Did Brigham Young Teach the Adam-God Theory?

[zerinus]

So that you could engage in the purest sophistry.

Yes, I know.

I am disappointed by that response. I sense a certain lack of intellectual honesty in that. I had before told you that BY's teachings on that subject are not consistent. Different statements made at different times appear to contradict each other. You disagreed, and asked for references. I informed you that I did not have references at hand, but someone may have quoted them elsewhere. Then I read that Wikipedia article, and found some, and gave them to you. Then you made other allegations that I have corrected for you with sound reason and references. Now you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong, and are still looking for conspiracy theories, and accusing me of engaging in "sophistry". That is very disappointing.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

I suppose if I am the greatest disappointment in your life, you will be a happy man.

Since you seem to want a detailed itemization of your sophistry, I will oblige:

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

Your assessment that you know more than Joseph Fielding Smith regarding this issue is indicative.

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.

Sophistry Point Number One--Of course, this makes no difference. Joseph Fielding Smith was an apostle, former Church Historian, and the universally accepted Scriptorian and Book-of-Mormon Answer Man in the Church for many years, including at the time he wrote this piece, which was later bound with other such answers in a volume titled, "Answers to Gospel Questions."

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.

Sophistry Point Number Two--Joseph Fielding Smith, as former Church Historian and universally accepted Scriptorian and Book-of-Mormon Answer Man, obviously knew what Brigham Young had taught; also being of an age sufficient to remember the storm that raged regarding the issue in his own life; what with his father having been Joseph F. Smith who dealt with the controversy directly, and in a manner quite different from his son.

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.

Sophistry Point Number Three--The only ambiguity that exists regarding Brigham Young's statements is that foisted upon them by those who do not wish to accept what he said. You yourself have already stated you know Brigham Young taught things that were "wrong." Don't try to waffle on me, now.

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.

See Sophistry Point Number Three.

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.

Sophistry Point Number Four--Your parsing of President Kimball's comment can only mean that, with a lawyer's skill, he spoke in such a way as to give the false impression that he was condemning something he wasn't. Why do you think he would do that?

Now you know why I asked for references.

zerinus

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

I suppose if I am the greatest disappointment in your life, you will be a happy man.

Since you seem to want a detailed itemization of your sophistry, I will oblige:

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Still very disappointing. I personally believe that Brigham Young did teach Adam-God theory, and that he was mistaken in doing so. But at the same time, I acknowledge that there is enough ambiguity in his statements made at different times that others may have a different opinion from me as to what he actually believed and taught. Their opinions are just as respectable and valid as mine. I am not always right in everything. Other people may legitimately have a different opinion from me, which might turn out to be more correct than mine.

zerinus

[baddonkey]

consigieri,

I wondered if you think there are any problems with the First Presidency and Twelve's Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and Son. That's what I have based my beliefs on. Maybe not directly, but that is what is taught in sunday school and seminary and Institute classes, so that is what I have picked up over the years.

I have always thought that Brigham Young was misquoted and / or misinterpreted. after reading through this thread though, I'm not so sure anymore. I am starting to wonder if I should reserve judgement about this issue until I can read something that covers the whole issue more comprehensively and has all of the references to Adam/ God teachings in it. I know there are books mentioned above that are supposed to cover the subject but I really don't want to read any apostate material. Has the Church examined this subject in any kind of lengthy book or article, or has any general authority written on it more than briefly? I have read Mark E. Peterson's book on Adam already but I am wondering about any others.

If anyone can rcommend something to read about this that covers all of the history of it and is not an apostate book then let me know.

thx- baddonkey

[LifeOnaPlate]

consig, I believe you misrepresent Pres. Kimball on the issue. You state "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."

The quote you cite says

"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).

Here is not an example of Pres. Kimball denying BY ever taught an "Adam-God theory. "

[zerinus]

consigieri,

I wondered if you think there are any problems with the First Presidency and Twelve's Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and Son. That's what I have based my beliefs on. Maybe not directly, but that is what is taught in sunday school and seminary and Institute classes, so that is what I have picked up over the years.

I have always thought that Brigham Young was misquoted and / or misinterpreted. after reading through this thread though, I'm not so sure anymore. I am starting to wonder if I should reserve judgement about this issue until I can read something that covers the whole issue more comprehensively and has all of the references to Adam/ God teachings in it. I know there are books mentioned above that are supposed to cover the subject but I really don't want to read any apostate material. Has the Church examined this subject in any kind of lengthy book or article, or has any general authority written on it more than briefly? I have read Mark E. Peterson's book on Adam already but I am wondering about any others.

If anyone can rcommend something to read about this that covers all of the history of it and is not an apostate book then let me know.

thx- baddonkey

I donâ??t think there is such a book, and I think there should be. That is the best way to put the controversy to rest. For years a similar controversy raged around the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which had become a favorite theme with the enemies of the Churchâ??until three good LDS scholars wrote a comprehensive history on the subject, and published it by the prestigious Oxford University Press (OUP), and the controversy has finally died down. A similar treatment needs to be given to the Adam-God theory.

zerinus

[HiJolly]

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

zerinus

In post #142, you said "Joseph Smith never taught the Adam God theory, contrary to what is said in that article."

I'm wondering how on earth you can say you have no pretentions. But I really dislike your style, and my comment is not an invitation to debate. I simply disagree with you, if for no other reason than this: You cannot claim to know everything Joseph ever taught. Not without being ignored, anyway...

HiJolly

[consiglieri]

consigieri,

I wondered if you think there are any problems with the First Presidency and Twelve's Doctrinal Exposition on the Father and Son. That's what I have based my beliefs on. Maybe not directly, but that is what is taught in sunday school and seminary and Institute classes, so that is what I have picked up over the years.

I have always thought that Brigham Young was misquoted and / or misinterpreted. after reading through this thread though, I'm not so sure anymore. I am starting to wonder if I should reserve judgement about this issue until I can read something that covers the whole issue more comprehensively and has all of the references to Adam/ God teachings in it. I know there are books mentioned above that are supposed to cover the subject but I really don't want to read any apostate material. Has the Church examined this subject in any kind of lengthy book or article, or has any general authority written on it more than briefly? I have read Mark E. Peterson's book on Adam already but I am wondering about any others.

If anyone can rcommend something to read about this that covers all of the history of it and is not an apostate book then let me know.

thx- baddonkey

I will say that I have not read extensively in the secondary literature, but have generally confined my research to primary sources. About 25-years ago, I did read Musser's book, though, and that is where I gleaned the idea that the "cultists'" identification of Jehovah as the savior from Michael's world was pretty sketchy.

But a rather good and even-handed article that covers the different views is the Wikipedia article linked to above, which has within it numerous links to other sources for those interested.

The closest a General Authority has come to writing a book on the subject is the one you referenced by Elder Mark E. Peterson (a true gentleman he), but it unfortunately perpetuates the pattern of dissembling by Church leaders on the subject.

It would be difficult for the Church to publish the full truth on the matter, because of 20th century adamant denials by Church leaders that Brigham Young ever taught the subject.

If you stick with the Doctrinal Exposition, I think you will not go far wrong.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Here is not an example of Pres. Kimball denying BY ever taught an "Adam-God theory. "

But when President Kimball gives the "Adam-God Theory" as an example of "doctrines" that have been "allegedly taught" by past General Authorities, and then labels it as a "false doctrine," do you think he is doing something other than denying it had ever been taught?

The only other alternative is that he knows it had been taught in the past, and hence uses the hedge word "allegedly," but that makes little sense as President Kimball would be then be admitting that past General Authorities had taught "false doctrine."

I really think the only way to rationally view this is as a denial.

Do you have another explanation?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

In post #142, you said "Joseph Smith never taught the Adam God theory, contrary to what is said in that article."

I'm wondering how on earth you can say you have no pretentions. But I really dislike your style, and my comment is not an invitation to debate. I simply disagree with you, if for no other reason than this: You cannot claim to know everything Joseph ever taught. Not without being ignored, anyway...

HiJolly

I could be mistaken of course. It is conceivably possible that he might have taught that doctrine. Anything is possible. But from what I have read of him, I am satisfied in my mind that he did not teach that doctrine. What Joseph Smith teaches about Adam indicates that he could not in fact have taught that doctrine (unless he had a self-contradictory personality, which I don't beleive he had), because they are opposed to each other. If you have a copy of his Teachings by Joseph Fielding Smith (or any other compilation of his writings), you can look up "Adam" in the index to find out what he did teach about Adam. Then you can form your own opinion as to whether he could have taught the Adam-God doctrine or not. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants were also produced by Joseph Smith. Everything that is taught in there also contradicts the Adam-God doctrine. That is how one can know. Now if you don't like my style, what do you want me to do about it? I don't like your avatar! I think it is ugly. Maybe that says something about you!

zerinus

[zerinus]

Do you have another explanation?

I do; see above!

zerinus

[consiglieri]

I do; see above!

zerinus

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't your "other explanation" that President Spencer W. Kimball was just ignorant of the subject matter on which he chose to make formal condemnations in general conference?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I could be mistaken of course. It is conceivably possible that he might have taught that doctrine. Anything is possible. But from what I have read of him, I am satisfied in my mind that he did not teach that doctrine. What Joseph Smith teaches about Adam indicates that he could not in fact have taught that doctrine (unless he had a self-contradictory personality, which I don't beleive he had), because they are opposed to each other. If you have a copy of his Teachings by Joseph Fielding Smith (or any other compilation of his writings), you can look up "Adam" in the index to find out what he did teach about Adam. Then you can form your own opinion as to whether he could have taught the Adam-God doctrine or not. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants were also produced by Joseph Smith. Everything that is taught in there also contradicts the Adam-God doctrine. That is how one can know. Now if you don't like my style, what do you want me to do about it? I don't like your avatar! I think it is ugly. Maybe that says something about you!

zerinus

TJolly's avatar is a silver profile; yours is a gold profile. Pretty similar, actually.

You are right that we have no record of Joseph Smith teaching the Adam-God Theory per se.

What Joseph Smith did was elevate Adam to so lofty a position that "godhood" was only a stone's throw away.

Brigham Young just threw the stone.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. If Joseph Smith had taught the Adam-God Theory, as claimed by Brigham Young, it would not have contradicted anything else that Joseph Smith said on the subject, just as it does not contradict anything else Brigham Young said on the subject. At least, that is the way I see it. If you would like to start a thread on that narrow issue, it might be worth exploring further.

[zerinus]

TJolly's avatar is a silver profile; yours is a gold profile. Pretty similar, actually.

You are right that we have no record of Joseph Smith teaching the Adam-God Theory per se.

What Joseph Smith did was elevate Adam to so lofty a position that "godhood" was only a stone's throw away.

That wasn't a "stone's throw away". That stone already hit the mark! LDS doctrine teaches that all faithful saints, prophets, and patriarchs will achieve deification in the celestial kingdom. Adam was ahead of all the rest! But that is a very different thing from equating him with God the Father, or suggesting that he had begotten the spirits of all men, or that he was the Father of Jesus Christ! That is a complete contradiction to what Joseph Smith ever taught, both in his sermons and writings, as well as in his scriptural output. They are very far apart.

Brigham Young just threw the stone.

No he didn't. He went a lot further than that.

P.S. If Joseph Smith had taught the Adam-God Theory, as claimed by Brigham Young, it would not have contradicted anything else that Joseph Smith said on the subject, just as it does not contradict anything else Brigham Young said on the subject. At least, that is the way I see it. If you would like to start a thread on that narrow issue, it might be worth exploring further.

Well, I don't know what would be the point of the thread; but if Joseph Smith had taught the Adam-God theory, it would have been in stark contradiction to everything else he taughtâ??and everything his own scriptures taught.

zerinus

[zerinus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't your "other explanation" that President Spencer W. Kimball was just ignorant of the subject matter on which he chose to make formal condemnations in general conference?

Sorry to be blunt; but that is a dumb comment.

zerinus

[consiglieri]

Sorry to be blunt; but that is a dumb comment.

zerinus

That's what I thought when you said it.

At least we agree on something!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[HiJolly]

TJolly's avatar is a silver profile; yours is a gold profile. Pretty similar, actually.

Actually, it's (a) nickle, but who really cares...

You are right that we have no record of Joseph Smith teaching the Adam-God Theory per se.

Joseph could have easily mentioned something in regard to Adam Kadmon to Brigham, and he (Brigham) wouldn't have had anything to contextualize it with. So he'd remember the reference, but not anything else and thus would be able to dwell on it for many, many years and perhaps come up with his own context. Thus, my previous comments on the other thread (referenced by me above in this thread) re: Adam Kadmon.

HiJolly

[consiglieri]

I finally got around to looking at it.

That Adam Kadmon stuff is pretty heavy.

Who knows?

In the words of Admiral Kirk, "I like to think there are always . . . possibilities."

Merry Christmas!

--Consiglieri