore were constitutionally incapable of reading their scriptures in such a way as to refer to Jesus. Of course, the Jews viewed things in the exact opposite way--that the early Christians were forcing their preconceived notions that Jesus was the Messiah onto the Old Testament and seeing things that weren't really there.

(I think there is truth in both perspectives.)

I thought that if the Jews did this with their scriptures, was it not possible that I was doing the same thing with mine? Forcing my preconceived notions on the scripture in such a way as to make the scriptures incapable of teaching me anything with which I did not already agree?

And if that was what I was doing, what was the point in reading the scriptures at all? They no longer had anything to really teach me; only as a tool of reinforcement for what I had already concluded was true.

In my early years as a Mormon, nowhere was this more evident than in my reading of Paul's epistles. Every time Paul said something with which I disagreed, my reaction was to say that he was hard to be understood (even Peter said so!), and to politely turn my head while reading Pauline passages that contradicted my beliefs, and paying attention only when Paul was saying things that I accepted.

Mormons have much more scripture than just the Bible, and a load of extra-canonical prophetic utterances on top of that. Of course, the result is only to multiply the problem, not diminish it.

I came to a point in my life some years back when I realized that the Bible seems to contradict itself on a host of issues for the simple reason that the Bible contradicts itself on a host of issues. Mormons have the old fail-safe of saying that the Bible must not have been translated correctly in those parts, but do not have that option with uniquely LDS scriptures.

But for the Bible, I came to understand that different writers actually understood different subjects differently; and the best way to understand what they were saying was to try to understand what they were saying, rather than force their words to fit my preconceived notions about what they should be saying.

Once I came to this realization about the Bible, it was not hard to apply the same reasoning to Mormon scriptures and prophetic utterances.

As a result, I do not feel that Brigham Young's prophetic calling is jeopardized by his teaching things different from other Church leaders.

And really, what Brigham Young taught was not so strange as the complete retooling of the concept of who Jesus was that you suggest tongue-in-cheek.

All he taught was that there is a different relationship between us and the certain divine beings than may have previously been supposed.

Specifically, he affirmed that Elohim is the Great God of all things and our Eternal Father in Heaven. But based on the building blocks he learned from Joseph Smith, he theorized that there are gods between us and Elohim, even as most Mormons are still comfortable with the idea that there exist Gods above Elohim.

In this way, Brigham Young showed himself willing to engage in three-dimensional thinking regarding the plurality of Gods introduced by Joseph Smith.

In my opinion, this type of two-dimensional thinking ignores the restored concepts that men may be exalted from this earth and become Gods over new worlds, populated by their own spirit children.

Today, it seems that some Mormons find such three-dimensional thinking uncomfortable, and are content with a two-dimensional representation; that Elohim is the God over this specific earth, and that all mankind are Elohim's immediate spirit children.

But given the revelations of Joseph Smith, that scenario seems unlikely given the fact that Elohim is also the God of the universe.

Why would the God of the universe also be the immediate God of this world?

Is it not at least as likely that one of God's children from way back who had gone on to exaltation would fulfill that lesser role?

It made sense to Brigham Young, and I admit it makes sense to me.

Brigham Young took the additional step of identifying that particular son of God from way back who had gone onto exaltation and was the immediate God of this world as Adam.

And the rest is history.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

Might I also add that I don't feel particularly threatened by the idea that Brigham Young may have believed and taught doctrine that doesn't fit with what we know today. Line upon line, precept upon precept, etc.

I just am not convinced that he taught what is commonly known as Adam-God today.

The zombie analogy doesn't really fit my thoughts on the subject.

[HiJolly]

(This post is going to be pretty long, but I wanted to share some personal feelings with you, and some important steps in my faith journey.)

HiJolly grabs popcorn, sits back, and begins to read...

(snip) As a result, I do not feel that Brigham Young's prophetic calling is jeopardized by his teaching things different from other Church leaders.

Agreed!

All he taught was that there is a different relationship between us and the certain divine beings than may have previously been supposed.

Specifically, he affirmed that Elohim is the Great God of all things and our Eternal Father in Heaven. But based on the building blocks he learned from Joseph Smith, he theorized that there are gods between us and Elohim, even as most Mormons are still comfortable with the idea that there exist Gods above Elohim.

In this way, Brigham Young showed himself willing to engage in three-dimensional thinking regarding the plurality of Gods introduced by Joseph Smith.

Yes indeed. I think this kind of thing demonstrates that Brother Brigham was in the process of receiving "further light and knowledge". In my experience, this is a scary process, but BB was, after all, the Lion of the Lord!

So, who was the Heavenly Father that appeared to Joseph in the Grove? Just teasing.

Excellent post, consig, and I agree wholeheartedly in how you have proceeded. Keep up the good work, and take heart that God will lead you right! Faint not!

One of the greatest lessons I have learned is that despite my progress along the lines you have spoken of, I still am in love with the Church and practically everything about it. I like to keep in mind that 99% of what the Church is about, is limited to the manifest universe. And there is more than that out there...

I am just tickled pink to be a (part-time) missionary in the Church.

HiJolly

[mpschmitt]

And really, what Brigham Young taught was not so strange as the complete retooling of the concept of who Jesus was that you suggest tongue-in-cheek.

All he taught was that there is a different relationship between us and the certain divine beings than may have previously been supposed.

Specifically, he affirmed that Elohim is the Great God of all things and our Eternal Father in Heaven. But based on the building blocks he learned from Joseph Smith, he theorized that there are gods between us and Elohim, even as most Mormons are still comfortable with the idea that there exist Gods above Elohim.

In this way, Brigham Young showed himself willing to engage in three-dimensional thinking regarding the plurality of Gods introduced by Joseph Smith.

In my opinion, this type of two-dimensional thinking ignores the restored concepts that men may be exalted from this earth and become Gods over new worlds, populated by their own spirit children.

Today, it seems that some Mormons find such three-dimensional thinking uncomfortable, and are content with a two-dimensional representation; that Elohim is the God over this specific earth, and that all mankind are Elohim's immediate spirit children.

But given the revelations of Joseph Smith, that scenario seems unlikely given the fact that Elohim is also the God of the universe.

Why would the God of the universe also be the immediate God of this world?

Is it not at least as likely that one of God's children from way back who had gone on to exaltation would fulfill that lesser role?

It made sense to Brigham Young, and I admit it makes sense to me.

Brigham Young took the additional step of identifying that particular son of God from way back who had gone onto exaltation and was the immediate God of this world as Adam.

Siggy, (Trying to find a good nickname for you...let me know if that suits you

Actually, I don't think you and I are far from the same page on this issue. You have articulated many of the same conclusions I have drawn personally (especially the last part of what you said) through scripture study, prayer and taking the questions about this teaching to the temple for a little deeper pondering.

My main point that I was trying to put forth about scripture is not that we have to reconcile every single thing these men said or did to every other thing everyone else said or did. I'm okay with the fact that Paul had to rebuke Peter for acting in a discriminatory manner toward the gentiles (Galatians 2:11-20), or that David is called a prophet (Acts 2:29-30) despite the fact that he was guilty of grievous sins, or that Joseph Smith was chastened a number of times in the Doctrine and Covenants for his sins. I'm also okay with the fact that Prophets sometimes have opinions on which they have not received revelation (Alma 40:20, 1 Corinthians 7:25). I don't expect perfection from my prophets in order to consider them men of God and to benefit from what the Lord reveals to them. But there is a thread of truth that runs through all of scripture, and when the Lord has spoken, he really has spoken. We can trust it. The fingerprints of the Lord are all over the scriptures. As the Book of Mormon reminds us, if there are any errors they are the errors of men. I regard scripture as his love letter to us and I find the study of it and the finding of links between verses and concepts expands my understanding and my soul and I'm better able to be in a real relationship with God as a result. There are certain core conclusions and doctrinal footings we can draw from studying these scriptures. That is why the scriptures admonish us regularly to do so. It truly is a firm foundation upon which we can build.

Case in point...

A few posts back in this thread, someone made the assertion that Jesus was not Jehovah. I shared a bunch of scriptures supporting the fact that he was and mentioned D+C 107 as a standard by which to measure the purity of the teaching we receive (See v21-30). In addition to the scriptures I shared supporting the notion that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, we have the statement (The Living Christ), signed by all of the twelve Apostles and the First Presidency (so it meets the D+C 107 standard) that states quite clearly: "He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New."

I don't know how much clearer it gets than that. Yet there are still those that want to take Brigham's statements and declare in the face of this declaration that Jesus was not Jehovah. That feels problematic to me.

This is not to say there have not been others in eternity who have held that name-title. That I don't know. But I do know that the unanimous voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve has spoken on this issue and so I rest assured that I can hang my hat on that doctrine.

Another point in support of your thinking. God has demonstrated himself to be a delegator. He delegated the Creation of the earth to His Son. So complete was this delegation that the Son received the title Father in the sense of being the Father of Creation and the Father of our salvation (see Mosiah 5:7, 2 Nephi 25:12, 2 Nephi 2:19). The temple endowment teaches us an important lesson about this chain of delegation. So it never seemed unreasonable to me that there might be other aspects of God's work that he would delegate for which the Father would even still ultimately receive the glory. Even as Jesus always gave all glory to the Father.

Thanks for the reply! As always it was insightful, thoughtful and respectful.

Schmitty

[consiglieri]

This is not to say there have not been others in eternity who have held that name-title. That I don't know.

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Schmitty.

You have evoked further thoughts from me, which is going to long again, so I hope HiJolly has not run out of popcorn!

The issue of "name-titles" is one of the problems inherent in discussions of this type; that being the slippery usage of names to identify different persons or personages.

As soon as we say that a name is a "title" or that the same name can be applied to more than one person, we run into difficulties.

The first thing I have to recognize is that there is a legitimate sense in which a "name" can be applied to more than one person.

The most obvious example is the name of "God." While not a problem to other Christians who hold that there is only one God, this becomes a problem for Mormons who believe in the existence of three Gods in the Godhead, and an unknown number of Gods elsewhere in addition.

Then we come to the name of "Heavenly Father." Mormons typically think that when using this name, they have narrowed the field down to one person. But this name ends up being slippery as well when we understand that not only is the immediate Father of our spirits our Heavenly Father, His Father is our Father, too. (This is starting to sound like John Jacob Jingle Heimer Schmidt, which given your name, is serendipitous. )

Nevertheless, every God in our patriarchal chain is our God and our Father. Here, it is important to note that, in the language of the scriptures, distinctions such as grandfather and great-grand father are never used; all males above us in the patriarchal chain are called simply Father. We have only to think of Father Abraham as an example of this in the scriptures. (I won't belabor the point with additional citations unless you request them.)

This inherent slipperiness in the title Father is not so much as in the title God, but nevertheless it exists and must be taken into account.

The converse of the title Father is Son (or Daughter or Children). While initially this seems rather straightforward, we should recognize that every direct descendant is referred to as a son (or children) in the scriptures. Here we have only to think of the "children of Israel," who were so-called regardless of the number of generations that existed in between. The most famous "children of Israel" were those led by Moses out of Egypt, and yet these "children of Israel" were 400-years removed from Israel himself, with many generations in between.

Hence, when considering the terms such as son, daughter, child or children, we have to make allowance for the fact that the reference does not necessarily have to be an immediate offspring, but can be one or more generations removed.

With this in mind, the fact that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and the fact that humankind are literally God's children is commonly understood by Mormons to mean that Jesus and the rest of us are all God's immediate offspring, leading to the often encountered conclusion that Jesus is our "elder brother." But because "son" or "children" does not necessarily connote an "immediate" son or child, or in other words, a son or child who is only one generation removed, the fact that Jesus is God's Son and the fact that humankind are literally God's children does not necessarily mean that Jesus and we are the same number of generations removed from God.

For me, this realization was critical in opening my understanding to alternate possibilities; a realization that I think Brigham Young reached a long time before I did.

Now, as I say, there are names that we use that are legitimately slippery, and we have to take that into account.

The problem with using slippery terms is that we immediately lose meaning and definition, thereby making the subject more difficult to discuss.

For example, if I say that "man" drove a car, that is perfectly fine and understandable so long as we are speaking only of one "man," and no other "men" could be meant.

But as soon as we are talking about two or more men, the statement, "The man drove a car" becomes much more difficult to discuss if our aim is to identify the precise man who did the driving. If our goal is to identify the man who drove the car, we then have to start talking about different factors that could possibly identify the "man" in question; such as which man has a car, which man has a driver's license, etc.

In this way, when we speak of God doing something, Mormons have difficulty pinning down exactly which God is being referred to. Typically, Mormons will limit the discussion to one of the three Gods in the Godhead, and as a general practice, they are probably right, thought this cannot be certain.

When Mormons talk about "Heavenly Father," they generally are referring to our immediate "Heavenly Father," though as we have seen, this term can refer to any Father in our patriarchal line, which as far as we know, goes back indefinitely.

Hence, "Heavenly Father" is a more specific term than "God," and yet it can be applied to more than one being.

This is the crux of much of the confusion regarding Brigham Young's statements, I think, for he identified Adam as "our Father and our God." Taken in context with other statements by Brigham Young, I understand him to be saying that Adam is our "immediate" Father and God; but that Elohim is Adam's "Father and God."

Because of this relationship, Elohim is also our "Father and God," though if we were to use our modern terminology, we might say our "grand Father" or great-grand Father," etc.

Therefore, Brigham Young could teach that both Adam and Elohim are our God and Father and not be contradicting himself.

Although we must recognize the slipperiness inherent in certain terms, we should avoid creating slippery terms on our own, due to the fact that the result is to create more confusion.

This can happen with the name "Holy Ghost." But with "Holy Ghost," it makes sense that this is a title rather than a name, because I don't know anybody who thinks that his name is really, "Holy Ghost."

The name "Jehovah" is a little more complicated. Unless there is a good reason, I think it best to avoid saying that the name of "Jehovah" is a title that can be held by more than one person. I am not saying this is not so, but there should be a good reason for believing it is the case before we adopt the idea, because it leads to greater confusion and haziness. And typically, the idea that "Jehovah" is a title rather than a name is advanced by Adam-God "cultists" who find that making "Jehovah" a title rather than a name helps to facilitate their own doctrine.

This is significant, I think, because what Adam-God "cultists" do with "Jehovah" is precisely what Elden Watson seems to be doing with "Adam."

As to "Elohim," we all know that "Elohim" is the Hebrew word for "God" or "Gods," but the Mormon usage of that term has developed to the point where we generally are referring to a specific individual when we use it.

Largely due to the temple endowment, Mormons have some idea of who they are talking about when they refer to Elohim, Jehovah and Michael. We are comfortable understanding that Michael is Adam, because there is a revelation dealing with the same.

Now we come to the name "Adam." I think it a mistake to create two "Adams," as Elden Watson has done, one of which refers to Adam himself, and the other of which refers to Elohim, which Watson refers to as Adam, Jr., and Adam, Sr., respectively.

I see this as a mistake because Brigham Young nowhere draws that connection, and it is Brigham Young's teachings that are sought to be explicated by the creation of the name-title "Adam" for Elohim. While it is certain that Brigham Young taught that every world has its own Adam and Eve, and even quite possibly that at some time in the distant past, Elohim was once an Adam to a world, the use of the name "Adam" for "Elohim" seems wholly designed to allow for the interpretation of Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory to not contradict current LDS teaching.

Anyway, I have rambled on quite a bit and better sign off for now and try to get some work done!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HiJolly]

You have evoked further thoughts from me, which is going to long again, so I hope HiJolly has not run out of popcorn!

Heh. There's plenty.

The name "Jehovah" is a little more complicated. Unless there is a good reason, I think it best to avoid saying that the name of "Jehovah" is a title that can be held by more than one person. I am not saying this is not so, but there should be a good reason for believing it is the case before we adopt the idea, because it leads to greater confusion and haziness. And typically, the idea that "Jehovah" is a title rather than a name is advanced by Adam-God "cultists" who find that making "Jehovah" a title rather than a name helps to facilitate their own doctrine.

This is significant, I think, because what Adam-God "cultists" do with "Jehovah" is precisely what Elden Watson seems to be doing with "Adam."

James E. Talmage Jesus the Christ Chapter 4: "The divinity of Jesus Christ is indicated by the specific names and titles authoritatively applied to Him. According to man's judgment there may be but little importance attached to names; but in the nomenclature of the Gods every name is a title of power or station." Jesus the Christ

I agree, in all. There are too many abuses of meaning, from various parties. Good post, Consig.

HiJolly

[HiJolly]

BTW, if folks following this thread haven't looked at the "Ex-Mormons See the Problem" thread and the discussion there, you might be missing something very interesting RE: Adam-God. Just a hint.

HiJolly

[erichard]

...

Anyway, I have rambled on quite a bit and better sign off for now and try to get some work done!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi,

I also think a lot of your comments in this thread are unique and well said. I do not always agree, but do appreciate your willingness and ability to think critically and carefully outside the box.

My own take on BY is that he really did get all his doctrine from the Prophet Joseph. He may not have got it perfectly right, but what BY taught about Adam-God actually came from the Prophet Joseph-- as BY remembered and understood it.

I know that there are more quotes to prove this point, but here are some I found at the 230 Adam-God Quotations. (plus a few other interesting ones)

87. Minutes of Meeting, at Historian's Office; Great Salt Lake City; 7 P.M. April 4, 1860. (Classic OP vs BY debate on A/G...)

...

OP: I would like to enumerate items, firstly - preached & publish, that Adam is the fa[ther] of our spirits, & father of Spirit & father of our bodies - When I read the Rev given to Joseph I read directly the opposite â?¦

BY: Your statements to night, You come out to night & place them as charges, & have as many against me as I have you. One thing I have thought that I might still have omitted. It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God â?¦

94. Journal of Wilford Woodruff; September 4, 1860.

Brother Cannon said there was a learned Doctor that wanted to be baptized. . . . He (the doctor) is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print it would more than fill this room but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed.

101. James Beck Journal (Notebook) 1859-1865; October 8th 1861. Spelling as in original.

W. W. Phelps said Joseph Smith said that Eve had 28 sons & 28 daughters & that Adam had many wives--Bro Brigham than got into the stand & stated the same thing.

Joseph Smith said that the 2 Prophets who would Prophesy in the streets of Jerusalem for 3 years & a half, were Enoch & Elijh. Also the two wings north & South of our earth were inhabited. the north with the 9-1/2 tribes & the south wing by the People of Enochs City--this Earth when first created occupied a Position next to Kolob the highest in glory of all the Creations consequently on account of the high Position we once occupied we have fallen below all of the others in space--consequently our sufferings are greater--the greater the rise the greater will be the fall-when we are Redeemed we will be taken back again & Placed in our former Position.

125. Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867.

At meeting of School of the Prophets: President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel, & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught this principle

142. Deseret News, Vol. 22, No. 308; Brigham Young; discourse delivered in the New Tabernacle, Salt Lake City; Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.

Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or who ever will come upon the earth. I have been found fault with by the ministers of religion because I have said that they were ignorant. But I could not find any man on the earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.

165. Journal of Charles L. Walker, p. 39; BYU Library; April 16, 1882.

(St. George). Father Jno L. Lytle gave a very interesting account of his early experiences in the church, his travels with the Prophet Joseph and of his telling them how Father Adam chased the game and outstripped them and caught them, and his knee was never brought to the ground so great was his strength, and also showed the spot where Adam offered up sacrifice in Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Sorry about the two wings of the earth quote. I hope no one gets scared off! I have no idea what Joseph was talking about, but it sounds interesting. Maybe he was just pulling someone leg!!

Richard

[consiglieri]

Heh. There's plenty.

James E. Talmage Jesus the Christ Chapter 4: "The divinity of Jesus Christ is indicated by the specific names and titles authoritatively applied to Him. According to man's judgment there may be but little importance attached to names; but in the nomenclature of the Gods every name is a title of power or station." Jesus the Christ

I agree, in all. There are too many abuses of meaning, from various parties. Good post, Consig.

HiJolly

That is a very interesting quote from Talmage, which I had completely overlooked before.

Talmage is an interesting figure in that I think he was appointed in some degree to formalize and systemetize Mormon Doctrine, which he did in Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith.

Pretty much everything he wrote in those books has become the standard and official version of Mormon teachings ever since.

Also, because he was a transitional figure, some not-so-orthodox things show up in his writings from time to time; such as the allowance that there may indeed be eternal progression for all individuals "along different lines."

________________

At this point, on the off-hand chance that anybody is interested, I will share a few more of my personal observations regarding the idea that Jesus is our elder brother; a concept I think that was a relatively late development in Mormon Doctrine and is nowhere taught in the scriptures nor in any contemporaneously recorded utterances of Joseph Smith.

The concept that Jesus is our elder brother is shared by both the current LDS understanding as well as Brigham Young's "Adam-God Theory."

I think it likely this idea is incorrect, which becomes important because once freed from this possibly incorrect "doctrine," it opens the field for a larger number of possiblities consistent with a greater portion of Mormonisms more "advanced" teachings relating to the process of exaltation and the pathway to Godhood and beyond.

The following is quote from a 2006 BYU-Studies article, and suggests that there are alternate conclusions that can be drawn from the scriptures other than that Jesus is our elder brother:

Other Interpretations of Brother, Father, and Firstborn

The two scriptural predicates, that (1) Jesus is the firstborn of the

Father, and (2) all human beings are the literal spirit children of God

the Father, may at first blush suggest that Jesus is the elder spirit brother of

all Godâ??s children. There are other interpretations that may be drawn from

these two scriptural predicates.

A passage from the Book of Mormon illustrates an alternate meaning

when using familial titles: â??Wherefore, after my father [Lehi] had made an

end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children

of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold,

my sons and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my

first-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my wordsâ? (2 Ne. 4:3). In

this passage, we see that Laman is the firstborn of Lehi, and that Lamanâ??s

children are referred to as the sons and daughters of Lehi. From this, one

would not be justified in concluding that Laman is the elder brother of his

own sons and daughters.

Similarly, the fact that Jesus is the firstborn of the Father, and the fact

that men and women are the literal sons and daughters of the Father, does

not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Jesus is the elder brother of

humankind. Brigham Young may have held a similar view in this regard,

as it is apparent that he did not care to distinguish between exalted beings

found along the eternal continuum; all are of the same family, and it is not

necessary to distinguish between the differing status of each member of

the Godhead.35

Popular biographer and Latter-day Saint John Henry Evans, though

he ascribed the title of elder brother to the Savior, appears to have considered

the title to be susceptible to a broader spectrum of interpretation:

In his 1933 biography of Joseph Smith, Evans explains, â??God is our Father

by spiritual generation. He â??begotâ?? our spirit. The idea involves a divine

Mother, as well as a divine Fatherâ??and Joseph Smith taught that.â? Thus

Jesus â??becomes literally, and not figuratively, our elder Brother.â? According

to Evans, it does not follow, however, â??that Christ and man were begotten

by the same identical Being in heaven, any more than Adam and Eve,

who are our common parents, begot our fleshly bodies.â?36

I think the bottom line is that it ain't necessarily so that Jesus is our elder brother.

And if you consider the quote from 2 Nephi above, it is just as consistent with scripture that Jesus is not our brother, but our grandfather.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/45.2Volluz.pdf

[kamenraider]

From the Charles L. Walker journal:

Sun., May 14, 1876. At conference again large attendance. . Bro. Brigham

spoke on the philosophy of our religion said that all true science emanated

from God. Drew a striking contrast between the religion of Men and Revealed

will of God to his servants. Said that the Father of Jesus Christ's spirit,

was the same that begat him in the flesh. Showed that had he been all human He

would not have had power to make the atonement and Redeem the world, showed

that by throwing away evil and error and adopting goodness as truth and thro

the sanctifying influence of the Holy Ghost we should soon be able to receive

visits from angels, and wherever we lived and surroundings would partake of

the influence and become Holy even a Heaven. Spoke of the vast creations of

God and the millions of worlds that had and would be redeemed. Said that the

Sun was inhabited and God dwelled in the midst of Eternal Burnings. Doubted

whether the angels comprehended the vast infinitude of space.

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the quote, kamenraider!

I think this illustrates the fact that Brigham Young held a similar view to current Church leaders in this regard; the difference being, of course, that Brigham Young identified that particular "Father" as Adam.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[baddonkey]

That is a very interesting quote from Talmage, which I had completely overlooked before.

Talmage is an interesting figure in that I think he was appointed in some degree to formalize and systemetize Mormon Doctrine, which he did in Jesus the Christ and The Articles of Faith.

Pretty much everything he wrote in those books has become the standard and official version of Mormon teachings ever since.

Also, because he was a transitional figure, some not-so-orthodox things show up in his writings from time to time; such as the allowance that there may indeed be eternal progression for all individuals "along different lines."

________________

At this point, on the off-hand chance that anybody is interested, I will share a few more of my personal observations regarding the idea that Jesus is our elder brother; a concept I think that was a relatively late development in Mormon Doctrine and is nowhere taught in the scriptures nor in any contemporaneously recorded utterances of Joseph Smith.

The concept that Jesus is our elder brother is shared by both the current LDS understanding as well as Brigham Young's "Adam-God Theory."

I think it likely this idea is incorrect, which becomes important because once freed from this possibly incorrect "doctrine," it opens the field for a larger number of possiblities consistent with a greater portion of Mormonisms more "advanced" teachings relating to the process of exaltation and the pathway to Godhood and beyond.

The following is quote from a 2006 BYU-Studies article, and suggests that there are alternate conclusions that can be drawn from the scriptures other than that Jesus is our elder brother:

I think the bottom line is that it ain't necessarily so that Jesus is our elder brother.

And if you consider the quote from 2 Nephi above, it is just as consistent with scripture that Jesus is not our brother, but our grandfather.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/45.2Volluz.pdf

Jesus is our Grandfather in Heaven? What leads you to that conclusion? Is it just a desire to reconcile Adam/God things that Brigham Young is supposed to have taught with the belief that Jehovah is Jesus?

[consiglieri]

Jesus is our Grandfather in Heaven? What leads you to that conclusion? Is it just a desire to reconcile Adam/God things that Brigham Young is supposed to have taught with the belief that Jehovah is Jesus?

Let me hasten to clarify it is not a conclusion; it is only a possibility.

There is no way modern LDS leaders would agree with it; and similarly no way the Adam-God "cultists" would agree with it, either.

I'm an equal opportunity heretic.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[kamenraider]

Thanks for the quote, kamenraider!

I think this illustrates the fact that Brigham Young held a similar view to current Church leaders in this regard; the difference being, of course, that Brigham Young identified that particular "Father" as Adam.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I forgot. You acknowledge that Brigham Young taught that Jesus is our elder brother, but you hypothesize that he got that part wrong. I vaguely remember having discussed it in another thread once. Sorry, I'm lucky if I can even remember who is who around here (especially with posters that have similar avatars) let alone who I've discussed what with, and why.

[Earl]

Consig,

While I am sure there are many who think that this thread is near to running its course, I would like to mention several other references regarding BY's AG teaching.

The St. George Edward Bunker Trials

There was a hearing in the 1890's involving Pres Woodruff, Edward Bunker (my g-grandfather), the Bunkerville Ward Bishopric, and the St. George stake authorities. At issue was Edward Bunker's stated disbelief in certain aspects of the Lecture at the Veil and other (then) current teachings regarding what we today call the AG Theory. So, for those who say BY was misquoted or that this AG Theory was not taught or held to be a doctrine of the church, why then was a hearing held to review Bro Bunker's stated disbelief in AG? A hearing to which Pres Woodruff himself traveled to St. George to be a part of. In the end, as I recall (historians help me out here), Pres Woodruff asked Bro Bunker to refrain from discussing his beliefs and he also stated very clearly that the ward and stake authorities not be "puffed-up" in pride over his (Pres Woodruff's) counsel, meaning that the stake authorities' position was sound LDS doctrine. He cautioned all parties that they should not be discussing these things in public.

The so-called Bunker Trials are significant in that they clearly show that AG doctrine was not just a topic of discussion among a small, intimate "inner circle" of Salt Lake church leaders. Further, when people drag up letters and statements in which it seems that early church leaders were trying to distance themselves from such AG doctrine, it should be remembered that such positioning statements were offered at the time to deflect or, what we today call, to offer plausible denial to those who sought public clarification from church leaders regarding AG teachings. Church leaders, in particular Pres Woodruff and then Pres JF Smith, did not want AG doctrine to be publically taught... pearls before swine. These brethren clearly understood the explosive and devisive nature of AG doctrine.

In a larger context, during this same time period, Pres Smith begain to smooth-out some of Mormonism's rough doctrinal edges like Jesus/Jehovah, (eventually) the oaths of vengence, the 2nd manifesto, and a distancing AG. It should be remembered that this was also the time of the Smoot Hearings in Washington, DC, (1904). Very interesting times.

The President Nye Incident

Mission President Nye wrote SL about several California ministers who had written articles in the newspapers regarding certain LDS beliefs, including teachings which we now call AG. Pres Smith counseled Pres Nye about not engaging in public discussion regarding these AG teaching, but did not deny their validity.

Hope this helps...

Earl

[consiglieri]

Consig,

While I am sure there are many who think that this thread is near to running its course, I would like to mention several other references regarding BY's AG teaching.

The St. George Edward Bunker Trials

Thanks for the very interesting anecdote, Earl.

This is one of the wonderful things about this Board, as I am pretty sure I would never have heard about the St. George Edward Bunker Trials otherwise.

Isn't the Church's emphasis on Family History wonderful?

I would be interested in knowing how you came by this information, and whether there are any records to your knowledge regarding the trial.

One would think that the Church action threatened against Orson Pratt by Brigham Young over the issue would be sufficient to cement the fact that "Adam-God" was indeed taught in the latter half of the 19th century, but usually those who refuse to believe that Brigham Young taught the "Adam-God Theory" find equally creative ways to explain away the contention between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. Often they will say that the problem between them was not "Adam-God" but Brigham Young's teaching that God continues to progress in knowledge, and will do so eternally.

Of course, the facts are that both of these issues were bones of contention between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt.

But for some reason, those who wish to deny Brigham Young taught "Adam-God" seem to feel more comfortable with a dispute between Brigham Young and Orson Pratt over whether God continues to progress than they do over a dispute between the two about whether Adam is our God.

I think the reason may lie in the fact that the "progression" issue is easier to reconcile in their minds with current LDS teaching than is the "Adam-God Theory."

But at bottom, the fact is that Brigham Young taught things relating to God's eternal progression that are flatly contradicted by modern LDS Church leaders, so we encounter the same basic dilemma of one or the other being "wrong."

(See Eugene England's encounter with Bruce R. McConkie!)

Anyway, thanks again for your interesting contribution to this thread.

Jason said he would keep tabs on this thread, even though he remarks he hasn't seen anything worth responding to.

Perhaps he will find worthy of response your account of Edward Bunker's trial.

(By the way, if this was a "trial," does that mean a Church court was convened to try Brother Bunker for his membership because he didn't believe that Adam was God?)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Earl]

Father Edward Bunker (as he was called), despite his views, was much too dearly thought of to think of him being tried for his church membership. I think the word "hearing" is the best way to refer to the series of meetings held in Bunkerville and St. George. While Edward Bunker is not widely known today, the then Salt Lake brethren very well knew of Edward Bunker and his unquestioned stature among the pioneer saints in Southern Nevada. That is why Pres Woodruff and Cannon traveled to St. George themselves -- they knew of the potentially explosive nature of the situation.

For discussion and citation of original source material regarding the Edward Bunker matter, please see:

Culley K. Christensen, The Adam-God Maze, 1981, ISBN 0-9608134-0-3

Craig L. Tholson, Adam-God, 1991, Publishment, ASIN B0006F6490.

Drew Briney, Understanding Adam God Teachings, Privately published hardback book, 2005.

Briney's book on AG runs over 600 pages of references to AG among LDS church leaders and others. If fact, after considering Briney's book, the question often asked "Did BY teach AG doctrine?" becomes almost a joke. The AG concepts were found in the letters, diaries, personal correspondence, sermons, etc of a generation of LDS members.

Earl

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the references!

Jason?

LightBearer?

Obiwan?

[HiJolly]

In a larger context, during this same time period, Pres Smith begain to smooth-out some of Mormonism's rough doctrinal edges like Jesus/Jehovah, (eventually) the oaths of vengence, the 2nd manifesto, and a distancing AG. It should be remembered that this was also the time of the Smoot Hearings in Washington, DC, (1904). Very interesting times.

Not to mention the doctrine of adoption...

HiJolly

[mpschmitt]

Father Edward Bunker (as he was called), despite his views, was much too dearly thought of to think of him being tried for his church membership. I think the word "hearing" is the best way to refer to the series of meetings held in Bunkerville and St. George. While Edward Bunker is not widely known today, the then Salt Lake brethren very well knew of Edward Bunker and his unquestioned stature among the pioneer saints in Southern Nevada. That is why Pres Woodruff and Cannon traveled to St. George themselves -- they knew of the potentially explosive nature of the situation.

For discussion and citation of original source material regarding the Edward Bunker matter, please see:

Culley K. Christensen, The Adam-God Maze, 1981, ISBN 0-9608134-0-3

Craig L. Tholson, Adam-God, 1991, Publishment, ASIN B0006F6490.

Drew Briney, Understanding Adam God Teachings, Privately published hardback book, 2005.

Briney's book on AG runs over 600 pages of references to AG among LDS church leaders and others. If fact, after considering Briney's book, the question often asked "Did BY teach AG doctrine?" becomes almost a joke. The AG concepts were found in the letters, diaries, personal correspondence, sermons, etc of a generation of LDS members.

Earl

I'm still not entirely clear on one thing though (Consig, please chime in here too if you have something for me, since you seem fairly well versed in the AG source material)....

I think the term "Adam-God Theory" theory is a loaded term and I just want to understand what we're driving at in this thread.

I think the consensus of those I trust (for objectivity and standards of scholarly and theological soundness in their arguments) in this thread seems to be:

1. Brigham Young taught something about Adam's position in the "heirarchy" of Divine leadership over the earth that was not previously understood or taught in the Trinitarian/Protestant/Post-nicene world.

2. Precisely what he meant by that teaching (all the ins and outs of it) is not understood in it's fullness, but we can glean a few interesting new insights about Adam in our theology that are truly marvelous and unique in the Christian world.

3. Adam is not Elohim.

4. Jehovah is Jesus (though non-canonical statements here and there may seem to make this fuzzy, the scriptures from Joseph's time have been clear on this I think, feel free to disagree, but don't expect me to cave ).

5. There are aspects of the Fundamentalist LDS interpretation of the Adam-God theory that are considered to be incorrect (Can anyone elaborate on that for me, as that is still murky territory for me. I don't know precisely what they teach as doctrine)

6. The modern day LDS Church leaders and authorities have not really seen fit to elaborate on Brigham's ideas beyond denying the "Adam-God theory" (I understood that warning to be referring to the errors of #5 above though, not necessarily what Brigham was actually trying to teach. Am I incorrect in that assumption?), but they also have not expressly said that Brigham was wrong in any official or binding statement.

There seems to be a tone in places in this thread of questioning the power and authority of present day apostles and prophets that makes me uncomfortable. I don't think Brigham's actual teachings and the Current LDS teachings are out of step with each other, but rather emphasize different aspects of the same thing. Would you say that is a naive view?

With regard to this trial we've referenced. I think it's important to understand precisely what the items at issue were (in very specific language). I've found that to be helpful in understanding the Pratt/Young disagreements. Vague generalities like "So and so was brought before a council because he didn't accept Adam-God" don't really help understand what the Church felt and taught on the subject. This is mostly because I think (as I mention above) the term "Adam-God" can mean different things to different people. To me it means that Adam, as our first Father in the flesh, Michael who helped create the earth, and a person endowed with patriarchal and priestly responsibility and authority over the whole earth and it's inhabitants is a far more glorious individual than the present day Christian world at large generally realizes (being rightly refrerred to in this Doctrine and Covenants 76 sense, a god). As such he is worthy of love and respect and reverence. However it seems that the chain of praise and glory still leads back (even as it does through Jesus) to the Father (who is not Adam) to whom all glory ultimately and rightly belongs. Whatever portion of the Father's work he has delegated to his servants (Creation, Atonement, etc), the glory still comes back to the Father for setting the plan in motion. I accept that Adam has a degree of authority over his posterity and will be involved in the process of judgment over his posterity at the last day. I acknowledge that as such he has a place in that chain of authority back to Heavenly Father, with Jesus (Jehovah) acting as our advocate (and Adam's advocate) with the Father. I know from what Joseph Smith has taught that there is a deferential relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ and that at Adam-ondi-ahman, that will be clear as day. I don't pray to Adam, I pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. I don't believe that any of Brigham Young's comments spoke of a sexual relationship between Adam and Mary in the conception of Jesus Christ (as the Anti-mormons posit at times) and believe the scriptures when they say that Jesus was the literal Son of the Father, conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost (a natural process as Brigham declared, but not necessitating a sexual relationship). What would Brigham have thought of my view do you think? Would I have been brought before a council back in the day? If so then I have some more praying and study to do to understand this issue.

I want to come back finally to another point I mentioned earlier. Joseph Smith said that it is the first principle of revealed religion is to know for a certainty the character of God. I'd say this topic falls squarely in that court and one must grapple with it in prayer and study for that very reason. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost wish to be known and to know us personally. Essential aspects of who and how and why they are must be understood clearly and with certainty. This is not some tangential issue. It is dealing with the fundamental nature of God. Where there have been misunderstandings (because of an imperfect record or for any other reason), I think it is the prerogative of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve (whom I sustain as Prophets, Seers and Revelators), to make sure that we know for a certainty the character of God. And we must seek it ourselves, by direct, Spirit to spirit confirmation and divine manifestation. Joseph said:

The other Comforter spoken of is a subject of great interest and perhaps understood by few of this generation After a has faith in Christ repents of his sins and is baptized for the remission of his sins and receives the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands which is the first Comforter then let him continue to humble himself before God hungering and thirsting after righteousness and living by every word of God and the Lord will soon say unto him Son thou shall be exalted etc When the Lord has thoroughly proved him and finds that the man is determined to serve Him at all hazards then the man will find his calling and his election made sure then it will be his privilege to receive the other Comforter which the Lord hath promised the Saints as recorded in the testimony of St John John 16 12 27

And I will pray thn Father and He shall give you another Comforter that He may abide with you forever even the Spirit of Truth whom the world cannot receive because it seeth Him not neither knoweth

Him but ye know Him for He dwelleth with you and shall be in you

I will not leave you comfortless I will come to you

He that hath my commandments and keepeth them he it is that loveth me

and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father and I will love him and will manifest my self to him If a man love me he will keep my words and my Father will love him and we will come unto him and make our abode with him

Now what is this other Comforter? It Is no more or less than the LORD JESUS CHRIST himself and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter that when any man obtains this last Comforter he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him or appear unto him from time to time and even he will manifest the Father unto him and they will take up their abode with him and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him and the Lord will teach him face to face and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions Isaiah Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general as assembly and Church of the First Born

Now if we could live our lives so as to receive that great blessing, I would think that many of these fuzzy issues in our personal understanding of theology would become much clearer. Pursuing this course would probably bear much more fruit in our lives than arguing endlessly with proof and counter-proof over what Brigham (or anyone else) really meant about such and such. This is something Joseph believed was achievable (probably because he experienced it) and he always taught that there was nothing made manifest to him that would not also be made manifest to all the saints as soon as they were sufficiently prepared to receive it. Pretty awesome promise if you ask me. And worth striving for.

[Lachoneus]

So, for those who say BY was misquoted or that this AG Theory was not taught or held to be a doctrine of the church, why then was a hearing held to review Bro Bunker's stated disbelief in AG?

Who says that was why they held this hearing? According to Charles Lowell Walker, who was in attendance, Bishop Bunker was held to answer for various false beliefs, including some which were first taught by Orson Pratt. The only other mention of Adam is in connection with a doctrine taught by "some men" and which President Cannon says should not be endorsed.

St. George June 11th, 92 Attended the High Council at which Pres Woodruff presided. G. Q. Cannon was present also and a large body of the leading men of this Stake. Br Edward Bunker Sen. and others of Bunkerville, Nevada, had been advancing false doctrine. One item was, that he, Bunker, thought it was right to worship the intelligence that was in God the Eternal Father and not God, who made all things by the power of his Word. And another was that Adam was made of the dust of the earth contained in the Garden of Eden. He had also advanced some erroneous ideas concerning the resurrection. Pres Woodruff and Cannon showed in a very plain manner that it was right to Worship the true, and the Living God, and Him only, and not the intelligence that dwelt in Him; that His Son Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, never taught such doctrine, but always to worship my Father which is in Heaven, and to always pray to the Father in the name of his Son Jesus Christ. Showed that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made; and that the seed of man was of the dust of the earth, and that the continuation of the seeds in a glorified state was Eternal Lives. And after this Mortal tabernacle had crumbled to dust in the grave, that God would, in the time of the resurrection by his Matchless Power, bring together again in the form of a glorified and an immortal to the Righteous to dwell with Him forever. Also that those that were not righteous would also be resurrected, but not with a glorified body. Said it was not wisdom for the Elders to contend about such matters and things they did not understand. And not to teach such things to the children in the Sunday Schools; they could not comprehend them. Pres Woodruff spoke of the false doctrine taught by Amasa Lyman some years ago, viz, that the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ was of no more efficacy than the blood of any other man or that of a Bullock &c. Such false ideas had led him to apostasy and finally out of the church. Also of the false teachings of the late Orson Pratt, one of the Twelve, arguing that every particle of matter which composed the elements had all the attributes of the Deity in it, and that they, i.e., the particles of Matter, by some unaccountable way united together and became God. Pres Woodruff told of Orson's unyielding stubbornness, and of upbraiding the Twelve for not being manly, for not declaring their views the way he looked at it, and branding them as cowards &c &c. Spoke of the firmness of Pres Young in correcting Orson Pratt and setting him aright; Of Orson wishing to resign his position in the Quorum; of Pres. Young saying "No you wont Orson, I'll rub your ears until I get you right;" and had it not been for firmness of Pres Young in maintaining the right, and assiduously laboring and showing him his gross errors, Orson would have been out of the Church. Showed the folly of some men because they cannot look up and prove by the Bible the glorious Revelations that God has given they receive them doubtfully. Showed that God had, and would yet, reveal many glorious things that men could not prove, and Search out of the old Bible. Pres Cannon said that it was not necessary that we should or endorse the doctrine that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ. Counsel was given for the Elders to teach that which they knew, not that which they did not. The Meeting was in session over three hours, and much good counsel was given to the Elders present on these things by Pres Woodruff and Cannon. To me it was a feast for I had been pondering over some of these things of late.

Charles L. Walker, 2 Diary of Charles Lowell Walker 740-741 (11 June 1892)