Jump to content

Adam is "the future God of this earth"?


mapman

Recommended Posts

I have recently been blessed with getting accepted into BYU, which has come along with access to several wonderful databases, including Selected Collections from the Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. DVD 30 includes letterbooks of Joseph F. Smith from 1875-1917. One of the letters that I found to be particularly interesting was box 34, folder 1, pp. 26-27. Here is a complete transcription:

Feb. 27, 1902.

Bishop Edward Bunker,

Bunkerville, Lincoln Co., Nevada.

Dear Brother:-

Your letter of the 9th inst. reached me on the 14th, and in reply to the question therein contained, I have this to say: it is certainly unwise for the Elders or any other member of the Church to advocate doctrines that are not clearly set forth in the revealed word of God, and concerning which, in consequence, difference of opinion exist. No good can come from it, but on the contrary, much evil may result. Had the Lord desired or designed that such doctrines should be promulgated, He would have clearly and fully defined them, as he has those beautiful and simple laws and ordinances known as "the first principles of the Gospel". While it is far from my purpose to stifle thought and free speech among the brethren, or to brand as "false doctrine" any and every mistery of the kingdom, it is never the less my wish and my advice, in which Presidents Winder and Lund, my counselors, heartily join, that the Elders should not make a practice of preaching upon these abstruse themes, these partly revealed principles, respecting which there are such wide differences of belief.

What is called the Adam-God doctrine may properly be classed among the mysteries. The full truth concerning it has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative thereto, are out of place and improper. We disapprove of them and especially the public [pg. 2] expression of such views. In the absence of Elder K----, and without any oral or written statement by him as to his belief regarding this doctrine, we do not feel called upon, nor would it be right to pass judgment in his ease; but we will simply say that the accepted doctrine concerning our father Adam, the great sire of the human race, is as follows:

He is Michael, the Ancient of Days, the future God of this earth, when it shall become celestialized and shine like unto a sea of glass mingled with fire, the glorified home of celestial beings for ever. Hence Adam stands at the head of the human family, presides over them spiritually and temporally, and will come in due time as the Ancient of Days to call his children together, according to the scriptures, both ancient and modern. He will preside over them for ever, and be their God eternally; This, of course, after the Millennial reign of Christ. Christ is not Adam, nor is Adam Christ, but both are eternal Gods, and it may even be said Fathers, since they are the parents of eternal or spiritual children. As to the personality and position of each God, and as to which of all is the greatest, these are matters immaterial at the present time, and are at best but an unprofitable speculation. Let us be content with what is plainly revealed on this subject, namely: That though there be Lords many and Gods many, as the Apostle Paul declares, yet to us there is but one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

With kind regards, I am your brother, and friend,

[signed] Jos. F. Smith

I have never heard of the teaching that Adam is "the future God of this earth". Was this taught by Brigham Young? Does anyone have more information concerning this?

Link to comment
I have never heard of the teaching that Adam is "the future God of this earth". Was this taught by Brigham Young? Does anyone have more information concerning this?

Here's the answer.

"What is called the Adam-God doctrine may properly be classed among the mysteries. The full truth concerning it has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative thereto, are out of place and improper. We disapprove of them..."

Mysteries are only revealed to those who have shown themselves to be ready to accept them and who have asked for the answer from the proper source

Link to comment

I have never heard of the teaching that Adam is "the future God of this earth". Was this taught by Brigham Young? Does anyone have more information concerning this?

Brigham Young taught that Adam was "The Once and Future God" of this earth.

(Apologies to T.H. White.)

Jos. F. Smith is here in the process of adulterating Brigham Young's teachings.

And you caught him in the act.

Congratulations.

I hope you are planning on majoring in Criminology.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment
I have never heard of the teaching that Adam is "the future God of this earth".
Me neither, but it makes some sense.

Was this taught by Brigham Young?
I don't think Brigham Young used future tense verbs when he talked about Adam/God, but I could be wrong.

Does anyone have more information concerning this?
Not me.

Link to comment
Brigham Young taught that Adam was "The Once and Future God" of this earth.

(Apologies to T.H. White.)

Jos. F. Smith is here in the process of adulterating Brigham Young's teachings.

And you caught him in the act.

Congratulations.

Like every other of the Lord's prophets in this dispensation, President Joseph F. Smith was better than his accusers in every possible way.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

If the Celestial Kingdom is the Kingdom of God the Father, and the renewed Earth is the Celestial Kingdom, and Adam will be the "future" God of this Earth (the Celestial Kingdom)...

then it should be obvious JFS was teaching Adam-God.

Link to comment

I have recently been blessed with getting accepted into BYU, which has come along with access to several wonderful databases, including Selected Collections from the Archives of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. DVD 30 includes letterbooks of Joseph F. Smith from 1875-1917. One of the letters that I found to be particularly interesting was box 34, folder 1, pp. 26-27. Here is a complete transcription:

....

Hi mapman,

You should consider doing a comprehensive study of Adam-God statements in the databases you mention.

There is no doubt to me, and to many, that President Young taught a "different" doctrine of Adam and God than what is taught today in the church.

Andrew Ehat, who I happened to have in a math class once, told me later that the church leadership know full well that this is the case. But they believe President Young was wrong in what he was teaching.

The problem is that if President Young was wrong in his Adam-God teachings (which he more than once claimed he got from Joseph) then the church President today can also be wrong about serious matters. In fact, he can be wrong about President Young being wrong.

So in the end, what is really needed to resolve the matter?

I believe what is needed is further revelation. The 2BC revelations on this matter are very profound when read with the Spirit. I am certain they are just that: the further revelation needed.

But if a person believes it is a "done deal" that God would never allow the President of the church to make serious errors, how can this be resolved completely?

Adam-God continues to be a "bone of contention" in the church today just as it has been from President Young's time. It is very clear that the church simply does not have further revelation to really resolve the matter.

Richard

Link to comment

Like every other of the Lord's prophets in this dispensation, President Joseph F. Smith was better than his accusers in every possible way.

Regards,

Pahoran

I am not certain why stating a historically established fact should be considered an accusation against anyone.

Unless one has an aversion to historically established facts . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

If the Celestial Kingdom is the Kingdom of God the Father, and the renewed Earth is the Celestial Kingdom, and Adam will be the "future" God of this Earth (the Celestial Kingdom)...

then it should be obvious JFS was teaching Adam-God.

The idea that Adam will be the future God of this world is not the Adam-God Theory.

Rather it is an attempt by certain parties to pretend that is all Brigham Young taught in order to make it harmonize with what the LDS Church currently teaches.

What Brigham Young actually taught about Adam-God is not able to be harmonized with current LDS doctrine.

Briefly, it is this:

Brigham Young taught that Adam was a resurrected and exalted being from a prior world who had gone on to become a God. All this before this earth was created.

Adam had many spirit children with his wife, Eve (or wives), and then was placed in the Garden of Eden by Elohim and Jehovah, where he fell, thus becoming mortal once more, and beginning the process of providing physical bodies for his spirit children.

It is really not that difficult to understand what Brigham Young taught if we just allow him to speak for himself.

It is this teaching about Adam-God that has been systematically altered over the years to the point that Adam is not a past God or a current God, but that he will only become God of this world after his resurrection and exaltation from this planet.

This is why I said that, according to Brigham Young, Adam is the "Once and Future God."

The letter referenced in the OP is Joseph F. Smith being caught in the act at the ground floor of this alteration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

The idea that Adam will be the future God of this world is not the Adam-God Theory.

Rather it is an attempt by certain parties to pretend that is all Brigham Young taught in order to make it harmonize with what the LDS Church currently teaches.

What Brigham Young actually taught about Adam-God is not able to be harmonized with current LDS doctrine.

Briefly, it is this:

Brigham Young taught that Adam was a resurrected and exalted being from a prior world who had gone on to become a God. All this before this earth was created.

Adam had many spirit children with his wife, Eve (or wives), and then was placed in the Garden of Eden by Elohim and Jehovah, where he fell, thus becoming mortal once more, and beginning the process of providing physical bodies for his spirit children.

It is really not that difficult to understand what Brigham Young taught if we just allow him to speak for himself.

It is this teaching about Adam-God that has been systematically altered over the years to the point that Adam is not a past God or a current God, but that he will only become God of this world after his resurrection and exaltation from this planet.

This is why I said that, according to Brigham Young, Adam is the "Once and Future God."

The letter referenced in the OP is Joseph F. Smith being caught in the act at the ground floor of this alteration.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I know very well the Adam-God teaching having studied and previously believed it.. I believe you may not have understood my post or what I am seeing in JFS words.

Link to comment

I have recently been blessed with getting accepted into BYU

Congrats. My wife and I graduated from BYU in 1993. Here's some free advice. The taco salads at the Cougereat are amazing and very cheap. Also, do not build a sauna in the showers at Hinckley Hall. That can get you into hot water in more ways than one. Good luck.

Link to comment

I know very well the Adam-God teaching having studied and previously believed it.. I believe you may not have understood my post or what I am seeing in JFS words.

It may be that I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Fair enough.

For the record, I do not believe every tenet of the Adam-God Theory, though I think it is a sign that Brigham Young pondered his religion more than most Latter-day Saints.

But then, I do not believe every tenet of modern Mormon Doctrine regarding the issue, either.

Jesus our spirit Brother?

Gimme a break!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

It may be that I'm not seeing what you are seeing.

Fair enough.

For the record, I do not believe every tenet of the Adam-God Theory, though I think it is a sign that Brigham Young pondered his religion more than most Latter-day Saints.

But then, I do not believe every tenet of modern Mormon Doctrine regarding the issue, either.

Jesus our spirit Brother?

Gimme a break!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This is how I see the JFS quote...

By admitting Adam will be the future God of the Earth (the Celestial Kingdom), He is admitting that Adam is our Heavenly Father and already God, and Him being our Heavenly Father would make Him a past-tense also God because He was God when He made us as spirits. So He is admitting that Adam was, is, and will always be God.

Link to comment

This is how I see the JFS quote...

By admitting Adam will be the future God of the Earth (the Celestial Kingdom), He is admitting that Adam is our Heavenly Father and already God, and Him being our Heavenly Father would make Him a past-tense also God because He was God when He made us as spirits. So He is admitting that Adam was, is, and will always be God.

That's cool.

The way I see the JFS quote is taking a teaching of Brigham Young that Adam is the God of this world and the Father of all the spirits born into this world as human beings (which a lot of Mormons had problems with), and spinning it to make it future tense where Adam is just one of the many spirits "born" into this world and in his resurrection will become a God like everybody else.

This new and improved version entailed the idea that Adam really wouldn't be a God just like everybody else, but following the D&C, would be the God in charge of everybody else on this planet who becomes Gods.

Thinking it through, why should Adam become the God of all the Gods exalted from this world if he is just our spirit brother?

Come to think of it, how did Jesus become a God before he was born on this world if he is just our spirit brother?

Is it possible that Brigham's brilliance was manifest in his recognition that there are more relationships among divine and proto-divine beings than just one father (Elohim) and everybody else his spirit offspring?

Brigham thought in three dimensions whereas current Mormon Doctrine settles for two.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

That's cool.

The way I see the JFS quote is taking a teaching of Brigham Young that Adam is the God of this world and the Father of all the spirits born into this world as human beings (which a lot of Mormons had problems with), and spinning it to make it future tense where Adam is just one of the many spirits "born" into this world and in his resurrection will become a God like everybody else.

This new and improved version entailed the idea that Adam really wouldn't be a God just like everybody else, but following the D&C, would be the God in charge of everybody else on this planet who becomes Gods.

Thinking it through, why should Adam become the God of all the Gods exalted from this world if he is just our spirit brother?

Come to think of it, how did Jesus become a God before he was born on this world if he is just our spirit brother?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Bingo, that is a major point where LDS theology breaks down for me.

Link to comment

Bingo, that is a major point where LDS theology breaks down for me.

The Second Book of Consiglieri (3:16) holds that Jesus attained godhood in the premortal existence the same (and only?) way that everybody here can attain godhood.

By being resurrected after a mortal existence and exalted.

He is not our brother.

He is far superior to that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

The Second Book of Consiglieri (3:16) holds that Jesus attained godhood in the premortal existence the same (and only?) way that everybody here can attain godhood.

By being resurrected after a mortal existence and exalted.

He is not our brother.

He is far superior to that.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

How does an exalted, resurrected being then enter back into mortality through Mary's womb?

..just trying to work this down the conveyor belt in my linear mind..

Link to comment

How does an exalted, resurrected being then enter back into mortality through Mary's womb?

With God, all things are possible.

(Begins Andy Rooney impression) Didya ever notice how quick some Mormons are to put limits on the power of a God they claim is all-powerful?

Or as a wise bishop once told me, "God can probably change in and out of bodies the way we change clothes."

(You know something, that wise bishop actually posts from time to time on this board. Further your affiant sayeth not.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

The idea that Adam will be the future God of this world is not the Adam-God Theory.

Rather it is an attempt by certain parties to pretend that is all Brigham Young taught in order to make it harmonize with what the LDS Church currently teaches.

...

Hi,

I do not find your analysis convincing. Your explanation of what President Young taught about Adam seems correct. Clearly Adam/Michael was NOT Eloheim. Does not Eloheim have a celestial home?

The scriptures teach that this world will be celestialized. Will it not then be the celestial home of Michael? And will he not then become Eloheim? And will not Jesus then become Jehovah? And will not Abraham and Joseph Smith and others become Michaels? And will not the eternal round be continued?

So I do not agree that President Young's Adam-God teachings contradict the idea that Adam will be the future God/Eloheim of this world. Possibly President JF Smith, who was around President Young and all the General Authorities for years and years, really did understand it.

Richard

Link to comment

Congrats. My wife and I graduated from BYU in 1993. Here's some free advice. The taco salads at the Cougereat are amazing and very cheap. Also, do not build a sauna in the showers at Hinckley Hall. That can get you into hot water in more ways than one. Good luck.

Thanks!

Hi mapman,

You should consider doing a comprehensive study of Adam-God statements in the databases you mention.

There is no doubt to me, and to many, that President Young taught a "different" doctrine of Adam and God than what is taught today in the church.

Hi erichard. I may some day get around to the Brigham Young things in the database, but right now I am entranced with the designs for the Salt Lake Temple. I realize that what Brigham was teaching was different than what is taught now, but I had never heard Adam explained the way Joseph F. was explaining him, so I was surprised.

Link to comment

So I do not agree that President Young's Adam-God teachings contradict the idea that Adam will be the future God/Eloheim of this world.

Let me restate my position, then.

Regardless of the absolute truth of what pertains in the cosmos, it is clear President Young did teach that Adam is currently the God of this world.

He also taught that Adam will be the God of this world.

The first concept conflicts with current Mormon Doctrine. The second does not.

I see President Joseph F. Smith spinning President Young's teachings to reflect only the latter and claiming to not understand what he meant by the former. (An early instance of "I'm not sure we teach this"?)

Hence, Joseph F. Smith began the process of discounting those parts of President Young's Adam-God Theory that were conflicting and controversial and suggesting that all the Adam-God Theory entailed was that Adam will be the future God of this world.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Link to comment

Let me restate my position, then.

Regardless of the absolute truth of what pertains in the cosmos, it is clear President Young did teach that Adam is currently the God of this world.

He also taught that Adam will be the God of this world.

The first concept conflicts with current Mormon Doctrine. The second does not.

I see President Joseph F. Smith spinning President Young's teachings to reflect only the latter and claiming to not understand what he meant by the former. (An early instance of "I'm not sure we teach this"?)

Hence, Joseph F. Smith began the process of discounting those parts of President Young's Adam-God Theory that were conflicting and controversial and suggesting that all the Adam-God Theory entailed was that Adam will be the future God of this world.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I would say it differently. I would say that Joseph F Smith realized that there were probably problems in what President Young taught, but did not know how to resolve it. So, he mentioned the things about it that others could accept, and left the other things alone.

I agree, by the way, with that approach until more revelation is had by the church. I would rather be too willing to accept something that might have come by the spirit of revelation than risk denying it. But no use teaching it until it is reconciled with the previous scriptures.

But at least he was on the same page as President Young. He knew full well what had been taught, and did not deny it had been taught.

That is not the same as what happened later.

For instance, in "Adam who is he?" by an Apostle who had no excuse to not know the facts, it tried to spin it that the Adam-God teachings were all misunderstandings and misquotes. That is trying to rewrite history.

And now that we are in a high tech internet age-- that approach continues to backfire. The church needs to really deal with the matter, but they hesitate to, I believe, because it undermines the firmly entrenched "done deal" doctrine.

Richard

Oh, and also:

In the Mormon faith the term God does not mean one personage, as you know. So even though President Young taught that Adam was God, he also made it clear that Adam was not Eloheim. If a Mormon taught that Jesus was "God" before he came to earth that does not undermine the Mormon understanding of God, so why should Adam being "God" do so?

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...