Adam-God Theory Origins

[consiglieri]

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

It just seems a bit mind numbing that somebody can say President Joseph F. Smith "plainly" understood something he "of course" never said he understood. That's all.

Maybe it's just me . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[stn9]

Yeah, this whole Adam thing is pretty sticky. Adam Sr/Jr was a theory I also came to years ago (somewhat on my own--I wasn't talking to anybody about it and had only limited sources to read, mostly JD, TPJS, and the standard works; I didn't find Watson's paper until more recently).

Having once entertained it as the most plausible answer, and even as most likely the answer, I don't have a real problem with those who see it as the answer; I do wish such persons would not smugly proclaim it as such (not necessarily you, BCSpace--others have been more strident). And I was pretty pleased with myself when I learned that Elder McConkie had come to the same conclusion or been taught it as the answer, as the case appears to be. He's not bad company to be in (despite what his detractors say and any doctrinal errors he may have made in mortality--we all do that). But it has been some time since I believed that explanation.

It really is a topic which seems to cause no end of disputations. I just wish Joseph Smith had clarified it by saying something like, "When you pray to God, have reference to a being like Christ who is in the exact, spitting image of the Father"--because Christ is in His Father's exact image, so much so that we are told They look exactly alike--instead of muddying the waters by actually saying, "in asking have Referance to a personage Like Adam for God made Adam Just in his own Image Now this a key for you to know how to ask & obtain" (WJS, 64). (Hey! Maybe Adam is the key because he looks exactly like the Father and the Son--triplets in every physical appearance! Oh, and if you count Seth, quadrulets! But then, why didn't Joseph Smith say picturing or thinking of Seth was the key to prayer? So confusing....)

Or maybe he could have said, "Adam is the father of the human family and presides over the spirits of all men except Christ, of course, because Christ is over Adam in authority becasue Christ is next to the Father as the second member of the Godhead and Adam isn't even in the godhead" instead of simply "He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men" (WJS, 9).

I'm confident this will all be cleared up one day.

[stn9]

(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).

To be fair to BCSpace, the Adam Sr/Jr explanation was not invented by him, nor is his independent discovery of it completely baseless. If the sources are all right, this view dates back at least to Joseph F. Smith (typescript > notes from a phone call > Reed Durham > Elder McConkie > Joseph Fielding Smith > Joseph F. Smith).

I'm actually interested to know if anyone can point to a source where Adam Sr/Jr was first clearly proposed or taught by someone in a position of authority in the Church. It can be argued that it was implied by President Joseph F. Smith in Arizona in 1914, but is there a clear statement on Sr/Jr by him or any other Church authority?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It just seems a bit mind numbing that somebody can say President Joseph F. Smith "plainly" understood something he "of course" never said he understood. That's all.

Maybe it's just me . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What is interesting is that I don't think one has to have an Adam Sr./Jr. to walk away with a new insight into Adam/God.

Are you thinking the same things as me Consig?

[Black Moclips]

There are some in the New-Age community who believe that the entity we identify as "God the Father" was actually the first Adam on this planet; however, there have been many "Adams" on this planet through-out its history, spanning millions of years (a new meaning for the title "Ancient of Days". The Adam in our bible, the latest Adam, is a different entity who since that time has reincarned numerous times, culminating in the life as the man we know as Jesus. Unorthodox and heretical, but its an interesting concept. I kind of like the idea.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Unorthodox and heretical, but its an interesting concept. I kind of like the idea.

It is just as unorthodox as my approach and this is an interesting way to look at it as well. I have often wondered along these lines. I have been thinking what if this is like the matrix. You know the whole "we have done this 6 time already". There was a scripture that sort of hinted at this concept. I will have to think of were I read it. Perhaps I just am mistaken in my rememberence of this scripture.

Edit: I just remembered that it had to do with the scripture in Genesis and the command form God to Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. That word seems to signify that it was once populated at least one time before this time.

[consiglieri]

Are you thinking the same things as me Consig?

My mind reading skills are still not up to par, but if you are thinking that Elohim is the father of Michael's body and spirit in much the same manner that Michael is the father of our bodies and spirits, I think that closely approximates what Brigham Young clearly, unequivocally and controversially said over and over again.

At bottom, Brigham Young's thought process took into account the vastness and enormity of the creation process throughout the universe, whereas current Mormon thought (including that of Elden Watson) typically considers only this world and ignores the rest.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Edit: I just remembered that it had to do with the scripture in Genesis and the command form God to Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth. That word seems to signify that it was once populated at least one time before this time.

Though I am no Hebraist, I seem to recall the word translated as "replenish" in the KJV does not carry that specific connotation in Hebrew.

But why Adam called his wife's name Eve "because she is the mother of all living" prior to the fall is an entirely different question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

My mind reading skills are still not up to par, but if you are thinking that Elohim is the father of Michael's body and spirit in much the same manner that Michael is the father of our bodies and spirits, I think that closely approximates what Brigham Young clearly, unequivocally and controversially said over and over again.

--Consiglieri

I have no problem with this. I think this is exaclty what BY was getting at. God created Adam's body and BY was "somewhat" specific in how that happened.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Though I am no Hebraist, I seem to recall the word translated as "replenish" in the KJV does not carry that specific connotation in Hebrew.

But why Adam called his wife's name Eve "because she is the mother of all living" prior to the fall is an entirely different question.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Bummer. Oh well more food for thought.

THough I must say given the other count in Moses it uses the word "replenish".

[consiglieri]

I have no problem with this. I think this is exaclty what BY was getting at. God created Adam's body and BY was "somewhat" specific in how that happened.

1. Elohim, having proven true and faithful in mortality, was exalted and set about creating his first world and inhabiting it with his spirit children.

Elohim went down to that world and became an Adam, initiating the process whereby his spirit children would receive physical bodies.

One of those spirit children was Michael. (Though it could have been a generation or two down the line.)

___________________________

2. Michael, having proven true and faithful in mortality, was exalted and set about creating his first world and inhabiting it with his spirit children.

Michael came down to our world and became an Adam, initiating the process whereby his spirit children would recieve physical bodies.

One of those spirit children was Mola Ram Suda Ram.

___________________________

3. Mola Ram Suda Ram, having proven true and faithful in mortality, will be exalted and will set about creating his first world and inhabiting it with his spirit children.

Mola Ram Suda Ram will go down to that world and become an Adam, initiating the process whereby his spirit children will receive physical bodies.

That's us.

That's what Brigham Young taught.

Why is it so hard to accept that this is what Brigham Young taught?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

1. Elohim, having proven true and faithful in mortality, was exalted and set about creating his first world and inhabiting it with his spirit children.

Elohim went down to that world and became an Adam, initiating the process whereby his spirit children would receive physical bodies.

One of those spirit children was Michael. (Though it could have been a generation or two down the line.)

___________________________

2. Michael, having proven true and faithful in mortality, was exalted and set about creating his first world and inhabiting it with his spirit children.

Michael came down to our world and became an Adam, initiating the process whereby his spirit children would recieve physical bodies.

One of those spirit children was Mola Ram Suda Ram.

___________________________

3. Mola Ram Suda Ram, having proven true and faithful in mortality, will be exalted and will set about creating his first world and inhabiting it with his spirit children.

Mola Ram Suda Ram will go down to that world and become an Adam, initiating the process whereby his spirit children will receive physical bodies.

That's us.

That's what Brigham Young taught.

Why is it so hard to accept that this is what Brigham Young taught?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't know. I don't have a problem with looking at it like that. There is room for reasonable interpretations they way you have laid it out.

[consiglieri]

I don't know. I don't have a problem with looking at it like that. There is room for reasonable interpretations they way you have laid it out.

I assure you this is precisely and plainly the way that Brigham Young laid it out. (Well, without the Mola Ram Suda Ram part.)

Brigham Young was fond of telling the sisters that they would one day be "Eves" to their own worlds, though.

All the confusion has resulted from people trying to make his words comport with latter-day orthodoxy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

All the confusion has resulted from people trying to make his words comport with latter-day orthodoxy.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That much seems to be the case.

[consiglieri]

There are some in the New-Age community who believe that the entity we identify as "God the Father" was actually the first Adam on this planet; however, there have been many "Adams" on this planet through-out its history, spanning millions of years (a new meaning for the title "Ancient of Days". The Adam in our bible, the latest Adam, is a different entity who since that time has reincarned numerous times, culminating in the life as the man we know as Jesus. Unorthodox and heretical, but its an interesting concept. I kind of like the idea.

It is an interesting idea, indeed.

And certainly no more unorthodox and heretical than the ideas propounded by the second President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

At least by today's standards.

When everybody seems kind of up tight.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[SilverKnight]

There have been a number of threads on this board regarding the Adam-God Theory...

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.

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.

CFR that even a minority of the current LDS church, or any current LDS leader believes anything like Adam-God.

It was an obscure, minority belief that never caught on even when BY was actively teaching it.

[consiglieri]

CFR that even a minority of the current LDS church, or any current LDS leader believes anything like Adam-God.

Well, I'm one.

And that's a minority.

Seriously, though, I think you will find my number multiplied even among the membership of this board.

Any seconds?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Cold Steel]

President Hinckley later said, somewhat impatiently, that he was fully aware of church doctrine and teachings and that we needn't suppose that he didn't. His point was that we don't emphasize or teach the doctrine to the world. It's not something specifically taught in our scriptures and it shouldn't be a stumbling block to believers.

The ancient apostles did the same thing in regard to their teachings about Jesus. Look in the epistles and the Acts of the Apostles and you'll see there's always a distinction between God and Jesus, even though the early Christians believed that Jesus was Jehovah (and Jesus taught it). So why the distinction? When Stephen saw that Jesus was on the "right hand" of God, or that Jesus was sent into the world by "God," it's clear that the early Christians were drawing the distinction to make their doctrine more palatable.

In the Adam-God doctrine, the controversy is whether a resurrected being can take on a form of mortality and "fall" from an exalted condition. Frankly, I don't know. That Adam is a divine personage cannot be denied; it also cannot be denied that Brigham Young fully distinguished him from God the Father (Elohim) and that he associated him with Michael the archangel. If Adam was a resurrected being, then he could not die as we die now; his death would have to be another type of separation. It's a fascinating topic.

[Deborah]

I was just thinking about this the other day and how BY could come up with such an idea.

We read regarding the creation "And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth." Now we know that Michael was one of those who came down and helped in the creation. Michael was then placed in the Garden as Adam. Who is Adam, he is the great Patriarch of this world, he from whom we are all descended.

Adam/Michael was one of the Gods who created this world.

Adam/Michael was the father of our flesh.

Therefore Adam/Michael is indeed the God of mankind's mortal existence.

[rockslider]

Well, I'm one.

And that's a minority.

Seriously, though, I think you will find my number multiplied even among the membership of this board.

Any seconds?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

second

edit:

Deborah ... you little Adam-God goddess you!

[mysteryman]

BCSpace, you still out there? Ok, this is what we have determined so far:

1. I have PROVEN that there was no contradiction in the WWJ and the JoD, so your argument there is dead.

2. You have not demonstrated an Adam Sr., Adam Jr., Adam III, Adam VIII, Adam XI was in any of Young's sermon. That argument was dead before it got started.

3. We know Young only identified one person as Adam in his sermons on Adam-God, so your argument there is dead.

4. We know Young contradicted himself on what he taught, but I have demonstrated from his 1857 speech that he was confused on it and had taken a step back from it.

So I am not sure where you have to go from here, I assume this is why you have abandoned responding. But here are some pointed questions concerning just a couple of quotes that I used that you have yet to try to deal with.

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. I tell you simply, he is our father; the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits...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...[p. 13] The God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the father of our spirits...

[p.16] "...I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits..."

[p. 18]"...Our spirits and spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve."

[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..."

[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."

So here it is. Adam is both the father of our spirits, father of our bodies, Father of Jesus Christ, and is the only God with whom we have to do. Your a smart guy, so I know you can clearly see there is no room for the concocted Adam Jr. and Adam XI theory here. Can you concede that this sermons teaches that Adam, the guy that started the humans race, is our God?

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 - our God who is Adam came & commnenced the peopling of it- 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 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...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 here we learn that Young said that Adam is our God and is the one that peopled the world. Is there any doubt that Young is referring to Adam who began the human race in the Book of Genesis? We learn that Adam had lived on another planet and had become exalted and then begat spirits to people THIS world. Adam then ate the fruits, became mortal and produced mortal children. Any doubt what Adam we are talking about? Of course not, your a smart person so I know you can see that. Next we learn that Adam and Eve are necessary for every planet and that their oldest Son will become the savior. Pretty simple. Now can you concede this point that Young taught that Adam is God without quilification of a invented Adam Sr. or Adam XX?

Then there is the quote that puts the nail in the coffin to your belief that Young couldn't contradict himself.

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 of course Young can contradict himself, he acknowledges that Adam may be God, but says it don't matter. So clearly Young had taken a step back from the Adam-God teaching. But since he say he don't care, is it any wonder that he may have contradicted himself on it? Of course not.

Do you BCSPace have any rational response to the above quotes? I await patiently for your reply.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, I'm one.

And that's a minority.

Seriously, though, I think you will find my number multiplied even among the membership of this board.

Any seconds?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Count me in, even though I am unlikely to share this view with any one else other than people on this board.

[consiglieri]

Count me in, even though I am unlikely to share this view with any one else other than people on this board.

Don't want to blow your cover like Mortal Man?

[SilverKnight]

Well, I'm one.

Quit being coy.

I'm not talking about Adam being some figurative "god" of the human family. I'm talking about the way Brigham taught it (for a time). I'm talking about the understanding of it that Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie condemned as heresy: That Elohim and Adam are the same person.

If you truly believe that (the heretical version of Adam-God) then call me surprised. Your approach to mormonism has always seemed (to me) to be far removed from gullible fundamentalist orthodoxy - the subset of mormonism that might actually believe such craziness, the same ones that look forward to heavenly polygamy and the twelve tribes' release from the polar ice caps.

In any case, the majority of the church has not even heard of the Adam-God theory, and it is surely a miniscule amount that actually believes it as doctrine.

[Deborah]

In any case, the majority of the church has not even heard of the Adam-God theory, and it is surely a miniscule amount that actually believes it as doctrine.

This is why it's so amusing that the critics of the church love to dwell on this as if this is the crux of the church and its truth stands or falls on this teaching of the ever grandiloquent BY.