Adam-God Theory/Doctrine: Why should or shouldn't it have been accepted.

[cion]

I would like to know what you feel are the merits or difficulties are with this teaching?

Why is it a failed hypothesis? What complications does it create for the present day CoJCoLDS?

Merits: Adam-God idea tells us God is someone we can relate to. It is easier for men to relate to him than it is for some women. If we are to believe that Adam is now God, it would easily follow that Eve is likely Heavenly Mother. For women (and some men) out there who find it easier and more comforting to worship a woman-God over a man-God, this idea has merit. Why would a person find more comfort in worshiping a genderless god? A genderless god is alien, at best.

I don't see any complications the Adam-God theory presents to current Mormon thought.

[consiglieri]

I thought he backed off, said he was misunderstood, and said things like it is "considerable a mystery" and "not pertinent to yours or my salvation" and effectively ceased teaching the concept for the latter part of his life.

Did he ever disavow the teaching?

I have studied the subject extensively and am pretty confident he never disavowed the teaching, nor said he was misunderstood.

I think he began to soft-pedal it in later years after its reception was not universal among the Mormons.

I also think its rejection by many was a source of disappointment to Brigham Young, and you can see that in some of his later comments.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LeSellers]

BY also seemed to think to support the notion of physical relations with Mary by the Father. This always seemed problematic to me, though I know there are some LDS who seem to follow this line of thinking.

I am really perplexed by the logic that lies behind this.

Why is this problematic? The assumed understanding of the passages in Matthew and Luke doesn't even make sense.

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

We could spend days discussing variant understandings of these verses. I'd point out that there are two things Gabriel said would happen: the Holy Ghost would prepare her for the event and the event Luke described as "the power of the Highest ... overshadow[ed her]". You'd doubtless insist on Matthew's telling us that Jesus' body was the "child of the Holy Ghost". That this can or cannot be reconciled with Luke's version would take days to resolve, if it ever were.

Whatever Brigham Young (and many of the other Brethren who spoke on the subject) may have thought about it, he did not say God had sexual relations with Mary. He was vague (perhaps solely out of due modesty, a characteristic sadly lacking in much of XXI discourse, but possibly due to his not knowing exactly what happened), but the point he and they were making was that Jesus Christ was literally the Son of God, that He inherited, among other traits, immortality from His Father as a necessary component of His own DA because, without it, He would not have been able to make the Atonement on our behalf.

That's because, were He mortal (the trait he did inherit from His mother), His death could not have been a sacrifice, irrespective of how He died: all die. But He was the exception to that rule, not due to some sort of magic or preferential position, but because He did not have to die

[David T]

I am really perplexed by the logic that lies behind this. . I'd point out that there are two things Gabriel said would happen: the Holy Ghost would prepare her for the event and the event Luke described as "the power of the Highest ... overshadow[ed her]". You'd doubtless insist on Matthew's telling us that Jesus' body was the "child of the Holy Ghost". That this can or cannot be reconciled with Luke's version would take days to resolve, if it ever were.

You appear to be unfamiliar with the regular literary use of parallelism for reinforcement. "The spirit came upon" and "The power of the highest overshadowing" are parallels. The spirit and power are synonymous in this context. Later developments of the understanding of the nature of God are being read into this passage in a way that there is no evidence was intended.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You appear to be unfamiliar with the regular literary use of parallelism for reinforcement. "The spirit came upon" and "The power of the highest overshadowing" are parallels. The spirit and power are synonymous in this context.

I would like for your to demonstrate this.

I don't think this is the case at all.

[Vance]

"The spirit came upon" and "The power of the highest overshadowing" are parallels. The spirit and power are synonymous in this context.

I just did a search for "spirit came upon" and I only got 1 hit.

1 Chr. 12:18 Then the spirit came upon Amasai, who was chief of the captains, and he said, Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse: peace, peace, be unto thee, and peace be to thine helpers; for thy God helpeth thee. Then David received them, and made them captains of the band.

And, "power of the highest" only got 1 hit as well. (Quoted above.)

How do you draw such a conclusion from such a small data base?

[David T]

I would like for your to demonstrate this.

I don't think this is the case at all.

Some brief examples of Luke using this poetic parallelism, common throughout the Old and New Testamaet, where B reinforces and clarifies what is said in A, but in different words:

Luke 1:1 (the same chapter of the verse under discussion, by the way)

A:And Mary said,

[cion]

Why is nobody discussing the merit of BY's doctrine when we plainly see there is at least some merit to it?

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

When did the approval of the 12 become necessary to establish the doctrine? Was the process for establishing doctrine different in Joseph Smith Jr's time than when Brigham Young was prophet?

D&C 26:2 The Law of Common Consent, the principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints.

[LeSellers]

You appear to be unfamiliar with the regular literary use of parallelism for reinforcement.

"Appear" is such a weak-kneed word. It lets you insult me without literally doing so.

I am more than familiar with parallelism as a Hebrew literary device. It happens I reject it in this case.

"The spirit came upon" and "The power of the highest overshadowing" are parallels. The spirit and power are synonymous in this context.

Every instance of parallelism does not follow the "A does X and B does Y: A=B & X=Y" formula.

Luke was not a Jew, so his use of such a Hebrew poetic structure would have been unusual, even if he had used Mark, "Q", or "L" as his source. Greeks and Jews did not write alike.

Later developments of the understanding of the nature of God are being read into this passage in a way that there is no evidence was intended.

Sez you.

• Luke was not Jewish.
  
• This is a Hebrew poetic device.
  
• God has always been what He is, there was no "later developments of the understanding of the nature of God", except insofar as what some (prominent) Jews in the I thought about Him was apostate. Luke was not among them.

Lehi

[consiglieri]

Luke was not a Jew, so his use of such a Hebrew poetic structure would have been unusual, even if he had used Mark, "Q", or "L" as his source. Greeks and Jews did not write alike.

Okay, now you're just showing off.

[CA Steve]

D&C 26:2 The Law of Common Consent, the principle operates for policies, major decisions, acceptance of new scripture, and other things that affect the lives of the Saints.

So revelation to a prophet from God is subject to the law of common consent?

[LeSellers]

Okay, now you're just showing off.

Indeed.

When someone insults me, a little showing off is de rigueur.

Lehi

[Cold Steel]

I'm convinced there's more to Adam than we know, but how much more is a mystery. Was he a resurrected being? BY and others thought he might be, but if he was, he could not die as we do (a separation of body and spirit), but rather, a separation of his body and the corruption he had taken into it over the 900+ years he was alive. Of course, every time President Young taught the doctrine, you had people like Orson Pratt coming along and saying, don't believe it!

Whatever his strengths, he's not around now to question. We know from other discourses he made that he knew the distinction between Adam, Jesus and Eloah ("Elohim"). We don't have any places where he said that Adam was Elohim, nor did he ever place Adam over Jesus. Church doctrine declares that Jesus will stand before Adam and receive all the keys of authority and an account of them, whereby he will then use those keys as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Then, at the end of the Millennium, he will stand before his Father and present the world and its inhabitants, glorified and redeemed, to him, thus fulfilling his role as Lord and Mediator.

Just how Brigham weaved it all together in his own mind I don't have the slightest clue. I sure would like ten minutes alone with him to ask him about it. I do believe that when all the facts are known, that we'll recognize Brigham as a prophet with strengths and weaknesses like all men. Looking at other discourses by other general authorities, I don't see the church falling apart over it or because of it. We made it to the early 21st Century with easily defensible doctrines and a church that's stronger now than ever.

.

[David T]

"Appear" is such a weak-kneed word. It lets you insult me without literally doing so.

No insult was intended. Chill out.

I am more than familiar with parallelism as a Hebrew literary device. It happens I reject it in this case.

Every instance of parallelism does not follow the "A does X and B does Y: A=B & X=Y" formula.

Luke was not a Jew, so his use of such a Hebrew poetic structure would have been unusual, even if he had used Mark, "Q", or "L" as his source. Greeks and Jews did not write alike.

You didn't address the example presented. Is your position that the examples are not an example of this form of poetic parallelism? Are you saying definitively that Luke did not use parallelism at all? Is that your position?

God has always been what He is, there was no "later developments of the understanding of the nature of God", except insofar as what some (prominent) Jews in the I thought about Him was apostate. Luke was not among them.

I make a distinction between the nature of who and what God is and how he has been understood. I think the Testaments make clear that belief in God, and being called to a prophetic office do not make one instant experts on all aspects of the nature of God. Even if our modern dispensation, we see in the Lectures on Faith a significantly different understanding of the nature of the Godhead than we understand today. Do I hold that this means that God has changed? No. Our understanding of his revealed nature, however, has.

When one converts to a new faith, a new paradigm, old assumptions are brought with them unless specifically contradicted. It's natural. It happened demonstrably in the early years of the restoration. It happens with converts to every faith today - including ours.

It can be (and has been, recently, and also is presently) clearly demonstrated that even in the Restoration, there have been significant developments in the Church's understanding of the nature of God.

My changing understanding of something does not change the nature of that something.

[Vance]

In another thread, I posted 22 statements from Brigham Young in which he clearly and exhaustively documented exactly what it was he meant.

The feeling that he did not do so is a result of later attempts to discount and/or diminish the teaching itself.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. to Silver Knight--Brigham Young never rejected his own teachings regarding Adam-God.

You mean that thread in which Pahoran has taken you to the wood shed?

If they were so clear why did you have insert so much editorial material?

[TAO]

Thanks TAO,

Your quote was certainly insightful and completely relevant to the topic. I wanted to also interject a BY quote from the sited outlay in linked in the OP.

No prob.

I suppose I am trying to get a better grasp of how things actually did work in the early post JS era of the CoJCoLDS specifically as it pertains to the AGT, but also in a general sense as well.

BY seems to be asserting that his teachings were disapproved of in the one quote.

In the other he seems to be asserting that the believer does have some authority to gauge for themselves if they are being instructed correctly by a Prophet through general consensus amongst believers. Sort of institutes a separation of powers.... kind of like legislative and judiciary, but that's a poor grasp at analogy of it.

Yah, that's kinda how he viewed it... I remember another quote that had the same jist... he believed that every believer had to determine for his or herself what was right and wrong... it's one of the things I admire about him =).

Regardless, this "atmosphere" that all this was going on in seems different from what I see from modern LDS. However, modern LDS don't seem faced with dealing with the introduction of new teachings or doctrine in the same sense. The modern atmosphere might be very equivalent if T. Monson espoused something that created mixed viewpoints.

Perhaps. I don't know. I think, perhaps the people at the time needed something different - maybe they were not talking enough to God themselves. I think Brigham did what he thought was best for them. As for nowdays, I think the Lord wants to emphasize trusting the prophet because people are very confused these days, and the prophet will lead them in the right direction. I have several of President Monson's books, and I know he is the prophet - he has the right spirit, that he does =).

I am getting the idea, that questioning the teaching of leadership by the membership was more commonplace in that era and may have simply been mutually and generally accepted by all as par for the course.

Nowdays, it isn't so much questioning the leadership that is not accepted... it is causing others to question the leadership that they act on. If you choose such for yourself, I believe they will let it be, but when you start taking that into another person's life, causing confusion which the Lord doesn't want, that's when they take action. But yes, I think it is because the days may be getting harder soon... I don't know.

Speculatively, I wonder JS had espoused these teachings rather than BY if the concept would be treated differently. Or if such an "atmosphere" was just as prevalent in JS Presidency as well.

Sorry, I don't know much about the time period... but I suspect JS would be with BY... telling us to follow the modern day prophet. I think that it is what the Lord wants us for this time, that I do. Not to not think about it first, but to trust in him more than we have before.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

IIRC BY also seemed to think to support the notion of physical relations with Mary by the Father. This always seemed problematic to me, though I know there are some LDS who seem to follow this line of thinking.

Yes, I am one who tends to follow that line... though I realize it could be in other ways, that is the one that makes the most sense to me. =)

[Ray Callis Hatton III]

So revelation to a prophet from God is subject to the law of common consent?

If the revelation is intended for the church, yes, that is how it is been set up. Though the Church is not a "democracy," nor do we "vote". Common consent give leaders a chance to discuss and debate callings, policies, and at higher levels, even doctrines. A time for voicing of criticisms, disagreements, and concerns so that all things are done in order. If you don't have consent, you could have an event like after Peter's vision of the "unclean" animals where he was told "what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15-35) that was meant to allow them to convert Gentiles. Peter caused a lot of controversy over what Paul called "the gospel of circumcision" (Gal. 2:7) and Paul even "withstood him to the face," at Antioch (Gal 2:11). It was causing so much of a disruption in the church that the Apostles all had to gather in Jerusalem to resolve the issue and to determine and write their unified position (Acts 15). Even the head of the church and the apostles can be at great odds with each other without common consent.

[CA Steve]

If the revelation is intended for the church, yes, that is how it is been set up. Though the Church is not a "democracy," nor do we "vote". Common consent give leaders a chance to discuss and debate callings, policies, and at higher levels, even doctrines. A time for voicing of criticisms, disagreements, and concerns so that all things are done in order. If you don't have consent, you could have an event like after Peter's vision of the "unclean" animals where he was told "what God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15-35) that was meant to allow them to convert Gentiles. Peter caused a lot of controversy over what Paul called "the gospel of circumcision" (Gal. 2:7) and Paul even "withstood him to the face," at Antioch (Gal 2:11). It was causing so much of a disruption in the church that the Apostles all had to gather in Jerusalem to resolve the issue and to determine and write their unified position (Acts 15). Even the head of the church and the apostles can be at great odds with each other without common consent.

Do you believe this was the process by which Joseph Smith Jr. gave revelations to the church? I would be interested in examples that showed this was the normal way for his revelations to have been reviewed. My view is that he dictated revelations, which were written down and given to the church. For the most part, I believe there was not a lot of consent going on after the fact. How many of Joseph Smiths revelations from God to the Church are not considered doctrine?

[thesometimesaint]

CA Steve:

There is a difference between revelation and doctrine. Anyone/everyone is entitled to revelation for themselves, and those they have authority over. But to be considered doctrine for the whole Church it must meet the requirements of Common Consent.

[CA Steve]

CA Steve:

There is a difference between revelation and doctrine. Anyone/everyone is entitled to revelation for themselves, and those they have authority over. But to be considered doctrine for the whole Church it must meet the requirements of Common Consent.

I understand, but we are talking about an instance where doctrine was given through a revelation. So when a prophet says he has a revelation to give to the church from God, and that revelation contains doctrine, is it still subject to common consent? If that is true it almost sounds like God's words are subject to man's opinions.

[thesometimesaint]

CA Steve:

The Church isn't a dictatorship, and God doesn't make sock puppets. We have a long established procedure(back to the very beginnings of the Church) by which doctrine is established. No mortal is infallible so we(the Church) determine for ourselves what we are willing to be bond by. It is in essence the Law of Agency.

Revelation OTOH is the means by which the will of the Lord is given. For instance if BY personally believed in people living on the sun. He is entitled, under our beliefs, to have that personal opinion. What we don't allow is the personal opinion of any one man, or small group of men to determine that people living on the sun is a doctrine of the Church.

[CA Steve]

CA Steve:

The Church isn't a dictatorship, and God doesn't make sock puppets. We have a long established procedure(back to the very beginnings of the Church) by which doctrine is established. No mortal is infallible so we(the Church) determine for ourselves what we are willing to be bond by. It is in essence the Law of Agency.

Revelation OTOH is the means by which the will of the Lord is given. For instance if BY personally believed in people living on the sun. He is entitled, under our beliefs, to have that personal opinion. What we don't allow is the personal opinion of any one man, or small group of men to determine that people living on the sun is a doctrine of the Church.

Do you mean that when a prophet says God gave him a revelation, the prophet can be wrong about what God told him? If possible, I would like a direct answer to that question.

ETA. TSTS, I am not trying for a gotcha moment here. I really think BY taught Adam-God and that he was just wrong about it. I do find the part about a prophet being wrong when he is trying to give the church doctrine via revelation an interesting conversation. If that happens, then I would like to explore other areas where it might of happened, perhaps King Follett. I am also interested if 'Common Consent' can change it's course such as might have been the case with the blacks and the priesthood. Those are probably other threads.

[LeSellers]

Do you mean that when a prophet says God gave him a revelation, the prophet can be wrong about what God told him?

This is what Brother Brigham said on the subject.

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. Discourses of Brigham Young, selected and arranged by John A. Widtsoe, p.135

There is an alleged incident (antis like to make hay of it, but their hay is just straw, in my opinion)

[David Whitmer] persuaded Joseph to inquire of the Lord, with the result, as David states it, that he "received a revelation that some of the brethren should go to Toronto, Canada, and they would sell the copyright." Accordingly, Oliver Cowdery and Hirum Page, the latter being one of the eight witnesses, went to Canada to sell the copyright, but failed. David Whitmer represents that this failure threw the little group of believers into great trouble, and they went to the Prophet and asked him to account for the failure. The Prophet frankly acknowledged his inability to understand the cause of the failure, and inquired of the Lord. He received for answer