Jump to content

Adam-God Theory Origins


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

There have been a number of threads on this board regarding the Adam-God Theory, and whether Brigham Young actually taught it, and if he did not teach it, what on earth did he mean by the remarkable things he said on a number of occasions concerning it.

This is not one of those threads.

What I want to propose in this thread is a reason for why this theory, or other theories like it, gained a footing in the LDS Church, and why it continues to remain alive at least within some LDS circles.

Proposition--There exist within LDS theology two pre-mortal scenarios which are in tension one with the other.

The first pre-mortal scenario is that Elohim personally begot all the spirits that would come to this earth, the First Born of these spirits was Jehovah, who would come to earth as Jesus Christ, as decided in the Grand Council, and all things have proceeded from there to the present time.

This scenario would be fine and complete if Mormon theology posited this earth to be the only inhabited planet in all creation for all time.

But Mormon theology holds that there are "worlds without number," some of which have already passed away to their glory, others which are currently going through the process (as ours), and that this process will continue forever on worlds that have not yet been created. (See Moses 1.)

Add to that the Mormon theology that righteous saints will become gods themselves who will create worlds and populate them with their own spirit offspring, and you have a concept that begins to dismantle the orthodox scenario.

If righteous saints become creative gods, is this how our God became what He is? (A Wilford Woodruff quote comes to mind.)

If God is an exalted man, what became of all the other beings who were exalted from the earth on which our God lived in mortality? Where are they now? What are they doing? Likely they are doing something similar to what our God is doing; creating and populating other worlds.

Another difficulty with the "orthodox position" is that Mormons believe Elohim to be the God not only of this world, but of multitudinous worlds that have been populated and its inhabitants exalted long since. What are Elohim's exalted children doing? Well, they are probably creating and populating their own worlds.

If Elohim's exalted children are creating and populating their own worlds, is it possible that we are living on one of those worlds? In other words, is it possible that Elohim is not our immediate Father in Heaven, but that there are God(s) and Father(s) in between? And if there are God(s) and Father(s) between us and Elohim, who might they be and do we read about them in the scriptures?

It seems that all of these ideas are not only possibilities within Mormon Theology, but plausible.

I suggest that these are some of the reasons that the Adam-God Theory, and theories like it, gained traction within Mormonism and continue to live on even among the active membership of the Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

There have been a number of threads on this board regarding the Adam-God Theory, and whether Brigham Young actually taught it, and if he did not teach it, what on earth did he mean by the remarkable things he said on a number of occasions concerning it.

This is not one of those threads.

What I want to propose in this thread is a reason for why this theory, or other theories like it, gained a footing in the LDS Church, and why it continues to remain alive at least within some LDS circles.

Proposition--There exist within LDS theology two pre-mortal scenarios which are in tension one with the other.

The first pre-mortal scenario is that Elohim personally begot all the spirits that would come to this earth, the First Born of these spirits was Jehovah, who would come to earth as Jesus Christ, as decided in the Grand Council, and all things have proceeded from there to the present time.

This scenario would be fine and complete if Mormon theology posited this earth to be the only inhabited planet in all creation for all time.

But Mormon theology holds that there are "worlds without number," some of which have already passed away to their glory, others which are currently going through the process (as ours), and that this process will continue forever on worlds that have not yet been created. (See Moses 1.)

Add to that the Mormon theology that righteous saints will become gods themselves who will create worlds and populate them with their own spirit offspring, and you have a concept that begins to dismantle the orthodox scenario.

If righteous saints become creative gods, is this how our God became what He is? (A Wilford Woodruff quote comes to mind.)

If God is an exalted man, what became of all the other beings who were exalted from the earth on which our God lived in mortality? Where are they now? What are they doing? Likely they are doing something similar to what our God is doing; creating and populating other worlds.

Another difficulty with the "orthodox position" is that Mormons believe Elohim to be the God not only of this world, but of multitudinous worlds that have been populated and its inhabitants exalted long since. What are Elohim's exalted children doing? Well, they are probably creating and populating their own worlds.

If Elohim's exalted children are creating and populating their own worlds, is it possible that we are living on one of those worlds? In other words, is it possible that Elohim is not our immediate Father in Heaven, but that there are God(s) and Father(s) in between? And if there are God(s) and Father(s) between us and Elohim, who might they be and do we read about them in the scriptures?

It seems that all of these ideas are not only possibilities within Mormon Theology, but plausible.

I suggest that these are some of the reasons that the Adam-God Theory, and theories like it, gained traction within Mormonism and continue to live on even among the active membership of the Church.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Something just popped in here as I was reading this thread. This will make your head spin I am sure.

Consider the verse of scipture that tells us that 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many.

This verse indicates that this is not the first Adam and it indicates that this "Adam" is the first of all man. Consider how Jesus is the first born and the title could be given to Jesus to be an "Adam" as he is the first.

Now consider John 5:19. We in the KFD we learn that Jesus only did what He saw His Father do. In essence God is an "Adam" too as He would be the first born and the savior to His God and Father.

Deep stuff yeah?

Link to comment

The first pre-mortal scenario is that Elohim personally begot all the spirits that would come to this earth, the First Born of these spirits was Jehovah, who would come to earth as Jesus Christ, as decided in the Grand Council, and all things have proceeded from there to the present time.

This scenario would be fine and complete if Mormon theology posited this earth to be the only inhabited planet in all creation for all time.

I suggest that numberless inhabited planets does not necessarily make the first sceanrio impossible. Elohim personally begot all the spirits that would come to this earth and numberless other earths that are populated by His spirit offspring (NOTE: numberless to us at least--our understanding of numbers, big numbers, "numberless", "all creation" and "all time" is limited to and by our temporal reckoning as described in the Book of Abraham and D&C 130:4, plus by what the Lord is willing to reveal about other worlds, as in Moses 1:35). Each earth conceivably has an Adam at the head of its stewarding human race, and each earth is saved by our one and only Savior--"one and only" at least for "our generation (however expansive that may be)" of the "immortality-and-eternal-life-of-man" cycle described in the Book of Abraham. There must be generation upon generation of this eternal round playing out "wherever". This does not rule out the existence of other Firstborns or Anointed Ones heading up other "generations" of the eternal round, or Elohim having exalted children, siblings, etc.

Link to comment

President Hinckley reminded us that we don't teach that God was once a man like us. It is just some old couplet. So your argument is flawed from the beginning. :P

However, that said, I do agree that it seems a plausible reason why the idea of Adam God at least sounded plausible to Brigham Young and those he taught it to. It makes sense when there are billions of God's around, that Adam could be the God for us, and his father is once removed.

Link to comment

President Hinckley reminded us that we don't teach that God was once a man like us. It is just some old couplet. So your argument is flawed from the beginning. :P

That God is an exalted man is doctrine. Perhaps you misunderstood President Hinckley.

Link to comment

I was winking..... and I know that this has been hashed out, but he did say the following to Time Magazine:

On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man," continued the Time article,'I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ? I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it

Link to comment

I was winking..... and I know that this has been hashed out, but he did say the following to Time Magazine:

Oh boy not this tired old chestnut. THere are better critisisms than this one I assure you. There are other ways to resaonbly interpret President Hinckley's remarks.

Link to comment

Careful lest you give the Elden Watson-ites on the board grist for their circular mill.

You may want to throw into the mix Abraham 1:3 which applies the sobriquet of "firstborn" to none other than Adam.

Deep stuff absolutely! :P

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That is a great verse of scripture that I have forgotten about.

3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

I read Elden Watson's article and I liked it. I think though that there are other ways to explain the musings of BY in regaurds to Adam/God. IOW I am not sold on any one theory just yet. I have to say though that what I posted before this post is my most favorite and perhaps the most difficult to explain to some one that might not be familiar with all of the scriptures and background of the LDS faith. Perhaps I like it because I realised the implications of a few verses of scripture and presented them here. Yippy.

Link to comment

Oh boy not this tired old chestnut. THere are better critisisms than this one I assure you. There are other ways to resaonbly interpret President Hinckley's remarks.

I personally interpreted it, as I was listening to its original live broadcast (it was Larry King) that he had just lied to the world. I was shocked at his response.

Link to comment

Perhaps I like it because I realised the implications of a few verses of scripture and presented them here. Yippy.

Scriptures we have known and read for years that suddenly take on new meaning are great, I agree.

I felt similarly when realizing that the Book of Moses 5:9 has the Holy Ghost identify himself as "the Only Begotten."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

Scriptures we have known and read for years that suddenly take on new meaning are great, I agree.

I felt similarly when realizing that the Book of Moses 5:9 has the Holy Ghost identify himself as "the Only Begotten."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh boy, I will have to think on this one. I hadn't considered this verse. Why didn't your bring this up in the "Who is the HG" thread I stated some time ago?

Perhaps you did I just missed it. I wonder though....

Link to comment

I personally interpreted it, as I was listening to its original live broadcast (it was Larry King) that he had just lied to the world. I was shocked at his response.

I took it more that he was correcting or clarifing his first statement. I watched it too in my Aunts basement. I remember it well.

Nothing in his comments to me state that we no longer believe or even teach (If you actually watch how President Hinckley presented the answer) taht God was not once a Man. It seems he is right that we don't emphasize it and we certainly don't know that much about it.

If President Hinckley came out with an answer like "We don;t beleive that God was once a man any more that is a false belief" you would have a major point.

Any way lets not derail this thread with more comment about what president Hinckley said or didn't say.

Link to comment
I suggest that these are some of the reasons that the Adam-God Theory, and theories like it, gained traction within Mormonism and continue to live on even among the active membership of the Church.

Since we know that BY taught no such thing as the Adam-God theory, I think it's simply a matter of seeing something sans context and being excited over what appears to be a new and strange doctrine. Also, since many members don't read the JoD etc., it's an opportunity for some people who do to look smart.

Link to comment

Since we know that BY taught no such thing as the Adam-God theory, I think it's simply a matter of seeing something sans context and being excited over what appears to be a new and strange doctrine. Also, since many members don't read the JoD etc., it's an opportunity for some people who do to look smart.

BCSpace, since you never tried to deconstruct my analysis in the other post, I will paste it here and give you another opportunity to go through it and find my "out of context" assertions.:

Could have Young said anything that could have made it clear enough for you to accept the FACT that he taught the Adam-God doctrine? He couldn't have made it more clear, this is why nearly everyone except a die-hard crowd out there that continues to want to twist, turn, and pull his statements to mean something other than what they clearly say. So lets try again. In the JoD Young says:

"The question has been, and is often, asked, who it was that begat the Son of the Virgin Mary." Ok, so Young is going to tell who the Father of Jesus is in this sermon.

"Our Father in Heavan begat all the spirits that ever were," Ok, God begat all the spirits that ever were.

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him." So Adam, came into the garden with one his wives, Eve, they had celestial bodies. Because the story of Adam and Eve is so well known he feels no need to say if this is Adam sr. or jr., everyone listening knows he is talking about Adam and Eve from the Book of Genesis.

"He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the ANCIENT OF DAYS," so we learn that Adam is called Michael, the Ancient of Days, helped organize the THIS world.

"He is our FATHER and our God and the only God with whom WE have to do." He is now identifying Adam as being our God and Father.

"When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal," ok, he is still talking about the same Adam, he has not said he is talking about a grandpa Adam, it is clear that this is the Adam from the Book of Genesis. So when Adam, who he has identified as our God and Father, ate of the fruit they became mortal. Remember, he has only identified one Adam, not two, he couldn't make it more clear he is referring to Adam in the Book of Genesis.

"When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father [who has just been identified as Adam] had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost." So the Father, who he has identified as Adam, he has not referred to any other Adam here other than the one in the Book of Genesis, begat Jesus. So, the Adam who is our Father and our God that came into the Garden with a celestial body, ate the fruit and became mortal is the Father of Jesus. It is very clear.

"And who is the Father? He is the first of the Human family;" This is abundantly clear, the Father of us and Jesus, is Adam, the first of the human family.

"and when he took tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel and rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so in succession." Ok, this is the first time he has identified a different God, the Father of Adam, but he is not referring to him as Adam or our God, because Adam is our God and the only God with whom we have to do. "the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father," he is not talking about Adam's Father, because he has identified "the Father" as Adam. No where in these sermons does he say that God Adam Senior came with Eve Sr. and begat Adam Jr. and Eve Jr. but that it is Sr. who is the Father of Jesus. He has identified only one person with the name of Adam in this sermon.

"I have told you the truth as I have gone...Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." This is talking about Adam, who was in the Garden, as being the Father of Jesus. Remember, he has only identified one person as Adam, he has not said a Adam Sr. begat an Adam Jr. in the Garden to begin the Human family. He has only said that Adam was begotten by his Father in succession, but Adam is our God and Father of Jesus. His words could not be more clear.

Your Woodruff quote is just as clear:

"Who begat the Son of God? Infidels say that Jesus was a ******* but let me tell you the truth concerning the matter. Our Father begat all the spirits that were before any tabernacles were made." So the Father begat all our spirits.

"When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body & brought one of his wives with him and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle," Our Father came with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives. He ate of the fruit until he could beget tabernacle, which we know from the JoD account was when he ate the forbideen fruit.

"and Adam is Michael our God and all the god that we have anything to do with," So Adam is our God, he is not qualifying an Adam Sr. or Jr., everyone knows who he is referring to.

"They eat of this fruit & formed the first tabernacle that was formed," so they eat the fruit, lose their celestial body and become a mortal tabernacle,

"and when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child it was by the Father and in no other way only as we were begotten The world don't know that Jesus Christ, our elder brother, was begotten by our Father in Heaven." So Jesus was born by our Father in same way we were begotten, and who has Young identified as the Father? None other than Adam who ate the fruit in the Garden.

The other quotes I used are just as clear. The one from the Brigham Young Collection at the Church Archives in his sermons, on page 7 under February 19, 1854. Young is speaking of the Son of God to which he says,

"Who did beget him?" He is asking who beget Jesus.

"His Father, and his father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." So Jesus's Father is our God, father of our spirits.

"Who is he?" He is about to answer who specifically is the Father of Jesus.

"He is Father Adam; Michel; the Antient of days." So Adam is Jesus Father. Again, he is only identifying one Adam, he is not talking about an Adam Sr. ro Jr., anyone who was there would know who Adam is. From the JoD we know that the Adam that came into the Garden and ate the fruit is Michael, the Ancient of Days, and the first of the Human family. Only an enormous amount of mental gymanastics will make this Adam some other Adam, the statements are more than clear.

"Has he a Father? He has. Has he a mother? He has." So yes, Adam has a father, but he has not referred to him as Jesus's Father or as another Adam. Just read the black and white english language here and it is obvious.

Joseph Lee Robinson's diary of Oct 6, 1854 reported the sermons as:

"Attended conference. A very interesting conference; for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus: that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized." Here Young does say that Adam and Eve are the names of the people that begin life on every earth. So yes, the Father of our Adam would also be Adam, but Young in the above sermons and in this one does not use the word Adam to refer to Adam's father. In all of these sermons, has he identified an Adam Sr. or an Adam Jr? No!

"And that Adam and Eve were the natural Father and Mother of every spirit that comes to this planet or that receives tabernacles on this planet." He is talking about "this planet," the Adam and Eve here is clearly the Adam and Eve from the Book of Genesis. So the Adam and Eve of this planet is the Father and Mother of our spirits as well as our tabernacles.

"Consequently we are brothers and sisters. And that Adam was God our Eternal Father." So the Adam of this world, the guy from the Book of Genesis, is our God and Eternal Father. How much more clear could it be. Again, there is no qualified Adam Sr. or Jr. here.

"This Brother Heber remarked was letting the cat out of the bag." So I guess Heber was concerned at such deep doctrine coming out, that Adam is our God.

"But behold ye, there were some that did not believe the sayings of the Prophet Brigham. Even our beloved Brother Orson Pratt told me that he did not believe it. He said he could prove by the scriptures it was not correct I felt sorry to hear President Orson Pratt say that. I fear lest he should apostatize." It is well known that Pratt opposed Young's Adam-God doctrine, I guess Robinson was concerned for his soul in rejecting it.

In the John Pulsipher papers at BYU, on pages 35-37, it reports Oct 8th Young's sermons:

"So we had a grandfather or we would have had a father & our grandfather has a father & grandfather & great-great-great-great-great grandfather So far back there is no beginning-They always Existed on some world-& when this world was made -" So Young is identifying a sucession of Gods. But the next sentence identifies who our God is.

"- our God who is Adam came & commnenced the peopling of it-" Although a succession of gods has been identified, here again, who is obviously being spoken of when he refers to Adam coming down and commencing the peopling of our world? Adam from the Book of Genesis of course, it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to know that. And who does he say Adam is here? Our God.

"Tho he is God & had lived & died & been reserected on some other plannet- & obtained his exaltation & begat the Spirits of children enough people this world" So Adam is our God, lived and died somewhere else and was resurrected on another planet. Since he obtained his exaltation, Adam begat the Spirit children of "this world." Then what happened with Adam continues.

"he came down & brot some of the animal & vegtable productions of some other world so that they might grow & increase here - He by eating the mortal fruits of the Earth, produced mortal children or commenced the increase of men on Earth which is the bodies for the Spirits to live in," so Adam, who has been identified as our God who lived on another planet before being exalted and the Father of our Spirits, ate the fruits and produced mortal children on this Earth. Is there any doubt who this Adam is? No, he has only referred to our Adam until the next sentence.

"...An Adam & Eve is necessary for every world The oldest Son, if faithful, is the Saviour of the family-There are Lords many & Gods many But the God that we have to account to, is the father of our spirits-Adam." So an Adam and Eve is necessary for every planet, who's oldest Son will be the Savior, but to us there is only one God, and that is Adam who started the world. It couldn't be more clear, just read the black and white english language.

Wilford Woodruff reported in his diary on Oct 6-8, 1854 that Young preached his greatest sermon ever. Woodruff reports that George D. Watt recorded the sermon. In the Brigham Young collection is Watt's report of the sermon, page 12 he records Young's sermons as,

"...let us turn our attention to the God with which we have to do." So he is going to talk about our God with which we have to do, which he has already identified in other sermons as Adam, not Adam Sr. or whatever garble you want to attempt to add to it.

"I tell you simply, he is our father; the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits..." So our God is our father, father of our spirits, and father of Jesus Christ.

"he is the father of all the spirits of the human family. All things are first made spiritual, and brought forth into his kingdom. The spirits of all the human family were begotten by one father..." This is much of the same, God our father is father of our Spirits.

[p. 13] "The God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the father of our spirits..." So God who is the Father of Jesus is the Father of our spirits. Then Young identifies who that is as he has in other sermons

[p.16] "...I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits..." So Adam is the Father of our Spirits. He is only referring to one Adam, no Adam Sr. or Jr., just Adam which anyone who has attended any Sunday school class in any Church knows that is the guy in the Book of Genesis.

[p. 18]"...Our spirits and spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve." No Adam Sr. here, just Adam, is the Father of our spirits.

[p. 20]"...Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he with his wife Eve partook of the fruit of this earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of earth, and then they could begget bodies, for their spiritual children..." Any doubt who this Adam is? No, he has only referred to one Adam. This Adam is the father of Jesus and our Spirits and beget our bodies here on earth.

[p.21]"...I tell you, when you see your father in the heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see mother Eve." No Adam and Eve Sr. mentioned, just Adam and Eve who has already been identified.

It couldn't possibly be more clear than this, it would take an enormous amount of mental gymnastics and a disregard for very clear english words to somehow twist and turn these sermons into saying something they don't. Just read what they say. I have not taken anything out of context, the only person taking it out of context is you by forcing an Adam Sr. and Jr. into the sermons, they are simply not there, just read the black and white english language. This teaching was far reaching enough that it was taught at the Brigham Young Academy by Karl Maeser. It even made into a hymnal.

In 1856, Franklin D. Richards published a new hymnal titled, "Sacred Hymns and Spirtual Songs for the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." This was published in Liverpool England, it contained several songs not in the previous edition. In the preface, Richards says, "Since the ninth edition of hymns was published, the knowledge and faith of the Church have greatly increased, through the revelation of more advanced doctrines of the Gospel." Hymn 306 is only found in this edition, the following is from the song:

1. We believe in our God, the great Prince of His race,

The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for his children again.

2. We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who, in live

To his brethren and sisters, cam down from above,

To die to redeem them from earth, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the Gospel we preach.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Church did distance itself from the teaching. George Q. Cannon in "Thngs That Should And Things That Should Not Be Taught In Our Sunday School," (which is in the publication "Poceedings Of The First Sunday School Convention" published in 1899), on pages 87-88, Cannon says to Lorenzo Snow at the Sunday School Convention on Nov. 28-20, 1898, "I was stopped yesterday afternoon by a young man, who wanted to know whether Adam was the father of our Lord and Savior-whether he was the being worshipped, etc...Concerning the doctrinein regard to Adam and the Savior, the Prophet Brigham taught some thngs concerning that; but the first Presidency and the Twelve do not think it wise to advocate these matters." In Anthon Lund's dary, Apr 8, 1912, Lund records the following declaration at the priesthood session of conference, "Here a large special Priesthood meeting in which the declaration was made that the God we worship is not Adam but the God Adam worshipped in the Garden."

I know it would be make you feel better for you to be more familiar with Young's teaching than Karl Maeser, who was Young's contemporary, but as you can see, that Young taught Adam is our God and Father of Jesus Christ is very well documented and no manner of using mental gymnastics is going to change the facts.

Link to comment

As mysteryman has so aptly demonstrated, there is little room to deny that Brigham Young taught that the Adam of our work is also the God of our world and our Father in Heaven. What is less clear in subsequent lectures of his is if he himself held to this belief later on. It is wholly possible, as I read later lectures, to ascertain that he is referencing similar thoughts, but with differences here and there that change the dynamics considerably. I think this is one of those things that Brigham pondered on, formed ideas, and taught as he felt appropriate. Later, either God or his own mind further refined it and so on and so forth. I think the Adam-God theory may have been an imperfect inbetween step to the more clear theological concept he was approaching.

And if I am wrong... no big deal. I think we'll all find out soon enough, and in the meantime I doubt God will care if we got something on this matter wrong.

Link to comment
BCSpace, since you never tried to deconstruct my analysis in the other post

I think Lachoneus deconstructed your analysis quite well and my response was to show that you have not done enough research to come to the conclusion you have.

Your being vague. What discrepancy between the JoD and Woodruff's report? Both are clear that Adam is God. Neither identify a different Adam or an Adam Sr. or Jr. They are clear.

The differences are clear indeed:

WWJ: When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him

JoD: When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him.

WWJ: and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle,

JoD: He helped to make and organize this world.

WWJ: and Adam is Michael

JoD: He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our FATHER

WWJ: our God and all the god that we have anything to do with

JoD: and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed.

WWJ: They eat of this fruit & formed the first tabernacle that was formed

JoD: When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.

[Here we see in the WWJ, that it was Adam Sr. (God the Father) who came came to the garden and begat the first tabernacle (Adam Jr., the one who fell)]

WWJ: and when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child it was by the Father and in no other way

JoD: When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven,

[Here we see the crux of the argument BY is making that Jesus was begotten of the Father just as Adam was and therefore was no ******* and not begotten by the Holy Ghost]

Skipping down a little we have:

JoD: Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.

It is here that we also have the report of Ben E Rich that BY said here:

"Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character, who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven"

So we actually have two testimonies of Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. here.

Elden Watson brings up another good point of punctuation noting that the shorthand the JoD was written in did not have a means of showing punctuation and that in some paragraphs quoted by Adam-God supporters a small change in punctuation completely changes the meaning. However, I don't think that is necessary to pursue but it's certainly enough to cast doubt on any Adam-God interpretation by itself.

Why would Young establish a doctrine that is contray to others? Young likely saw no contradiction.

Yet the doctrinal differences with the scriptures Adm-God presents are far too great to ignore. For example:

Adam is not God: Moses 6:51-52

Adam is subordinate to Jesus Christ: D&C 78:13-16

Adam is a son of God: Moses 6:10-22

It should be noted here that BY understood this and further confirmed Adam Sr./Adam Jr. by saying:

"And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. [JD 11:122-123, June 18, 1865]

So in in one area we see God the Father begetting Adam (Jr) and in another confirming this process.

Adam (Jr) Created From Dust of This Earth: Genesis 3:19. If Adam were God the Father, how could he return to the dust out of which he was formed?

Adam (Jr) was not a resurrected being: Alma 11:45. If Adam were God the Father (a resurrected being), then how could he die and be raised again?

Adam (Jr) died: Similar to the above. Do I really need to find verses that say Adam died? Adam could not possibly be God the Father if he died.

Adam (Jr) and Eve were unmarried when they came into the Garden of Eden: So it was only Adam Sr. (God the Father) who could have brought one of his wives into the Garden......

etc. etc.

Do you honestly believe BY did not know these doctrines and scriptures or that he attempted to square them with Adam-God? I don't.

What other statements in the JoD are you referring?

I quoted one above. Here is a set that demonstrates the inconsistency of complaining that BY never used the designations Adam Sr. Adam Jr. BY and the other general authorites of the time distinguished between Jr. and Sr. in the same fashion Note how the father of Joseph Smith is referrenced in the first statement and then notice the appelation of Orson Hyde to Adam and the Father in the second:

I have reflected much concerning the family of the grandfather and father of Joseph the Prophet. Their family connections were very extensive; and it has been a subject of deep regret to me that there were so few in that large circle who have been valiant for the truth since the death of the Prophet. Still I do not know but that Joseph had quite as many of his connections valiant for the truth, in proportion to their number, as Jesus had; for Jesus had many brothers and sisters, and the most of them were opposed to him, and continued so during the greater part of their lives. I used to think, while Joseph was living, that his life compared well with the history of the Saviour; though the most of father Joseph Smith's family have believed and obeyed the Gospel, and have lived their religion in a good degree. Many of them are not here. Some of them I have known in the Eastern States that never have gathered with us. But the old stock are pretty much dead, and I do not know but what all of them are. Father John Smith was the last one, in this Church, of the brothers of father Joseph Smith; and he died, and is buried here. Grandmother Smith lived in Kirtland a short time after she gathered. [Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.97, Brigham Young, August 2, 1857, emphasis added]

There is hardly ever a commandment given to any person or persons before whom a temptation is not placed to decoy them, if possible, from an obedience to that commandment. Our parents in the garden of Eden had had but little experience in this world; and it seemed that they must have a trial corresponding with the experience and knowledge they had of things as they were. The instruction of Father Adam was, "of all the trees in the garden thou mayest eat, excepting one; and in the day thou eatest of that, thou shalt surely die." The Lord said, Adam and Eve, you may enjoy yourselves; but there is one tree I command you that ye shall not eat of; for in the day that ye do, ye shall surely die." [JD 5:16, Orson Hyde, June 14, 1857]

So not only do we have evidence of Orson Hyde teaching BY's opinion of Adam Sr. Adam Jr. but also evidence that to adhere to an Adam-God theory could be a case of presentism.

Some other, simpler to see quotes that contextually deny Adam-God:

"So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.238, Brigham Young, July 24, 1853)

"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852)

"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.7, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853)

"The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.170, Brigham Young, January 17, 1858)

"The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.94, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852)

"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 whom 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. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870)

Stop being vague.

I've actually gone through these before so I don't consider myself vague at all if you haven't seen them and even if I simply referred to them.

Leonard Arrington was correct in his biography of Young that Young was not a very good systamatic theologian, so it is not surprising that he may appear to contradict himself.

I think he's quite wrong. BY's opinion of God does not appear to be developed over time but sprang forth full blown as if he were taught (by revelation?) or perhaps JS to whom he does give some credit.

But what is abundantly clear in the sermons I quote is that Young specifically identifies Adam as the father of the human family, father of both our spirits and bodies, father of Jesus Christ, and is our God. Please try to deconstruct these sermons to mean something other than what they most clearly say.

I think you have a whole lot to ponder already but let me give you one more. Even GA's close to the time believed BY was teaching Adam Sr. Adam Jr and not Adam God:

Salt Lake City, Utah

February 20, 1912

Prest. Samuel O. Bennion

Independence,

Dear Brother:

Your question concerning Adam has not been answered before because of pressure of important business. We now respond briefly, but, we hope, plainly. You speak of "the assertion made by Brigham Young that Jesus was begotten of the Father in the flesh by our father Adam, and that Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and not the Holy Ghost," and you say that Elders are challenged by certain critics to prove this.

If you will carefully examine the sermon to which you refer, in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, you will discover that, while President Young denied that Jesus was "begotten of the Holy Ghost," he did not affirm, in so many words, that "Adam is the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh." He said, "Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden and who is our Father in Heaven. Who is our "Father in Heaven"? Here is what President Young said about him; "Our Father in heaven begat all the spirits that ever were or ever will be upon this earth and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man." Was He in the Garden of Eden? Surely He gave commandments to Adam and Eve; He was their Father in Heaven; they worshiped Him and taught their children after the fall to worship and obey Him in the name of the Son who was to come.

But President Young went on to show that our father Adam,--that is, our earthly father,--the progenitor of the race of man, stands at our head, being "Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days," and that he was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but "begotten by his Father in Heaven." Adam is called in the Bible "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). It was our Father in Heaven who begat the spirit of him who was "the Firstborn" of all the spirits that come to this earth, and who was, also his Father by the Virgin Mary, making him "the only begotten in the flesh." Read Luke 1:26-35. Where is Jesus called "the only begotten of the Holy Ghost?" He is always singled out as "the only begotten of the Father." (John 1:14; 3:16, 18, &c) The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and her conception was under that influence, even of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of Mary, to whom the Savior prayed, as did our earthly father Adam.

When President Young asked, "who is the Father?" he was speaking of Adam as the father of our earthly bodies, who is at our head, as revealed in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 107, verses 53-56. In that sense he is one of the gods referred to in numerous scriptures, and particularly by Christ (John 10:34-36). He is the great Patriarch, the Ancient of Days, who will stand in his place as "a prince over us forever," and with whom we shall "have to do," as each family will have to do with its head, according to the holy patriarchal order. Our father, Adam, perfected and glorified as a God, will be the being who will carry out the behests of the great Elohim in relation to his posterity. (See Daniel 7:9-14.)

While, as Paul puts it, "there be gods many and Lords many (whether in heaven or in earth), unto us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships Him, and Him alone, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, whom He worshiped, whom Adam worshiped, and who is God the Eternal Father of us all.

Your brethren,

(signed)

JOSEPH F. SMITH,

ANTHON H. LUND,

CHARLES W. PENROSE,

First Presidency.

[James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, 4:266-267]

Now of course I do not believe BY's opinion of Adam Sr Adam Jr to be LDS doctrine any more than I believe BY taught Adam-God which as has been established, he did not.

Link to comment

[name=BCSpace' date='09 September 2009 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1252562182' post='1208716449]

The differences are clear indeed:

WWJ: When our Father came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him

JoD: When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him.

No contradiction here. Especially if you read the other quotes I used that you are yet to try to deal with, Young believed Adam had been exalted on another world and came into the garden with a celestial body, ate the fruit and became mortal.

WWJ: and eat of the fruit of the garden until he could beget a tabernacle,

JoD: He helped to make and organize this world.

Not sure of your point here, these two sentences are not talking about the same thing. Certainly the JoD is a much fuller account of the sermon and included more details. What is clear is that tabernacle couldn't be begotten until after the fruit was eaten, this is even more clear in the other sermons I quoted that you are yet to deal with.

WWJ: and Adam is Michael

JoD: He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! About whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our FATHER

Again, the JoD is more detailed, but no contradiction here, Adam, that is Adam who started the human family and the only guy identified as Adam in this sermon, is Michael, our Father.

WWJ: our God and all the god that we have anything to do with

JoD: and our GOD, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed.

No contradiction here, the only guy named Adam that has been identified in this sermon is clearly Adam who started the human family is God. Ok, so Adam is God without any silly qualifications of an invented Adam Sr. or Adam Jr. He has only identified one person as Adam.

WWJ: They eat of this fruit & formed the first tabernacle that was formed

JoD: When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.

No contradiction here, Adam and Eve ate the fruit, became a mortal tabernacle and bore mortal offspring. It takes major mental gymnastics to try to say the tabernacle formed was another Adam. You are inventing something and pushing it into the text that is abundantly clear that it is not there. Only one person has been identified as Adam. The JoD's fuller account makes very clear what is meant in the WWJ.

[Here we see in the WWJ, that it was Adam Sr. (God the Father) who came came to the garden and begat the first tabernacle (Adam Jr., the one who fell)]

You have got to be either kidding or english is not your native language. There is no Adam Jr. or Sr. even hinted at. That is totally of your own invention. Adam and Eve became mortal tabernacles when they ate the fruit plain and simple. If you would actually read the other sermons I quote that is more than clear.

WWJ: and when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child it was by the Father and in no other way

JoD: When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven,

Who has Young identified as the Father and our God? He has identified Adam and has only identified one person, I say again, he has only identified one person in this sermon as Adam. This invention of Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. and then pushing it into the text where it is more than clearly not there is absolutely ludicrous!!!!

[Here we see the crux of the argument BY is making that Jesus was begotten of the Father just as Adam was and therefore was no ******* and not begotten by the Holy Ghost]

Where are you getting this!!! He did not once say in this sermon that Adam was begotten by Adam. You are inventing that!!! I say again, he has only identified one person as Adam. Why can't you see the obvious?

Skipping down a little we have:

JoD: Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.

Ok, Jesus was begotten by the same person in the Garden and who is our Father in Heaven. Who was in the Garden and is our Father in Heaven? He answered that earlier, "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the ANCIENT OF DAYS...He is our FATHER and our God and the only God with whom WE have to do." So the only person identified as Adam is the Father of Jesus and our Father in Heaven.

It is here that we also have the report of Ben E Rich that BY said here:

"Jesus, our elder brother was begotten in the flesh by the same character, who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven"

I need a little more, where does this quote of Ben E Rich come from? When did he write it? Did he miss that the JoD and WWJ are clear that Adam is God, and in both only one person was identified as Adam, and Father of Jesus.

So we actually have two testimonies of Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. here.

No, we have zero testimonies of the invented Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. WWJ diary said nothing about it and was consistent with the JoD that Adam is God and Father of Jesus. Only one, and only one, person was identified as Adam. Your one liner from Ben E Rich also says nothing of an Adam Jr. or Sr. or Adam III, Adam IV, Adam V either.

Elden Watson brings up another good point of punctuation noting that the shorthand the JoD was written in did not have a means of showing punctuation and that in some paragraphs quoted by Adam-God supporters a small change in punctuation completely changes the meaning. However, I don't think that is necessary to pursue but it's certainly enough to cast doubt on any Adam-God interpretation by itself.

No period, no comma, no question mark is going to create the silly invention of Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. The sermon, and the sermons I quoted that you are yet to deal with are clear.

Yet the doctrinal differences with the scriptures Adm-God presents are far too great to ignore. For example:

Adam is not God: Moses 6:51-52

Adam is subordinate to Jesus Christ: D&C 78:13-16

Adam is a son of God: Moses 6:10-22

These are meaningless. What did Young teach is what is important. The one sermon I quoted had Heber C. Kimball nervous of letting the cat out of the bag, Young believed this was some sort of deep doctrine.

Link to comment

[name=BCSpace' date='09 September 2009 - 11:56 PM' timestamp='1252562182' post='1208716449]

It should be noted here that BY understood this and further confirmed Adam Sr./Adam Jr. by saying:

"And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. [JD 11:122-123, June 18, 1865]

So in in one area we see God the Father begetting Adam (Jr) and in another confirming this process.

Where in the world are you getting this preposterous Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. from this??? Where is it?? God creates children like we create ours. Ok, as is clear from the other sermons I quoted that you have yet to deal with, Adam was exalted on another planet. Adam then came here to start the human family. He ate the fruit and became mortal and begat children just like us. Of course it is the same, Adam is God!!!

Adam (Jr) Created From Dust of This Earth: Genesis 3:19. If Adam were God the Father, how could he return to the dust out of which he was formed?

Adam (Jr) was not a resurrected being: Alma 11:45. If Adam were God the Father (a resurrected being), then how could he die and be raised again?

Adam (Jr) died: Similar to the above. Do I really need to find verses that say Adam died? Adam could not possibly be God the Father if he died.

Adam (Jr) and Eve were unmarried when they came into the Garden of Eden: So it was only Adam Sr. (God the Father) who could have brought one of his wives into the Garden......

etc. etc.

Do you honestly believe BY did not know these doctrines and scriptures or that he attempted to square them with Adam-God? I don't.

Adam Jr. did nothing because in all the sermons I quoted only one person is identified as Adam. It takes an enormous amount of imagination, mental gymnastics, and a misunderstanding of the english language to see Adam Sr, Adam Jr, Adam III, Adam IV, Adam V, Adam VI, Adam VII in any of these sermons.

I quoted one above. Here is a set that demonstrates the inconsistency of complaining that BY never used the designations Adam Sr. Adam Jr. BY and the other general authorites of the time distinguished between Jr. and Sr. in the same fashion Note how the father of Joseph Smith is referrenced in the first statement and then notice the appelation of Orson Hyde to Adam and the Father in the second:

I have reflected much concerning the family of the grandfather and father of Joseph the Prophet. Their family connections were very extensive; and it has been a subject of deep regret to me that there were so few in that large circle who have been valiant for the truth since the death of the Prophet. Still I do not know but that Joseph had quite as many of his connections valiant for the truth, in proportion to their number, as Jesus had; for Jesus had many brothers and sisters, and the most of them were opposed to him, and continued so during the greater part of their lives. I used to think, while Joseph was living, that his life compared well with the history of the Saviour; though the most of father Joseph Smith's family have believed and obeyed the Gospel, and have lived their religion in a good degree. Many of them are not here. Some of them I have known in the Eastern States that never have gathered with us. But the old stock are pretty much dead, and I do not know but what all of them are. Father John Smith was the last one, in this Church, of the brothers of father Joseph Smith; and he died, and is buried here. Grandmother Smith lived in Kirtland a short time after she gathered. [Journal of Discourses, Vol.5, p.97, Brigham Young, August 2, 1857, emphasis added]

My goodness!!! This is getting down right humorous and absurd all at the same time. At the beginning of the sermons he makes it clear he is talking about Smith Sr. and refers to him as Father Joseph Smith throughout. Wow, yeah, that proves that when Young refers to Adam he is talking about two. You can't be serious!!!

There is hardly ever a commandment given to any person or persons before whom a temptation is not placed to decoy them, if possible, from an obedience to that commandment. Our parents in the garden of Eden had had but little experience in this world; and it seemed that they must have a trial corresponding with the experience and knowledge they had of things as they were. The instruction of Father Adam was, "of all the trees in the garden thou mayest eat, excepting one; and in the day thou eatest of that, thou shalt surely die." The Lord said, Adam and Eve, you may enjoy yourselves; but there is one tree I command you that ye shall not eat of; for in the day that ye do, ye shall surely die." [JD 5:16, Orson Hyde, June 14, 1857]

So not only do we have evidence of Orson Hyde teaching BY's opinion of Adam Sr. Adam Jr. but also evidence that to adhere to an Adam-God theory could be a case of presentism.

For one, we are talking about Young, not Hyde. But where, please show me where there is an Adam Sr. and an Adam Jr.???!!! It is no more in this sermon than it is in anything you have quoted. It is plainly not there. Lets do this, let us take these quotes out on the street and let just some passer by read it and see if they can see an Adam Sr. or Jr. in any of these. Trust me they won't. The only people that strain their logic to its limit and beyond that can see an Adam Sr. or Jr. here are those who are determined to demonstrate Young didn't teach that Adam is God.

Some other, simpler to see quotes that contextually deny Adam-God:

"So I [brigham Young] disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.1, p.238, Brigham Young, July 24, 1853)

"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him in the Garden of Eden?" Before he had time to reply, I asked him what resemblance Jesus bore to man in his incarnation? and "Do your believe Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in his own image and after his own likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the Lord made Adam like himself; and the Saviour we read of was made to look so like him, that he was the express image of his person?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.317 - p.318, Brigham Young, April 7, 1852)

"Suppose you were rolling in wealth, and perfectly at your ease, with an abundance around you; you might have remained in that condition until Doomsday, and never could have advanced in the school of intelligence, any more than Adam could have known about the works of God, in the great design of the creation, without first being made acquainted with the opposite?" (Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.7, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853)

"The first revelation given to Adam was of a temporal nature. Most of the revelations he received pertained to his life here." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.6, p.170, Brigham Young, January 17, 1858)

"The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.3, p.94, Brigham Young, August 8, 1852)

"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 whom 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. (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.312, Brigham Young, April 17, 1870)

I've actually gone through these before so I don't consider myself vague at all if you haven't seen them and even if I simply referred to them.

Wow, finally something that almost makes actual sense to your argument at last!!! So what we have is this, there is ZERO, absolutely ZERO evidence of Young ever, ever teaching Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. That is an absurd invention. So what is really going on is Young did contradict himself, plain and simple. We have Young more than clearly teaching in 1852 and 1854 that Adam is God, Father of our spirits and bodies, and Father of Jesus Christ. Other occasions he teaches the more traditional understanding. We know that his teachings on Adam God caused concern with Orson Pratt, we know it was taught at the Brigham Young Academy, we know it became a hymn, and we know from my last two quotes and yours from 1912 the church actively tried to distance itself from the teaching. Now me, I can accept the reality that Young contradicted himself and see no need to force compatibility, Arrington as well could see this and said Young was not a good systematic theologian. Others believe there is a need for compatibility and invent silly creations like Adam Sr. and Jr. that is clear to anyone that knows one plus one equals two is not there. But if you need compatibility, there is another possiblity. It is abundanlty clear from all my quotes that Young did teach Adam-God and no manner of inventing Adam Sr. or Jr. is going to change that FACT. It is clear that Young met opposition to the teaching from Pratt, a person far superior to Young when it came to systamatic theology. We know from my one quote that Heber C. Kimball was concerned that the cat was let out of the bag when he taught Adam-God. Maybe Young took a step back from teaching this deep theology and began to teach more traditionally.

There is a simpler expalnation. But first let me demonstrate another flaw in what you have said. You believe according to Young Adam Sr. came to earth and beget Adam Jr. Well on another occasion Young said Adam was not born here on this earth at all. He said, "Though we have it in history that our father Adam was made of the dust of this earth, and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world, and was the chief manager in that operation.

He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle." (JD 3:319, April 20, 1856).

So Adam wasn't born here according to Young in this sermon. Or is this that imaginary Adam Sr. again?

The best explanation is that Young taught contradictions because he himself was confused a bit. Young said:

Thus you may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and Eve, and ask, "are we of the same species with Adam and Eve?" Yes, every person acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding.

But when we arrive at that point, a vail is dropt, and our knowledge is cut off. Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father of our spirits in the eternal world. He is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species-of one family-and Jesus Christ is also of our species.

You may hear the divines of the day extol the character of the Saviour, undertake to exhibit his true character before the people, and give an account of his origin, and were it not ridiculous, I would tell what I have thought about their views. Brother Kimball wants me to tell it, therefore you will excuse me if I do. I have frequently thought of mules, which you know are half horse and half ***, when reflecting upon the representations made by those divines. I have heard sectarian priests undertake to tell the character of the Son of God, and they make him half of one species and half of another, and I could not avoid thinking at once of the mule, which is the most hateful creature that ever was made, I believe. You will excuse me, but I have thus thought many a time.

Now to the facts in the case; all the difference between Jesus Christ and any other man that ever lived on the earth, from the days of Adam until now, is simply this, the Father, after He had once been in the flesh, and lived as we live, obtained His exaltation, attained to thrones, gained the ascendancy over principalities and powers, and had the knowledge and power to create-to bring forth and organize the elements upon natural principles. This He did after His ascension, or His glory, or His eternity, and was actually classed with the Gods, with the beings who create, with those who have kept the celestial law while in the flesh, and again obtained their bodies. Then He was prepared to commence the work of creation, as the Scriptures teach. It is all here in the Bible; I am not telling you a word but what is contained in that book. {JD 4:218, Feb. 8, 1857}

So Young acknowledges the possibility that Adam is our God and that it is a mystery but that it does not matter. It seems he was in fact taking a step back from the Adam-God teaching and said it don't matter. Since he believed it a mystery, is it any wonder that he taught contradictions when pertaining to this doctrine? No. You would think he could have just put it to rest here by teaching your invented Adam Sr. and Jr. stuff. But no, this sermon again leaves no doubt there is no Adam Sr. and Jr., that is ridiculous. It also shoots a hole in your argument that Young would know the truth from the scriptures, but no, Young acknowledges the Adam-God possiblity here and had more than clearly taught it previously

I think that EV's claim to Mormonism not believing the same Jesus is true, I think Mormons worship Jesus Jr. instead of Sr.

Link to comment
Where in the world are you getting this preposterous Adam Sr. and Adam Jr. from this??? Where is it?? God creates children like we create ours.

Did you not see the quote? I personally discovered this independently and then found out someone else had the same ideas and they were more fully fleshed out. Adam Sr. Adam Jr. is actually listed as one of the main apologetic responses to the Adam God theory on fairwiki.

As you can plainly see, Joseph F Smith and his presidency understood it that way. Of course they didn't use those terms. Your response is full of denial but little in the way of evidence. I don't think you can so easily dismiss the Adam God interpretation as being in violation of so many key LDS doctrines that BY surely would have known about. Plus you can't get away from other JoD quotes that preclude the possibility of an Adam God theory. Adam Sr. Adam Jr is the only interpretation that makes sense of most of the contradictions.

Link to comment

As to Adam Sr./Adam Jr., I have demonstrated on another thread the implausibility of such a scenario having been in the mind of Brigham Young when he taught on the subject, not to mention the impossibility of it's being in the mind of those who listened to him. (There would have been no controversy had Brigham Young's teachings been . . . uncontroversial.)

But has it occurred to anyone that you can make any statement on the subject of the Godhead, however unorthodox, harmonize with orthodoxy so long as you are willing to call different beings by the same name?

Do Mormons not criticize Trinitarian Christians for a similar practice?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "100-years of obtaining converts to cultism and going strong")

P.S. The following line has to be among the top ten eye-crossers of the year!

BC Space:

As you can plainly see, Joseph F Smith and his presidency understood it that way. Of course they didn't use those terms.
Link to comment
As to Adam Sr./Adam Jr., I have demonstrated on another thread the implausibility of such a scenario having been in the mind of Brigham Young when he taught on the subject, not to mention the impossibility of it's being in the mind of those who listened to him.

I recall you making the attempt, but I don't recall you being very successful.

P.S. The following line has to be among the top ten eye-crossers of the year!
As you can plainly see, Joseph F Smith and his presidency understood it that way. Of course they didn't use those terms

How so? Feel free to reference any part of the letter.

But has it occurred to anyone that you can make any statement on the subject of the Godhead, however unorthodox, harmonize with orthodoxy so long as you are willing to call different beings by the same name?

That" Adam" is used as a name title is true, but I don't agree that "any statement" can fly easily.

Link to comment

Did you not see the quote? I personally discovered this independently and then found out someone else had the same ideas and they were more fully fleshed out. Adam Sr. Adam Jr. is actually listed as one of the main apologetic responses to the Adam God theory on fairwiki.

As you can plainly see, Joseph F Smith and his presidency understood it that way. Of course they didn't use those terms. Your response is full of denial but little in the way of evidence. I don't think you can so easily dismiss the Adam God interpretation as being in violation of so many key LDS doctrines that BY surely would have known about. Plus you can't get away from other JoD quotes that preclude the possibility of an Adam God theory. Adam Sr. Adam Jr is the only interpretation that makes sense of most of the contradictions.

Yes I saw the quote, it says:

"'And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.'"

This is a basic quote from the Bible, a story Young thought was a baby story.

"I believe that the declaration made in these two scriptures is literally true. God has made His children like Himself to stand erect, and has endowed them with intelligence and power and dominion over all His works, and given them the same attributes which He himself possesses. He created man, as we create our children; for there is no other process of creation in heaven, on the earth, in the earth, or under the earth, or in all the eternities, that is, that were, or that ever will be. [JD 11:122-123, June 18, 1865]"

Alright, God created his children like we create ours, Ok, thats wonderful, but there is ZERO evidence or even an implication in this quote of an Adam Sr. or Jr. Its not there. Please, go out on the street and have someone read this and see if they see Adam Jr. in there. Adam Sr. and Jr. makes no sense at all because it is invented by people after Young in order to try to explain it away. But not one quote, not one quote from Young demonstrates a belief in this silly invented concoction of Adam Sr. and Jr. There is a reason you and the Spalding theorists are out of in left field with their little monority of people. Because they have no evidence for their assertions (this is a little unfair to the Spalding people, they at least have some actual statements from witnesses to make their claim, Adam Sr. and Jr. is entirely invented).

Why does their have to be compatibility and no contradiction? You sound like a politician defending contradicting statements with mental gymnastics. I don't think you have actually read any of the quotes from my last two posts. My first post quoted from several people that makes it clear Young was teaching Adam-God. You haven't addressed my last quote where Young acknowledges the theory but is clearly backing down from his previous teachings. That quote destroys the already logically bankrupt Adam Sr. or Jr. nonsense. Please, I again invite to go through everything I have quoted using a little logic and common sense and you will see there is no Adam Sr. and Jr.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...