Did Brigham Young Teach the Adam-God Theory?

[zerinus]

The concept of "canonical doctrine" is something that Mormonism seems to have been restored in order to do away with. It was the locking of God into "canonical doctrine," or "creeds," that precipitated the great apostasy, in the Mormon view.

Jesus is reported to have said to Joseph Smith in the First Vision that the "creeds" of Christendom were an "abomination."

I see no indication that Joseph Smith at any time in his life tried to systemetize and organize the various items of revelation he received from the Lord.

This is somewhat remarkable, inasmuch as it is the natural tendency of people to do so. Nevertheless, Joseph Smith seems to have been content to receive various and sundry revelations; and teach numerous things; but never thought it necessary to try to organize it all into one complete whole.

This is suggestive.

It may be that Joseph Smith just never had the time to do so; but he was incredibly adept at making time to do all the things he felt commanded of God to do; so if this had been at all a priority, I have no doubt he would have done it, or at least initiated such a project.

But he did not.

I think that subsequent Mormons who have taken Joseph Smith's teachings, and the scriptures, and tried to systemetize them into an "orthodox religion" or "canonical doctrine," while well meaning, have inadvertently fallen into the same trap the first Mormons accused apostate Christianity from having blundered into.

If we look at Brigham Young's teachings from the viewpoint of early Mormonism, there really should be no problem with his stating additional and new items relating to God. And the truth be told, Joseph Smith had already provided all the building blocks for Brigham's views; only a few gaps needed to be filled in. Brigham Young filled in those gaps in a way different from subsequent Mormons, in his attempt to systemetize Joseph Smith's teachings.

20th century Mormon leaders filled in the gaps differently than Brigham Young, but were still motivated by the strong desire to systemetize the restoration revelations.

I think it is precisely because the Mormon Church has come to create its own creed of what constitutes "Mormon Doctrine" that Brigham Young's teachings become such a problem. That and the Mormons' penchant for ascribing infallibility to their prophets.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The LDS Church very much has a "canonical" doctrine; it is that which is contained in the scriptural canon of the Church, which we usually refer to as the "standard works". The leadership of the Church have always maintained that that is where the doctrines of the Church are to be found.

As far as "creeds" are concerned, we too have a creed; it is called the Articles of Faith. The only difference is that we don't use it in exactly the same way as the traditional churches do. They recite it as part of their worship services. It is a part of their "litergy," if you want to be more precise. That is the only difference between the Article of Faith and the creeds of the traditional churches. Appart from that, it serves exactly the same purpose as theirs does.

zerinus

[zerinus]

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.)

That is interesting! Do you want to tell me more about it? In the past when I have replied to your posts, I haven't received much replies back. Then out of nowhere you come up with something like this. Let me assure you I am not afraid of the Adam God theory. Brigham Young did teach the Adan-God theory, and he was wrong. But the Church never accepted it, and it is not something that I am worried about. The interesting thing about the Adam-God theory is that it is not only contrary to what the Church teaches; it is also contrary to what Brigham Young himself taught! That is something that Bruce R. McConkie mentioned in one of his letters referenced earlier on, here or in another thread. He said, it is a question of which Brigham Young you want to accept! That I think is the most important thing to note about the Adam-God theory.

zerinus

[zerinus]

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.

That is where I am inclined to disagree with you. I think that all scripture harmonizes with itself very well. When it doesn't, it is usually because we have not understood them very well, or a serious error has occurred in the text.

zerinus

[mpschmitt]

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.

Thank you, Lachoneus. This is precisely what I was looking for and demonstrates my point that speaking in specifics rather than generalities is far more fruitful and to the point.

Your quote at the bottom of your post from Brigham about Eloheim is also instructive and supports another of my assertions

[Earl]

Read the references noted above. In particular, read the extensive references in Briney's book, again, over 600 pages. See also Edward Bunker's written description of what he himself believed. His statement was forwarded to Pres Woodruff. I am not sure where to find his statement. Don't draw your conclusions based on my general observations and recollections. The primary point in all of this is not my brief descriptions - rather, it is that one or two generations of LDS leaders (not BY alone) and their contemporaries spoke and wrote about Adam using a frame of reference which differs from ours. They didn't use the term AG back then, so it is pointless to dismiss these teachings simply because we are unable to find a correlated thread. Do not rely soley on Walker's summary entries in his diary. Read all of the high council minutes. There were several high council meetings prior to Pres Woodfuff's meeting. I do not have the time to assemble these non-BY original sources. Finally there are the family diaries and letters which are a bit more difficult to get a hold of. You may want to contact the Bunker Family Organization, but I have been told that they are very protective of these writings since they also understand their explosive nature.

Earl

[Lachoneus]

Read the references noted above. In particular, read the extensive references in Briney's book, again, over 600 pages.

I have. I own the books by Christensen, Tholson and Briney. Drew and I are both Utah attorneys. He's in Lehi and I am in Orem. When he first sent me his book I started preparing an errata page for it, but when it got too long I just started noting corrections in pencil in the book itself. When I have more time I will get back to it.

See also Edward Bunker's written description of what he himself believed. His statement was forwarded to Pres Woodruff. I am not sure where to find his statement.

I have his statement as published in the book Autobiography of Edward Bunker, 1822-1901, pp.32-49 (BYU Library - BX 8670.1.B883). The Edward Bunker Family Foundation has a website where they have also posted a book on Edward Bunker. Chapter 19 goes into these matters briefly and contains some excerpts from his letter.

Don't draw your conclusions based on my general observations and recollections. The primary point in all of this is not my brief descriptions - rather, it is that one or two generations of LDS leaders (not BY alone) and their contemporaries spoke and wrote about Adam using a frame of reference which differs from ours. They didn't use the term AG back then, so it is pointless to dismiss these teachings simply because we are unable to find a correlated thread.

I am quit familiar these materials.

Do not rely soley on Walker's summary entries in his diary. Read all of the high council minutes. There were several high council meetings prior to Pres Woodfuff's meeting. I do not have the time to assemble these non-BY original sources.

I have read the high council minutes as quoted in the materials I previously referenced. I used the Walker quote only to show that there is more to Edward Bunker's situation than his disbelief in the Adam-God Theory. He had a lot of false beliefs that needed to be addressed, not just Adam-God.

Finally there are the family diaries and letters which are a bit more difficult to get a hold of. You may want to contact the Bunker Family Organization, but I have been told that they are very protective of these writings since they also understand their explosive nature.

I have referenced their web site for you. If they decide to provide us with more information, I will be glad to review it.

[Jason]

I have nothing to add - mpschmitt has covered my basic position just fine.

[wenglund]

Not that this issue is the least bit pertinent ot our fulfilling the three-fold mission of the Church, but nevertheless, instead of looking at what we may disagree on, perhaps it may be beneficial to first vet what we do agree on:

1. Do we all agree that the name/title of Adam/adam has been used in the scriptures and by various church leaders in reference to Elohim, Jesus, Adam (Michael), as well as all of mankind?

2. Do we all agree that the name/title of God/god has been used in the scriptures and by various church leaders in reference to Elohim, Jesus, Adam (Michael), as well as all of mankind?

3. Do we all agree that the name/title of Father/father has been used in the scriptures and by various church leaders in reference to Elohim, Jesus, Adam (Michael), and all mortal parents (particularly males) of mankind?

4. Do we all agree that the name/title of Creator/creator has been used in the scriptures and by various church leaders in reference to Elohim, Jesus, Adam (Michael), and all of mankind?

5. Do we all agree that the name/title of Man/man has been used in the scriptures and by various church leaders in reference to Elohim, Jesus, Adam (Michael), and all of mankind?

6. Do we all agree that the name/title of Jehovah has been used in the scriptures and by various church leaders in reference to Elohim and Jesus?

7. If we do agree on these things, then do we agree that there may be room for reasonable differences of opinion as to who, exactly, is being referred to in certain scriptures or statements by various church leaders where these name/tiltes are being used (individually or even in combination)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[consiglieri]

Thanks for the quote, Lachoneus.

It appears that, as with Orson Pratt, there were more issues addressed with Brother Bunker than just Adam-God.

What I find interesting is that Presidents Woodruff and Cannon corrected Brother Bunker on a number of items, according to the quote you provided, but when it came to the subject of Adam-God at the end, President Cannon appears not to have corrected him, but counseled him not to talk about it.

This seems significant.

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 phrase "some men" appears to have included Brigham Young.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

That is interesting! Do you want to tell me more about it? In the past when I have replied to your posts, I haven't received much replies back. Then out of nowhere you come up with something like this. Let me assure you I am not afraid of the Adam God theory. Brigham Young did teach the Adan-God theory, and he was wrong. But the Church never accepted it, and it is not something that I am worried about. The interesting thing about the Adam-God theory is that it is not only contrary to what the Church teaches; it is also contrary to what Brigham Young himself taught! That is something that Bruce R. McConkie mentioned in one of his letters referenced earlier on, here or in another thread. He said, it is a question of which Brigham Young you want to accept! That I think is the most important thing to note about the Adam-God theory.

zerinus

Hi, zerinus!

The "zombie" metaphor occurred to me and I just went with it.

It appears from what you have posted that you are not afraid of the Adam-God Theory, because you understand that Brigham Young did, in fact, teach it.

Bravo!

But it may be a tad overzealous for you to so flatly state that the second prophet, seer and revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was "wrong."

I am left to wonder what is the basis for your conclusion.

Also, you mention the most important thing to note is that the Adam-God Theory "is contrary to what Brigham Young himself taught."

I think you are in error here, and would ask for some references from you to support this assertion.

My study of the matter shows a consistent teaching in this regard from Brigham Young over the entirety of his lengthy presidency.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

It appears from what you have posted that you are not afraid of the Adam-God Theory, because you understand that Brigham Young did, in fact, teach it.

Bravo!

I don't think there is anything congratulatory about that.

But it may be a tad overzealous for you to so flatly state that the second prophet, seer and revelator of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was "wrong."

How about "mistaken"? Would that be a better choice of vocabulary in your opinion?

I am left to wonder what is the basis for your conclusion.

The basis of my conclusion is this article in my Blog.

Also, you mention the most important thing to note is that the Adam-God Theory "is contrary to what Brigham Young himself taught."

I think you are in error here, and would ask for some references from you to support this assertion.

My study of the matter shows a consistent teaching in this regard from Brigham Young over the entirety of his lengthy presidency.

Digging up the quotes and references would be too long and tedious a job for me at the present time. Perhaps others have already done that work, that I am not aware of. But I do recall from my former readings that BY's statements on Adam vs. God have at times been quite orthodox.

zerinus

[Lachoneus]

What I find interesting is that Presidents Woodruff and Cannon corrected Brother Bunker on a number of items, according to the quote you provided, but when it came to the subject of Adam-God at the end, President Cannon appears not to have corrected him, but counseled him not to talk about it.

Because Bishop Bunker did not accept the Adam-God teachings of "some men," it is unlikely that President Cannon would have counseled him not to endorse them. He already did not endorse them. In deed, it is his refusal to endorse the Adam-God teachings of "some men" for which many, including Earl, seem to claim he was brought before President Woodruff. Therefore, in my view, this final comment about not endorsing this false teaching about Adam was directed at all those in attendance generally, not to Bishop Bunker specifically. "t was not necessary that we should or endorse the doctrine that some men taught." This was a reminder to those present that although Bishop Bunker was being chastened for his incorrect endorsement of various false doctrines, this chastening should not be seen as encouragement to others to endorse the false Adam-God teachings of "some men," which Bishop Bunker already did not endorse.

The phrase "some men" appears to have included Brigham Young.

I disagree.

[Earl]

Consig, before posting the following material, I appeal to your judgment on the direction of the thread. For me, but certainly not all, it appears that here has been sufficient discussion and citations to render an affirmative response to your original post. I do not want to shipwreck an excellent and enlightening exchange.

However, there is one question which was not asked in the original post, but seems to be lurking in the background of various posters. That question is whether the theology of Adam and the Godhead as taught and believed by BY and his generation of church leaders differs in kind or significant degree from what is currently taught in contemporary LDS theology. The question is not whether the doctrine is the same, but with different emphasis, but whether there has been a measurable shift in LDS theology from BY to the present day. This is the gut-level, lurking question. This is a much more difficult question to resolve within the limitations of this discussion board.

Further, I believe that for those who participate here, the answer is one which is only resolved in the heart, not citations, and accordingly, I do not want to encourage the tread to morph into name calling. However, there may be those who wish to pursue this question â?? but perhaps in another thread.

That all being said, a question was raised as to whether the Bunker hearing was really about Edward Bunkerâ??s views regarding Adam or was really about other non-standard views expressed by Bro Bunker. I was the one who initially raised the Bunker hearings as evidence that one memberâ??s church standing was questioned by not accepting some of the then â??quietâ? teachings regarding Adam, the Godhead, and the creation. I assume that the intent of the challenge was to show that, if the Bunker hearings were not really about his views on Adam, then the Bunker hearings could not be relied upon as evidence of â??whisperedâ? teachings about Adam among LDS members beyond the close circle of LDS leaders.

The following is an edited version of Edward Bunkerâ??s letter to the high council. I have edited the letter in good faith to reduce the length, not to alter the content. Bold are original words, my emphasis. Bold red are my edit comments. The text is taken from Adam God, Publishment, P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151 Copyright 1991 by Craig L. Tholson. There appear to be four doctrinal points to which Bunker demurs â?? with the exception of adoption, the points appear to be related to AG.

[begin Tholsen]

The High Council of St. George Stake took up the case of Edward Bunker, Senior, of Bunkerville Ward, who had been charged with erroneous views and teachings. Father Bunker's views were brought to the attention of the High Council on the 13th of last December. Since then Father Bunker expressed a desire to submit his views to the Council in writing. This was granted, resulting in a statement bearing date "Bunkerville, April 25th 1891," and submitted on ten pages of foolscap. (St. George Historical Record, May 15, 1891, Church Archives)

The letter sent to the St. George Stake reads:

[begin Letter]

After my return from Arizona, a controversy arose in the settlement, on points of doctrine principally between myself and Brother Myron Abbott. We mutually agreed to submit our views to the High Council. I was permitted by the Council to submit mine in writing. Here is their decision which they made before they received my report:

Councilor Charles Smith then made the following motion: "That it is the sense of this Council that it is an error to believe or teach that Adam was not an immortal or resurrected being when he came to this earth, also that we pray to Adam as our God and it is wrong to teach that Adam is one of the Godhead." Seconded by Councilor D. H. Cannon. Carried unanimously, J. W. McAllister, Clerk of Court Council.

Report to the Council

To the High Council of Saint George Stake of Zion

Having been represented before you as not believing certain doctrines as held to be correct by Myron Abbott and others; and not being present at the Council when represented because of sickness, and having heard the minutes read since and with your permission to answer the charges in writing, I herewith submit to you my belief and unbelief.

[One] 1st I do not believe that Adam is the Father of Jesus Christ, and the God we worship, and the God of this earth. That the Council has decided on as I believe. Now, I wish to present to the Council my views fully on this subject, that those who read may not misjudge my views.

I herewith submit to you the Scriptural references as I have them in mind. First, I will take the word of the Lord to Abraham. Pearl Of Great Price page 52: "And the angel of his presence stood by me, and immediately loosed my bands, and his voice was unto me: Abraham! Abraham! behold, my name is Jehovah." Now, who is this God who ministered unto Abraham? The same that ministered unto Moses. Bible, Exodus, 6 chapt. 3 verse. "And I appeared unto Abraham, and Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them." This same God that appeared unto Joseph Smith in the Kirtland Temple D and C Sect. 110, verses 2,3,4: "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us, and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold in color like amber. His eyes were as a flame of fire, the hair of his head was white like the pure snow, [149] his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun, and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying -- I am the first and the last, I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain, I am your advocate with the Father."

[Other references snipped]

This ought to settle the question on this item of doctrine to those who believe in revelation.

[Two] Now in regard to the law of adoption: I believe it is a correct principle and when it runs in the lineage it looks consistent, but the adoption of one man to another out of the lineage, I do not understand and for that reason I would not enter into it. And adopting the dead to the living is as adopting the Father to the son. I don't believe there is a man on earth that thoroughly understands the principle. If there is, I have never heard it taught so I could understand it. I believe it is permitted more to satisfy the minds of the people for the present until the Lord reveals more fully on the principle.

[Three] In regard to Adam coming to this earth in the creation a resurrected Celestial being and a God; having had a second probation on another planet, and that his body was of the dust of another planet. I do not believe this item of doctrine, and I will give you the scriptural references as I believe them.First, the sacred record as given to us is for the earth and the heavens belonging to this earth. Here is what the Lord said to Moses. PoGP p. 7 [Moses 2:1]: "And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earth; write the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God, by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest." [150] Now this record has come to us direct from the heavens through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Shall we receive it in whole or in part? If it is not all correct, what confidence can we have in any other communication which has come from the same source?

[Other references snipped]

Now, I will give you my views in regards to Father Adam. I will first take the four leading spirits in heaven. PoGP p.63 [Abraham 3:27, 28]: "And the Lord said, who shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man, here am I, send me. And another answered and said, here am I, send me. And the Lord said, I will send the first. And the second was angry and kept not his first estate, and, at that day, many followed after him." Now, who was the first? Jesus Christ. Who the second? The devil. Who the third? Adam. See D&C Sect. 29:36: "And it came to pass that Adam being tempted of the devil (for behold the devil was before Adam) for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency." Noah was fourth. The devil fell and lost his birthright, and Adam took it and came next to the Savior.

In the sermons and writings of the Prophet Joseph in the Contributor vol. 3, 2 p. [p. 33]: "The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority. Daniel vii, speaks of the Ancient of Days; he means the oldest man, our Father Adam, Michael; he will call his children together and hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He (Adam) is the Father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next."

[Other references snipped]

[Four] Now, in regard to Adam being a God here is what the Lord said concerning Abraham. D&C Sect. 132:37: "They have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods." [152] Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Gods. Surely Noah and Adam are Gods. Do the children of Abraham worship and pray to him? I think not. Noah was the Father of all living in his day. Neither do the children of Noah worship him, or Adam's children worship him. To me there is a great difference between those Gods and the God Jesus Christ who created the earth and redeemed it.

[Other references snipped]

Here is the admonition of the Prophet Joseph to us and to all Saints. Compendium p. 270, Keys "July 2, 1839, At a meeting of the Twelve and some of the Seventies. President Joseph Smith made the following remarks. `O ye Twelve! and all Saints! prophit by this important key -- that in all your trials, troubles, temptations, afflictions, bonds, imprisonments and death, see to it, that you do not betray heaven; that you do not betray Jesus Christ; that you do not betray the brethren; that you do not betray the revelations of God, whether in the Bible, Book of Mormon, or Doctrine and Covenants, or any other that ever was or ever will be given or revealed to man in this world. Yea in all your kickings and flounderings see to it that you do not do this thing, lest innocent blood be found on your skirts, and you go down to hell. All other sins are not to be compared to the sinning against the Holy Ghost and proving a traitor to thy brethren.'" With due respect to the Council and all my brethren, I cannot, I dare not ignore the written word of God. I subscribe myself your friend and brother in the Gospel of Christ. (The Autobiography Of Edward Bunker, pp. 31-47, Church Archives)

[End Letter]

[One paragraph of Tholsen snipped]

First Presidency Requested

After the Stake Council had read Father Bunker's letter, they deemed it wise:

That the communication of Edward Bunker on what he believes and does not believe; together with a statement of the cause leading to the investigation which called forth his declaration, also the full action of the Council in this matter be forwarded to the First Presidency of the Church, asking their advice as [153] to the proper course for us to take, as the Presidency and High Council of this Stake.

[End Tholsen]

I dunno. Seems to me that Bro Bunker's doctrinal objections, aside from the point on adoption, seem to center on what we today refer to as AG.

Earl

[consiglieri]

I dunno. Seems to me that Bro Bunker's doctrinal objections, aside from the point on adoption, seem to center on what we today refer to as AG.

Earl

Thanks for your work on getting that citation and formatting it to make it easier to read, Earl. I think I am getting a better picture of what happened, now.

It looks like Brother Bunker did not believe in the Adam-God Theory promulgated by Brigham Young and other church leaders, and that the stake presidence called him in error on that ground.

In other words, the stake presidency did believe in the Adam-God Theory and faulted Brother Bunker for not believing it.

Brother Bunker then put his views in writing, which the stake presidency forwarded to Salt Lake City, precipitating the visit by Presidents Woodruff and Cannon, who on this issue, advised that although "some men" had taught the Adam-God Theory, it was "not necessary" that it should be "endorsed."

I think Woodruff and Cannon made a good call here, and I believe it was reiterated by the subsequent First Presidency of Joseph F. Smith, in acknowledging that Brigham Young did "teach some things" related to Adam-God, but it was deemed wisest not to talk about it.

This seems to have been the beginning of the "don't ask-don't tell" policy of the Church on the Adam-God Theory.

All of that seems a wise course.

My concern is when subsequent administrations departed from it, and instead started insisting that Brigham Young never taught it in the first place.

I guess denial is more than a river in Egypt.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[erichard]

...

I guess denial is more than a river in Egypt.

...

Hi again,

I had a great seminary teacher in high school tell me that President Young never taught Adam-God teachings. I have wondered if he knew himself.

With all the recent A/G threads on MADBoard I happened to read the Wikipedia article on it again. I had not read it for a long time. It had some new thinking in it.

We live in an information, communication age today, so I am sure interest in A/G is here to stay. Will BYU ever have a Adam-God 101 class?

Richard

[erichard]

...I happened to read the Wikipedia article on it again. I...

This Wikipedia article starts with this explanation:

Basically, the doctrine states that Adam was actually God the Father, that he came to this earth with an immortal, celestial and resurrected body, along with his wife Eve, and partook of the fruit in the Garden of Eden thus causing the Fall of Mankind.

That certainly is not my understanding of President Young's teachings on this-- though others might think so. Thus I think its not a comprehensive enough explanation, and should be changed.

Who here wants to rewrite it?

Richard

[zerinus]

Hi again,

I had a great seminary teacher in high school tell me that President Young never taught Adam-God teachings. I have wondered if he knew himself.

With all the recent A/G threads on MADBoard I happened to read the Wikipedia article on it again. I had not read it for a long time. It had some new thinking in it.

We live in an information, communication age today, so I am sure interest in A/G is here to stay. Will BYU ever have a Adam-God 101 class?

Richard

The Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and it is not always a reliable source for controversial matters like Adam God theory. Joseph Smith never taught the Adam God theory, contrary to what is said in that article. I think it would be a good thing if the Church would commission a good LDS historian to do a thorough research into the history of the teaching of this doctrine, and publish a detailed history of it, in the same way as it was done with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That is the only way to put everyone in possession of the facts, and kill off all the unnecessary speculation, and put an end to the controversy.

zerinus

[zerinus]

The Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and it is not always a reliable source for controversial matters like Adam God theory. Joseph Smith never taught the Adam God theory, contrary to what is said in that article. I think it would be a good thing if the Church would commission a good LDS historian to do a thorough research into the history of the teaching of this doctrine, and publish a detailed history of it, in the same way as it was done with the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That is the only way to put everyone in possession of the facts, and kill off all the unnecessary speculation, and put an end to the controversy.

zerinus

An additional thought: I have read the Wikipedia article more carefully now, and I think it is a much better article than my first impression of it was. It is quite well researched, and tries to give a balanced opinion of the subject (which may not necessarily be always accurate). I still hold to my view, however, that Joseph Smith did not teach the Adam-God doctrine.

As a side-not, in response to Consig's requests for references to Brigham Young's teachings on Adam and God which were orthodox, that article gives some examples:

The world may in vain ask the question: "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God who we serve. Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (JD 13:311. See also JD 1:238).

We have a God with ears, eyes, nose, mouth; He can and does speak. He has arms, hands, body, legs and feet; He talks and walks; and we are formed after His likeness. The good book--the Bible, tells us what kind of a character our Heavenly Father is. In the first chapter of Genesis and the 17th verse, speaking of the Lord creating men, it reads as plain as it can read, and He created man in His own image and likeness; and if He created Adam and Eve in His own image, the whole human family are like Him (JD 13:308-309).

We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal children. We believe that he made Adam after his own image and likeness, as Moses testifies; and in this belief we differ from the professedly Christian world, who declare that â??His center is everywhere, but his circumference is nowhere.â? Their God has no body nor parts; our God possesses a body and parts, and was heard by Adam and Eve Walking in the garden in the cool of the day (JD 10:230-231).

It is in fact a very good article, in spite of its limitations.

zerinus

[zerinus]

This Wikipedia article starts with this explanation:

That certainly is not my understanding of President Young's teachings on this-- though others might think so. Thus I think its not a comprehensive enough explanation, and should be changed.

Who here wants to rewrite it?

Richard

Best not touch it, unless you know what you are doing! Whoever wrote that article in the Wikipedia had done his homework pretty wellâ??although I am not claiming it is 100% accurate. But it is the product of an impressive bit of research.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

Hi again,

I had a great seminary teacher in high school tell me that President Young never taught Adam-God teachings. I have wondered if he knew himself.

This reminds me of the first encounter I had with anti-Mormon literature shortly after joining the Church in 1978 at the age of 18. I remember reading about how Brigham Young had taught the Adam-God Theory, and being despirited at this, approached the missionaries in church about it, asking them, "Do we believe that Adam is God?"

Both looked genuinely shocked at my question, and responded, "No!"

Although their response had the salutary effect of making me feel a little bit better at the time, it is likely their answer was grounded in the public denials of same by then-President Spender W. Kimball.

I think the missionaries, like your seminary teacher, probably did not know that President Young had taught such things.

But they were relying for their position on official Church pronouncements on the subject which were themselves in error.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Best not touch it, unless you know what you are doing! Whoever wrote that article in the Wikipedia had done his homework pretty wellâ??although I am not claiming it is 100% accurate. But it is the product of an impressive bit of research.

zerinus

I agree with your analysis of the Wiki article on Adam-God, zerinus.

Inasmuch as I now understand your position to be that Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God Theory, I am interested in what you make of the public denials of same by such Church Presidents as Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball.

Do you countenance such dissembling by Church presidents?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

I agree with your analysis of the Wiki article on Adam-God, zerinus.

Inasmuch as I now understand your position to be that Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God Theory, I am interested in what you make of the public denials of same by such Church Presidents as Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball.

Do you countenance such dissembling by Church presidents?

Can you provide some references so I know what you are talking about?

zerinus

[consiglieri]

Can you provide some references so I know what you are talking about?

zerinus

If you are half as knowledgeable as you claim, this would seem a strange request.

Nevertheless, here are two representative quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball:

Melchizedek Priesthood Manual; "Answers to Gospel Questions"; Joseph Fielding Smith; 1972.

In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, I maintain that President Young was NOT referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden, and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with him and the Father taught Adam his language. It was not until the Fall, that the Father departed from Adam and from the Garden of Eden. . . .

President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He said that Adam was conversant with his Father in the Garden of Eden. This is believed by all members of the Church, and that the Father was in the Garden of Eden until Adam was driven out for his transgression. (p. 20-22)

President Spencer Kimball at a Priesthood session of Conference in October of 1976 made this Statement:

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory.

We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. (Church News Oct. 9. 1976).

Your turn, Zerinus.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

If you are half as knowledgeable as you claim, this would seem a strange request.

How knowledgeable did you think I am or should be? I donâ??t have any pretentions.

Melchizedek Priesthood Manual; "Answers to Gospel Questions"; Joseph Fielding Smith; 1972.

In discussing the statement by President Brigham Young that the Father of Jesus Christ is the same character who was in the Garden of Eden, I maintain that President Young was NOT referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden, and according to Mormon doctrine Adam was in his presence constantly, walked with him, talked with him and the Father taught Adam his language. It was not until the Fall, that the Father departed from Adam and from the Garden of Eden. . . .

President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He said that Adam was conversant with his Father in the Garden of Eden. This is believed by all members of the Church, and that the Father was in the Garden of Eden until Adam was driven out for his transgression. (p. 20-22)

You said statements made by the Presidents of the Church. Joseph Fielding Smith was not President of the Church when he made those statements. That is point number one. Secondly, there are several possible reasons why he may have said that. One possibility is that he was not fully aware of what BY had taught. That would not be surprising. A lot of people are not or have not been. Another possibility is that it is genuinely possible to interpret BYâ??s statements in several different ways, because a lot of ambiguity exists surrounding what he actually meant by what he said. No one can say that they know for sure what was in his mind, because he appeared to contradict himself in his own statements (as in the quotes given). If you read the Wikipedia article carefully enough, you will see that several different interpretation are possible as to what he meant by it, which one may plausibly hold. It is possible for someone to understand BYâ??s teachings in such a way that, from his point of view, he does not teach the Adam-God theory as it is generally understood; and therefore in all sincerity and honesty believe that BY did not teach that doctrine.

President Spencer Kimball at a Priesthood session of Conference in October of 1976 made this Statement:

"We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory.

We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine. (Church News Oct. 9. 1976).

This doesnâ??t say that BY did not teach that doctrine. It says that it is â??allegedâ? that the doctrine was taught. â??Allegedâ? does not mean that it was not taught. It leaves open the possibility that it may have been taught. The point is that BYâ??s statements are sufficiently vague that it leaves some room for doubt whether he actually taught what the Adam-God theory purports he taught. The use of the word â??allegedâ? allows that ambiguity to continue. It neither says that he didnâ??t teach it, nor does it say that he did.

Now you know why I asked for references.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

Now you know why I asked for references.

zerinus

So that you could engage in the purest sophistry.

Yes, I know.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri