Adam-God versus the Priesthood Ban

[consiglieri]

It seems that Brigham Young was the source for two singular doctrines in the LDS Church; one being the Adam-God Theory, and the other being the Priesthood Ban.

The Adam-God Theory did not catch on.

The Priesthood Ban did.

Any thoughts as to why?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

Adam-God was never BY's teaching as, for example, such must suppose that BY rejected some fundamental LDS doctrines already extant. But whether or not it was Adam-God or Adam Sr./Jr., the difference is that they are not supported by scripture whereas the Priesthood ban is.

The notion of "catching on" to me is "Sunstone-ish" so I prefer the prophets trying to apply the scriptures as more likely.

[consiglieri]

Adam-God was never BY's teaching as, for example, such must suppose that BY rejected some fundamental LDS doctrines already extant. But whether or not it was Adam-God or Adam Sr./Jr., the difference is that they are not supported by scripture whereas the Priesthood ban is.

The notion of "catching on" to me is "Sunstone-ish" so I prefer the prophets trying to apply the scriptures as more likely.

From my point of view, the Adam-God Theory is at least as well supported by scripture (if not moreso) than the Priesthood Ban.

Nevertheless, if you wish me to rephrase the question more to your liking, why did Brigham Young's attempt to apply the scriptures relating to the Priesthood Ban succeed while his attempt to apply the scriptures relating to Adam-God die out?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[BCSpace]

Nevertheless, if you wish me to rephrase the question more to your liking, why did Brigham Young's attempt to apply the scriptures relating to the Priesthood Ban succeed while his attempt to apply the scriptures relating to Adam-God die out?

You didn't need to rephrase on my account. There's no scriptural support for Adam-God as far as I can tell as and I think that's the best answer imho. Feel free to elucidate as to what verses you think support it.

[cinepro]

I would guess it's because the Priesthood Ban fit into their worldview (and scriptural view), and there wasn't any debate on the issue. If there had been a Hugh B. Brown in the FP in the 1850's, things may have been different.

Conversely, there was much disagreement over the Adam-God teachings from other apostles (especially Orson Pratt), and it never fit comfortably into the established doctrines.

[BCSpace]

I would guess it's because the Priesthood Ban fit into their worldview (and scriptural view), and there wasn't any debate on the issue. If there had been a Hugh B. Brown in the FP in the 1850's, things may have been different.

Doubt it. I've never seen any inherent racism in the ban or in their worldview. To us it might look as racism, but that would be presentism imho. The scriptures, on the other hand, don't seem to have changed enough not teach a ban.

[cinepro]

Doubt it. I've never seen any inherent racism in the ban or in their worldview. To us it might look as racism, but that would be presentism imho. The scriptures, on the other hand, don't seem to have changed enough not teach a ban.

Ummm...the ban was based on race. Official Declaration 2 specifically says "race or color".

There might be disagreement on whether the ban originated with God or man, and whether it was justified racism (i.e. "God ordered it, so it was ok", or situations like "affirmative action" which are racist but given justification), but there can be no doubt that the ban was "racist", regardless of the era in which it originated.

And even if it is "presentist" to call it racist for the 1850's, certainly it wouldn't be "presentist" to call the continuation of the ban into the 1970's racist. Unless you are arguing that we can't judge the 1970's by the morals of the 2000's.

[Jason]

Was either idea actually originated by Brigham Young?

The priesthood ban seems to me to pre-date him, while what most people mean by the "Adam God Theory" is a set of after-the-fact inferences of what Brigham Young actually taught.

[Jason]

Ummm...the ban was based on race. Official Declaration 2 specifically says "race or color".

There might be disagreement on whether the ban originated with God or man, and whether it was justified racism (i.e. "God ordered it, so it was ok", or situations like "affirmative action" which are racist but given justification), but there can be no doubt that the ban was "racist", regardless of the era in which it originated.

And even if it is "presentist" to call it racist for the 1850's, certainly it wouldn't be "presentist" to call the continuation of the ban into the 1970's racist. Unless you are arguing that we can't judge the 1970's by the morals of the 2000's.

You seem to be using two different senses of the word "racist" there.

[HanClinto]

Adam-God was never BY's teaching as, for example, such must suppose that BY rejected some fundamental LDS doctrines already extant.

Wait, I'm trying to follow what you're saying here.

Are you saying that BY didn't teach Adam-God doctrine from the pulpit?

--clint

[cinepro]

You seem to be using two different senses of the word "racist" there.

If there is a "sense" of the word in which the Priesthood Ban could be considered not "racist", then I admit I haven't heard it yet.

[Jason]

If there is a "sense" of the word in which the Priesthood Ban could be considered not "racist", then I admit I haven't heard it yet.

Racist in the pejorative "this is very bad and evil" sense or racist in the sense of "being tied to race"?

[paulpatter]

. . . But whether or not it was Adam-God or Adam Sr./Jr., the difference is that they are not supported by scripture whereas the Priesthood ban is.

The priesthood ban is supported by scripture? Please elaborate.

[cinepro]

Racist in the pejorative "this is very bad and evil" sense or racist in the sense of "being tied to race"?

If you don't have to justify the Priesthood Ban, is there really much difference between the two?

I tend to subscribe to a strict view of racial equality that makes me believe the only difference between "races" (at birth) are superficial differences in skin tone and outward appearances.

[Jason]

If you don't have to justify the Priesthood Ban, is there really much difference between the two?

Yes. The ban was not in the sense of "these are inferior people, therefore we deny them privileges," but "these are people that matches a specific set of racial characteristics that God tells us to deny the priesthood."

God's restriting the priesthood to just the Levites was racist in one sense but not the other as well.

I tend to subscribe to a strict view of racial equality that makes me believe the only difference between "races" (at birth) are superficial differences in skin tone and outward appearances.

Which is not entirely accurate. There are some genetic predispositions as well. I sunburn much more easily than my african american nephew does, for instance, whereas he has a greater chance of developing sickle-cell anemia.

[paulpatter]

Yes. The ban was not in the sense of "these are inferior people, therefore we deny them privileges," but "these are people that matches a specific set of racial characteristics that God tells us to deny the priesthood."

How do you reconcile your statement with this:

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence [underlining added] that is generally bestowed upon mankind." --Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:290, Oct. 9, 1859

Wasn't BY referring to an "inferior people"?

[David T]

Wait, I'm trying to follow what you're saying here.

Are you saying that BY didn't teach Adam-God doctrine from the pulpit?

--clint

BCSpace is of the belief, as is Elden Watson, that Brigham Young was speaking in code, and that in all cases in which he spoke of Adam as God, he was referring to Elohim with the name-title Adam, and that the Adam we know from that Garden was named after his dad, and that although Brigham Young never clearly distinguished between Adam Jr. and Adam Sr. , that this is what President Young must have meant. In the cases in which the copies of the discourses contradict this reading, it is because the transcripts are inaccurate, and must have left something important out.

According to the BCSpace / Elden Watson reading of these texts, Brigham Young never ever could have thought or taught that Adam in the Garden of Eden was actually God the Father,Michael, the father of our spirits, and the literal father of Jesus Christ. When Brigham Young said Adam was all these things, he really meant Adam Sr. - Elohim.

I used to hold to the Elden Watson school of thought, quite vigorously, but now think is actually quite detrimental to understanding (and coming to terms with) the progression of the institutional understanding and clarifying of the Restoration Doctrines.

[cinepro]

Yes. The ban was not in the sense of "these are inferior people, therefore we deny them privileges," but "these are people that matches a specific set of racial characteristics that God tells us to deny the priesthood."

paulpatter has provided a quote which contradicts this claim. Do you have any quotes from Brigham Young (the originator of the ban as far as we know) that support it?

[cinepro]

Which is not entirely accurate. There are some genetic predispositions as well. I sunburn much more easily than my african american nephew does, for instance, whereas he has a greater chance of developing sickle-cell anemia.

Of course. Even Ginger theory acknowledges genetic predispositions with their recognition of the "day walker" class of Ginger.

[Joseph Antley]

Two things:

1) The Priesthood ban had to be institutionally enforced, whereas Adam-God was just a teaching.

2) As others have already said, Adam-God was foreign both to previous LDS teachings as well as to the scriptures, whereas the Priesthood ban fit perfectly with the teachings of the scriptures and the general attitude towards blacks in the nineteenth century.

[Olavarria]

One theory fit comfortably with the preconcieved notions of the people; the other didn't.

[Olavarria]

One theory fit comfortably with the preconcieved notions of the people; the other didn't.

ps.

I make a distinction between the band and the teaching used to uphold the ban. On this thread, I'm reffering to the teachings.

[Cold Steel]

The Priesthood ban had to be institutionally enforced, whereas Adam-God was just a teaching.

I totally agree.

Several things bother me about the priesthood ban. One, it's in none of the revelations given to Joseph Smith in the Doctrine & Covenants, which is essentially a priesthood handbook. Two, Joseph Smith, himself, didn't seem to be aware of the ban. Three, the blacks who had been ordained did not have their authority curtailed in any way. Four, while the Book of Abraham seems to show an awareness of this doctrine, it should have come to Joseph Smith via revelation before he ordained anyone who may have been blocked.

Having said all that, we don't know that it was necessarily a mistake. The Adam-God doctrine, on the other hand, has been proffered by some members of the church as just total fabrication on the part of Brigham Young. On this I'm unsure, as well. In many other discourses, Young seemed well aware of who the Father was, who the Son was and that Michael was Adam. As far as I know, the doctrine was never canonized. Some aspects of the doctrine may be true, such as:

[Adam] was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth.

The implications of this in regard to ourselves is significant. Will faithful saints of all ages be obliged to do the same? Who knows? The entire concept and doctrine was never canonized, nor is Brigham Young still around to ask about it.

If the priesthood ban was entirely a mistake on the church's part, why did the Lord steadfastly refuse to reverse it. President McKay indicated on at least one occasion that the Lord had told Him to trouble Him no more on the matter and did so with some sharpness, indicating that it was to be left to "another." President Kimball, the 12th president of the church, was that person (12 is also considered representative of the priesthood in apocalyptic literature -- 12,000 x 12 tribes = 144,000). It could be that the Lord had a reason for excluding blacks from the priesthood, one to which we're not privy. As members, we continue to dredge it up, but the Lord determines both doctrine and covenants in His church, and the answer as to why this or that survived and this or that didn't is unknown. In the end, only the Lord knows.

.

[Markk]

It seems that Brigham Young was the source for two singular doctrines in the LDS Church; one being the Adam-God Theory, and the other being the Priesthood Ban.

The Adam-God Theory did not catch on.

The Priesthood Ban did.

Any thoughts as to why?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Hi Consig,

I believe it really isn't a complicated issue. BY's Adam God teachings was challenged from the gate, by Orson Pratt and the LDS church in England, if I remember correctly they almost split over the teaching, while racism wasn't even "racism" to most Americans, and it only made sense in that American culture more or less demanded Blacks as inferior, while American culture being founded on Judeo Christian values wouldn't have bought into BY's Adam God theory for one minute. BY being "the man" in Zion had the power and authority to keep Adam God going while he lived, after his death it died, but racism is still part of our culture.

I believe those LDS members here that still defend the AGT as not being taught, after all the evidence shows different, is a solid argument as to why it didn't take off.

Mark

[soren]

You didn't need to rephrase on my account. There's no scriptural support for Adam-God as far as I can tell as and I think that's the best answer imho. Feel free to elucidate as to what verses you think support it.

As far as I can tell, Adam-God has much better scriptural warrant than the priesthood ban. I would not be surprised if it turned out that Young derived the Adam-God doctrine through an exegesis of D&C 27:11, 116:1, and 138:38, which all refer to Adam as "Ancient of Days," describing him as "prince" and "father of all" who will visit "his people," etc. It's all pretty divine-sounding.

In Young's General Conference address introducing the Adam-God doctrine, he refers to Adam specifically as "Ancient of Days." (This is written in all caps, so I suspect he did something vocally to emphasize the importance of this title.) If you look at the presentation of the Ancient of Days in Daniel (cf. D&C 116:1) and compare it to the figure on the heavenly throne in Revelation it is very easy to see that it is a title of God. I have labored in vain to find a commentator on Daniel who does not think the Ancient of Days is God.

The best Mormon explanation I know of for the problems this makes is to claim that Adam is God because there have been historically two distinct divine presidencies. The first was the creation Presidency of Elohim, Jehovah and Michael; the second is Elohim, Jehovah, and the Holy Spirit. Michael's inclusion in the first of the presidencies explains why he is God.