Adam-God teachings

[Obiwan]

For me, if I was to again believe in the LDS teaching of eternal progression, Adam-God would have to be an integral part- It is the only thing that makes the whole thing work, IMO.

No it's not.... Not even close. Your statement only show's how little you really know and understand LDS Theology.

Otherwise, the Temple would teach what you have just said, however it teaches something that is completely opposite, and ALWAYS DID, even when Brigham was around. It's not one of the "changes" either. No doctrine or teachings that are ideologically based was changed in the Temple.

[CQUIRK]

I have read many of his statements and they seem pretty out line to me.

Then you haven't studied enough.

I've read quite a bit from apologists who state that he was simply wrong about it.

Really? Because not all apologists have the same view on it and many thought his teaching was correct to an extent, only he didn't elaborate enough to clarify.

From what I've read about the Adam-God theory, I can't come up with an interpretation that fits within the teachings of the scriptures.

Then may I suggest pulling your head out of your other end and study the scriptures & evidence better.

Go ahead and bring up those quotes and links. I'd be interesting in hearing other viewpoints.

Many of the posters have brought up links and quotes, but this one is a good read-

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

[David T]

Brigham taught Adam/God, but he didn't teach the anti-mormon (and rare LDS who are confused) version of Adam/God.

Brigham was simply teaching what is still taught in the Temple today. I frankly don't understand why it's so difficult.

Please outline with what you believe Brigham was teaching. Have you read the article I linked that was presented at and is hosted at FAIR? Do you feel that it is wrong? Please point out specifically where you think it is inaccurate.

Even further, many more times during the same period we have many more records of him teaching the "traditional" understanding of Adam. Clearly then, he wasn't teaching the commonly repeated perversion of his words, he was teaching something else.

Please lay out what you think the 'Perversion of his words' are. Your terms 'Anti-Mormon version' and 'what is still taught in the Temple' are vague assertions.

Any mormon that thinks Brigham was teaching what anti's especially think he was teaching simply need to study more and think differently more, look at things in a different way.

You haven't given anything of substance except for vague assertions. Make clear your position, and then back it up, please. In other words, CFR.

It's the same with the "sex with Mary" idea. That was NEVER what those LDS leaders were teaching, such is an extreme pervision and an ignoring of LDS teachings and contexts.

While another point completely, I think a few leaders did believe such a thing, and articulated as such. I do not believe that speculation, however.

Of course, prophets sometimes do make mistakes, and such is easily determined/dicerned for ourselves by the scriptures, Holy Ghost, other prophets, and the Priesthood we also have. Most of the so-called mistakes claimed by anti-mormons are perversions of their words and our theology, not actual mistakes. What's left over is the rare human error and some personal views that aren't and never were the Restored Gospel, no matter how much anti-mormons and the rare misinformed more wish to make such, such as the idea that the Church was once racist.

There were many individuals in the Church who were once racist, and it is my believe that the Priesthood restriction was the perpetuation of a non-scriptural racist protestant tradition, and not having anything to do with revelation. That was the conclusion of President Kimball, Bruce McConkie, and several others, which conclusion was brought to the Lord, with a powerful confirmation as a result.

I'm willing to engage this discussion, but you need to present something that can be engaged.

[Skylla]

Then you haven't studied enough.

Really? Because not all apologists have the same view on it and many thought his teaching was correct to an extent, only he didn't elaborate enough to clarify.

Then may I suggest pulling your head out of your other end and study the scriptures & evidence better.

Many of the posters have brought up links and quotes, but this one is a good read-

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

CQUIRK:

You could have made the same point more respectfully.

Skylla

[CQUIRK]

CQUIRK:

You could have made the same point more respectfully.

Skylla

I don't treat everyone with kid gloves, neither did Brother Rockwell.

BTW, why do you have that as your avatar?

[BCSpace]

[mbh26]

But, it shows that prophets can be wrong about things that aren't exactly critical to salvation.

Why can't we each define the truth to the extent that God helps each of us see the right by the spirit for ourselves without always being held against what one man with a title said in the past, argued against what another man with a title said at another time. We all have different paradigms and it is just not possible for every person to agree on every thing right now even when it comes to things that are critical to salvation. I suspect there are many truths that are critical to salvation that not everyone and perhaps nobody knows yet.

I've come down a hard road discovering a lot of truths are not taught in Church and are not welcome in Church. The other problem is that I believe had I been alive at the time and permitted to ask Brigham Young at that conference if Adam-God were critical to my salvation, he'd probably have slapped me upside the head and shouted, "Why do you think I went to the trouble of preaching it in conference! Believe your leaders or be dammed!" Or what if I had said, "President Young is this your opinion based on the level of light and knowledge you've received or is it the absolute truth and am immutable Church doctrine?" Does anyone here not believe I would have gotten anything other than an irate and retalitatory authoritarian response? Does anyone believe that anyone would ever be permitted to ask a Church leader such a question today, much less get an answer? Most leaders today would not be able to answer a question like that because it would make them so angry they probably would not be able to speak in a civil manner. What happens when you ask a doctor, lawyer, insurance salesmen, or any other man who works in some our worlds illustrious and dishonest professions something he does not know. He doesn't say I don't know. He just confidently starts loudly spouting things he does know until he has drowned out your question.

Why do we have to have a Church? Isn't part of having a brain and having free agency finding and judging truth from error for ourselves? What is pertinent to your salvation that cannot be answered by a prayer and revelation through the Holy Ghost?

[David T]

Matthew Brown's explaination is plausible but when you look at the entire Nuttall entry, one still can't help but see Adam Sr and Adam Jr with the "slight" digression that Adam Sr. lives with Eve Jr. but perhaps that is just Eve Sr. reentering the world by birth?

So.. you don't think in the case of Brigham Young that what he said is what he meant? Seriously, the biggest, most gigantic flaw in the Adam Jr/Sr is that he never made this distinction clear, even when individuals came against him for this teaching. We have no record of him saying, "Oh, you misunderstood me. When I said Adam this time, I meant Adam Senior, and in the very next sentence, I meant someone completely different, Adam Jr! I don't know why you didn't get that. I was so clear!"

Bottom line, even though confusing, the best and simplest way to view this particular tidbit with the least internal conflict is with an Adam Sr/Jr hypothesis.

I think the least confusing and simplest way is to read the accounts of Brigham's discourses at face value, and to believe they teach what he said, and not create a new naming scheme he never differentiated.

Let's look at Nutall again:

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he 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. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child.

Really? You get from this that there is more than one person being referred to as Adam? Really?

[BCSpace]

I like Van Hale's analysis from 1983. This has been circulating on the internet from the earliest days the internet went up to the public.

After examining the evidence, however, I soon became convinced that on at least two occasions Brigham Young had taught a concept which generally has not been accepted by Mormons--namely, that God the Father, the Father of our spirits and the Father of Jesus (of both his body and his spirit), came to this earth, took upon himself mortality, and was known as Adam, the progenitor the of human family. Simply stated, according to President Young, God the Father became Adam. (Journal of Discourses [JD] 1:50; Deseret News, June 18, 1873). Later I found several other references in which President Young hinted at this belief. (JD 4:216-218, 271; 5:331; 6:274; 7:290; 11:41,42).

To me, they are taken out of context, but the context is broader than the surrounding paragraphs of those particular references; all of BY's statements on the matter of Adam etc. It is difficult to see that initially when one is not familiar with that larger context. I despaired for a time of being able to account for it satisfactorily though I never felt it catastrophic to my faith because I knew the definition of LDS doctrine. And then I stumbled across Elden Watson's Adam Sr./Jr. which confirmed a pattern I had also noticed.

I understand many don't like it, but I've been able to continue to successfully argue it so it remains my favorite explaination.

[BCSpace]

So.. you don't think in the case of Brigham Young that what he said is what he meant?

I think he did.

Really? You get from this that there is more than one person being referred to as Adam? Really?

Yes I do. See my explaination and the clincher.

[StuddleyG]

Many of the posters have brought up links and quotes, but this one is a good read-

http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God

I have read this article before. I have considered all the apolegetic approaches that are listed: Patriarch of the human family, scribal error, adam jr./adam sr., Brigham was wrong, and we don't know.

By using Occam's Razor, the most probable explanation would be "Brigham Young was Wrong." The other explanations seem too convoluted, but I'll still look into them a little more.

[CQUIRK]

I have read this article before. I have considered all the apolegetic approaches that are listed: Patriarch of the human family, scribal error, adam jr./adam sr., Brigham was wrong, and we don't know.

By using Occam's Razor, the most probable explanation would be "Brigham Young was Wrong." The other explanations seem too convoluted, but I'll still look into them a little more.

Occam's Razor cannot be always applied to everything, unless you want the most simplest and lest detailed explanation, even if its not necessary the correct answer.

[Bob Crockett]

To me, they are taken out of context, but the context is broader than the surrounding paragraphs of those particular references; all of BY's statements on the matter of Adam etc. It is difficult to see that initially when one is not familiar with that larger context. I despaired for a time of being able to account for it satisfactorily though I never felt it catastrophic to my faith because I knew the definition of LDS doctrine. And then I stumbled across Elden Watson's Adam Sr./Jr. which confirmed a pattern I had also noticed.

I understand many don't like it, but I've been able to continue to successfully argue it so it remains my favorite explaination.

I think I can go with that, but who knows. What I do know is that professors of mine who knew Hugh Nibley well said that he had signed on to the Adam God theory but chose not to explain or discuss it. I interpret that to mean today that there are temple connotations but I lack the intelligence to grasp it.

The fly in the ointment is Elder McConkie's letter to England, but today I just think that was a reaction to the Ogden Krauts of the world.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No it's not.... Not even close. Your statement only show's how little you really know and understand LDS Theology.

Otherwise, the Temple would teach what you have just said, however it teaches something that is completely opposite, and ALWAYS DID, even when Brigham was around. It's not one of the "changes" either. No doctrine or teachings that are ideologically based was changed in the Temple.

I understand LDS Theology perfectly well, thank you.

Actually, the lecture at the veil taught Adam-God up until the early 1900's.

And I said if I was to believe again in the LDS teaching of "eternal progression" it would be an integral part. I am not trying to convince you of anything, my good man- so calm down.

[cdowis]

How do you deal with the Adam-God theory?

As I have discussed elsewhere, I have come across some evidence that BY told a church leader that he was going to play a great joke on the Saints, and this was orginally meant as that joke. It was likely a test whether the Saints would blindly follow the leaders, which he had warned against. BY was a participant in jokes which JS had played on the members (the "profitable" prophet incident, for example, with Dan Wells).

Anyway, I think it eventually took on a life on its own and got out of control.

[BCSpace]

I have come across some evidence that BY told a church leader that he was going to play a great joke on the Saints, and this was orginally meant as that joke.

Would be very interested in that reference when you are able to get it.

[Bob Crockett]

As I have discussed elsewhere, I have come across some evidence that BY told a church leader that he was going to play a great joke on the Saints, and this was orginally meant as that joke. It was likely a test whether the Saints would blindly follow the leaders, which he had warned against. BY was a participant in jokes which JS had played on the members (the "profitable" prophet incident, for example, with Dan Wells).

Anyway, I think it eventually took on a life on its own and got out of control.

Although President Young was known as a jokester and a mocker, and liked to mimic people he didn't like, somehow I think that this story is false. There are too many references to it and Orson Pratt took exception to it too often.

I just have a simplistic view of it. In Hebrew "Adam" means man. Son of Man (that is Jesus) is thus "Son of Adam." I suspect that Joseph Smith somewhere was speculating on that relationship -- "Son of Adam" = "Son of God." One of the titles of God is thus Man/Adam. Joseph Smith never filled in the blanks for President Young who was trying to repeat what he had heard Joseph say.

My little long-held speculation.

[HiJolly]

I just have a simplistic view of it. In Hebrew "Adam" means man. Son of Man (that is Jesus) is thus "Son of Adam." I suspect that Joseph Smith somewhere was speculating on that relationship -- "Son of Adam" = "Son of God." One of the titles of God is thus Man/Adam. Joseph Smith never filled in the blanks for President Young who was trying to repeat what he had heard Joseph say.

My little long-held speculation.

I've enjoyed the thread, and I think rcrocket is on to something here in regard to learning from the Hebrews. I always thought it was interesting that our D&C (27:11, 116:1, 138:38) speaks of Adam as the Ancient of Days, where the clear meaning (to many, at least) of the OT scripture (Daniel 7) concerning the AoD is that it is Heavenly Father.

This topic comes up every so often, and when it does I try to get mention in of something that I consider very important: Adam Kadmon.

HiJolly

[baddonkey]

I've enjoyed the thread, and I think rcrocket is on to something here in regard to learning from the Hebrews. I always thought it was interesting that our D&C (27:11, 116:1, 138:38) speaks of Adam as the Ancient of Days, where the clear meaning (to many, at least) of the OT scripture (Daniel 7) concerning the AoD is that it is Heavenly Father.

This topic comes up every so often, and when it does I try to get mention in of something that I consider very important: Adam Kadmon.

HiJolly

What is Adam Kadmon? Sorry, I don't remember you explaining it before. How does it relate to Adam/God?

[Nathair/|\]

What is Adam Kadmon? Sorry, I don't remember you explaining it before. How does it relate to Adam/God?

The symbol of Primordial Man, the first being to emerge with the creation of the cosmos is common to a number of religious and philosophical traditions. The Upanishads describe a primal man composed of the very elements which were to become the world. According to the Upanishads this "gigantic divine being" is both infinitely far and deposited near the innermost recesses of the human heart. Indeed, in the Hindu tradition, the Primordial Man is identified both with the entire Universe and the soul or essence of all things.Interestingly, a similar image is found in Plutarch who relates that the entirety of the heavens is arranged in the form of a macroanthropos, a colossal human being who is conceived as a model for the human world. For Plutarch, the sun is at the heart of this being and the moon, the sun

[bjw]

To kinda add to what others were saying of how this related to kabbalah, I think you really need to understand hermeticism and the hermetic view of God before properly understanding the Adam/God doctrine. Since going through the Scottish Rite 32nd degree and reading Albert Pike's view of God in Morals andk Dogma that relate to that degree, it seems to make more sense, and does seem compatable with the current LDS view.

If all things emenate from "the One," and the first Adam created a world, came to the world, became God, created other worlds, which eventually led to Earth, then this would seem to make more sense. Hermeticism and Kabbalah have always been popular in masonic circles, and with the founders of our church being mostly masons, this makes sense. I think over time the masonic elements have been changed to reflect a more mainstream Christian view, although I think the doctrine is still the same, just explained differently.

Also, the idea of a fall being beneficial is sometimes taught in theosophic and gnostic circles, which evolved from the same traditions as hermeticism.

[LeSellers]

Did you want to post something like this?

The symbol of Primordial Man, the first being to emerge with the creation of the cosmos is common to a number of religious and philosophical traditions. The Upanishads describe a primal man composed of the very elements which were to become the world. According to the Upanishads this "gigantic divine being" is both infinitely far and deposited near the innermost recesses of the human heart. Indeed, in the Hindu tradition, the Primordial Man is identified both with the entire Universe and the soul or essence of all things.Interestingly, a similar image is found in Plutarch who relates that the entirety of the heavens is arranged in the form of a macroanthropos, a colossal human being who is conceived as a model for the human world. For Plutarch, the sun is at the heart of this being and the moon, the sun

[Nathair/|\]

Did you want to post something like this?

The difference is that you bracketed the material with "code" tags when you may have wanted to use "quote" tags.

The difference is this:

Here's a "quote" tag pair:



Here's a "code" tag pair (except I had to mangle the closing tag by 
putting a space between the "[" and the "/" because it would 
have closed the illustration prematurely):
[code]material to display[ /code]

They look like this:

material to display

Lehi

Yeah, thanks. I thought I pressed the "Insert quotation" button when I accidentally pressed the "Insert code snippet button instead.

How embarrassing.

[Obiwan]

I understand LDS Theology perfectly well, thank you.

Actually, the lecture at the veil taught Adam-God up until the early 1900's.

And I said if I was to believe again in the LDS teaching of "eternal progression" it would be an integral part. I am not trying to convince you of anything, my good man- so calm down.

I'm well aware of the "letter" which claims this was taught and shares some of the ideas, we don't have the actual lecture either (in basically only the St. George Temple by the way), and according to that letter I can see what was taught or apparently so. There are also 4-5 lines empty prior to the line in the letter which seems to imply such and such. Anyway, I'm well aware of ALL of Brighams words on the matter, as well as others, and the bottom line to me is what President Kimball once said....

Latter-day Saint president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam

[kamenraider]

... Anyway, I'm well aware of ALL of Brighams words on the matter, as well as others, and the bottom line to me is what President Kimball once said....

Latter-day Saint president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam