Apologies...Again

[savedbygrace]

I sincerely apologise, I was only referring to the letter, I didn't realise that there was discussion of the Temple. On further examination of this site there is a tract about it that I wasn't aware of.

[T-Shirt]

I sincerely apologise, I was only referring to the letter, I didn't realise that there was discussion of the Temple. On further examination of this site there is a tract about it that I wasn't aware of.

If you would like to discuss Brigham Young and the so-called Adam-God doctrine, there are many here who would participate in your discussion, but it is bad form to link to another site without any commentary on your part. Share your thoughts and ask your questions and if you are respectful, others will join in.

[cinepro]

And search for previous discussions on the subject.

[savedbygrace]

Thankyou for your patience, to be honest I don't really want to discuss the pros and cons of the A/G doctrine, we have all seen and heard it. But, what intrigued me was that in the link previously referred to, apostle McConkie seemed to be saying that what BY said wasn't true, so did BY lie, or was he deluded, or what? My thoughts for what it is worth is that it was a false doctrine, which Apostle McConkie also seems to think, so I suppose I agree with him. It was what other LDS might think that I was interested in.

[thesometimesaint]

savedbygrace:

We have no theology that mandates that a prophet, or anyone other than Christ, is infallible. We allow all men their own thoughts and ideas. We have a long set method for determining what is our doctrine, and the speculations, conclusions, pondering(s), what have you, of any one man or small group of men just don't make it doctrine.

Edited March 12, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Calm]

so did BY lie, or was he deluded, or what?

Since I don't have access to the workings of his mind and since he isn't here to ask, I think the only really reasonable response to this would be "I don't know".

[ALarson]

But, what intrigued me was that in the link previously referred to, apostle McConkie seemed to be saying that what BY said wasn't true, so did BY lie, or was he deluded, or what?

I feel that Brigham Young sincerely believed what he taught regarding Adam being God. Why would he teach something he did not believe in? Why would he spend the years he preached this (and even added it to the temple instructions for those in attendance) if he was actually lying? That does not make any sense and there is absolutely no proof that he lied. I believe he simply was mistaken and was teaching what he personally believed.

[savedbygrace]

Since I don't have access to the workings of his mind and since he isn't here to ask, I think the only really reasonable response to this would be "I don't know".

Thanks for that at least that is an honest answer, but with so many references to it, and the fact that it was around for about 20 years in BY's time, and that he referred to it as doctrine, and he seems so definite s abpot it

[ERayR]

Thankyou for your patience, to be honest I don't really want to discuss the pros and cons of the A/G doctrine, we have all seen and heard it. But, what intrigued me was that in the link previously referred to, apostle McConkie seemed to be saying that what BY said wasn't true, so did BY lie, or was he deluded, or what? My thoughts for what it is worth is that it was a false doctrine, which Apostle McConkie also seems to think, so I suppose I agree with him. It was what other LDS might think that I was interested in.

It might be that we could declare it a false doctrine and it is when presented the way the critics and anti's present it. It also might be we could declare it true doctrine if we really knew and understood what BY meant. We have plenty of people giving their opinion from their viewpoint. We just don't have BY to explain.

[blackstrap]

Apostle Paul claimed he went to heaven and saw things that were " unlawful " for man to utter. I wonder what those things were. We have other places in scripture where prophets were shown visions and told not to talk about it. Why? Too sacred? Joseph Smith said that were he to reveal some of the things he was shown ,the people would rise up and destroy him, not because what he would reveal was false, but that the people would " shatter like glass" because of preconceived ideas,traditions and worldviews. Brigham Young left hundreds of quotes. Why some insist on plucking a tiny percentage of them to cry about is hard to understand.

[Yep]

My main issue with the sort of thread as these were is that they seem to be a misrepresentation. I dislike it when a discussion is started with a presentation of one concept or topic and then shortly we find that the real subject is, in this case, "Was Brigham Young a false prophet?" Be up front, present the support for your view, address understood/typical responses, present some form of rebuttal, then ask the question that you want the answer for (preferably all in the OP.)

I believe BY is most often simply misunderstood. I don't believe his statements truly conflict with our views. Adam-God theory is one of these instances of misunderstanding.

[MormonMason]

I actually tried to post something to the threads that ended up being locked mid-post. So, here is it again:

What do you think? <...link removed...>

Jeremiah 20:7 (NIV) O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived; you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me.

Jeremiah 4:10 (NIV) Then I said, "Ah, Sovereign LORD, how completely you have deceived this people and Jerusalem by saying, 'You will have peace,' when the sword is at our throats."

Jeremiah 15:18 (NIV) Why is my pain unending and my wound grievous and incurable? Will you be to me like a deceptive brook, like a spring that fails?

Jeremiah thought of God as unreliable and capable of deception.

The Bible, however, also declares concerning God:

Titus 1:2 (NIV) a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,

Did Jeremiah lie? Did Jeremiah teach false doctrine concerning the nature of God? What do you think?

Context is often important in determining just what someone really believed about something. Sometimes this context is very extensive. Sometimes it is completely unavailable. Did Brigham Young really believe what he taught (or, what we think he taught)? But, here is a little additional context for Brigham Young's teaching about Adam in relation to God--in case you are interested.

"I cannot believe that, for he is a God without body, parts, or passions; He has no person, therefore, I must disagree with you, brother Mormon." I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat Jesus Christ. Mr. B. believes He has no tabernacle. I believe He has a tabernacle, and begat Jesus Christ in His express image and likeness, because the Bible expressly declares it. You disbelieve it, because your priest and your mother have taught you it is not so. When your mothers first read this Scripture, it was so plain to their understandings and to their children, that they understood it as an angel would, but deacon Jones must be called in to explain, and he explained it away. So I disagree with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam. The priests of this age declare it is not so. The God Mr. B. believes in, is without body, parts, and passions. The God that his "brother Mormon" believes in, is described in the Bible as being a personage of tabernacle, having eyes to see, for he that made the eye shall he not see? Having ears to hear, for his ear are open to hear the prayers of the righteous. He has limbs that he can walk, for the Lord God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. He conversed with His children, as in the case of Moses at the fiery bush, and with Abraham on the plains of Mamre. He also ate and drank with Abraham and others. That is the God the "Mormons" believe in, but their very religious Christian brethren do not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which is the God the Bible sets forth, as an organized corporeal being. In this one point, you can now clearly see wherein we disagree.

(Journal of Discourses 1:238; as cited from LDS Library 2006; bold emphasis mine)

It is quotes like the one I just provided (and there are a number of them but I have no access to my notes to provide more at the moment) that led to Bruce R. McConkie saying what he did about Brigham Young contradicting Brigham Young.

There are two positions that have been taken up by many people who spend any great length of time researching this issue. One position is that Brigham Young was testing the Saints. Evidence for this position can be found in that President Young would make remarks of the falsest nature just to twit Orson Pratt and send him on a tirade. He even did this just before a Council meeting. And, all during this time he also issued warnings that he might teach false teachings so that the people might be damned unless they get the Spirit of the Lord in their lives so as to know the difference when he was teaching things that were true and things that were false.

Another position is that Brigham Young simply misunderstood something that Joseph Smith taught because of his own previous, religious traditions. Recall that traditional Christianity held to the idea that the person known as the Ancient of Days in the Bible was none other than God the Father (a view inherited in part from Judaism, adherents of which saw this as God). Along comes Joseph Smith identifying the Ancient of Days as Adam and obliquely referring to Adam as a god in a sense of organizational structure, and I can see why such an idea would take off for some, particularly under the influence of Heber C. Kimball, who (so far as I am aware) is the earliest person to have taught such an idea as was repeated by Brigham Young. Brigham Young also would jokingly refer to Kimball as his prophet from time to time.

This said, President Young never presented his ideas for doctrine and told the Saints that he "neither care[d] nor inquire[d] how" this is, and also stated to the Saints at other places that they should not concern themselves over it. That is not something that he would do if he intended the remarks to be believed and to become Church doctrine. I've been researching this issue for decades, have amassed several, large binders and folders full of information relative to this issue, and have yet to come to any solid conclusion about it. What I do know is that it never became doctrine of the Church.

[ALarson]

I believe BY is most often simply misunderstood. I don't believe his statements truly conflict with our views. Adam-God theory is one of these instances of misunderstanding.

Oh, I do not believe we misunderstand what Brigham Young stated. If you read everything he stated and wrote regarding this, there is little doubt that he believed Adam was God. He was very clear.

I simply believe he was mistaken. I do not think he was lying though and there is no evidence of this at all.

[Yep]

Oh, I do not believe we misunderstand what Brigham Young stated. If you read everything he stated and wrote regarding this, there is little doubt that he believed Adam was God. He was very clear.

I simply believe he was mistaken. I do not think he was lying though and there is no evidence of this at all.

I do not believe that BY believed that the Adam from Genesis was God the Father, the creator of our spirits. I also do not believe that BY's words support such. I believe that BY used titles too interchangably, and spoke in a manner that was not meant to be easily understood.

Journal of Discourses 1 pg 50-51

[Adam] is Michael, the Arch-angel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken - He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom We have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later ... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabenacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.

How could Adam, the first of the human family, be his own father? This section specifically states that Adam's father was his Father in heaven. It states that Christ was literally the physical offspring of Heavenly Father, in the same manner that Cain, Abel and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Given that the statement of Adam being our Father and God and the statement that Adam's father is his Father in heaven are conflicting, it is an error to assume that BY was stating that Adam was God the Father, imo.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Yep

[ALarson]

I believe that BY used titles too interchangably, and spoke in a manner that was not meant to be easily understood.

Really? I honestly cannot believe anyone would state this about Brigham Young's manner of speech! He spoke clearly, bluntly and precisely. He was not a man who minced words or spoke in puzzles or to confuse. I love this about him.

This has been discussed to death, but here are just a few quotes from BY regarding Adam / God:

When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.

Frustrated that many did not accept his teachings, BY stated this In 1861:

Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision.

These are just a couple of his quotes. I will not post a link to his "Lecture At The Veil", but you can read it online if you want. His beliefs are stated even clearer within this.

[Brian 2.0]

I feel that Brigham Young sincerely believed what he taught regarding Adam being God. Why would he teach something he did not believe in? Why would he spend the years he preached this (and even added it to the temple instructions for those in attendance) if he was actually lying? That does not make any sense and there is absolutely no proof that he lied. I believe he simply was mistaken and was teaching what he personally believed.

I agree with this statement.

[Ahab]

Thankyou for your patience, to be honest I don't really want to discuss the pros and cons of the A/G doctrine, we have all seen and heard it. But, what intrigued me was that in the link previously referred to, apostle McConkie seemed to be saying that what BY said wasn't true, so did BY lie, or was he deluded, or what? My thoughts for what it is worth is that it was a false doctrine, which Apostle McConkie also seems to think, so I suppose I agree with him. It was what other LDS might think that I was interested in.

What Brigham taught was true, but some people have incorrrectly understood and misrepresented his teachings as something other than what he was teaching. It's their false misrepresentations of what he taught that aren't true. And Brigham was teaching very basic doctrine which everyone should realize is the truth.

[halconero]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while I believe Adam-God theory to be false...I'm also not convinced that we completely know what Brother Brigham was talking about. One thing that is clear from his speeches is that he did not equate Adam with Elohim, who we now call God the Father. Brigham associated Michael with Adam, and yet called him God. I can't say where this leaves us...but what he said isn't so quickly sorted out into understandability.

Edited March 13, 2013 by halconero

[MormonMason]

There was something else I wanted to add to the discussion and that is that Joseph Smith had come into contact with various texts of Kabbalism through Alexander Neibaur. One thing that is a curiosity and which rings a bell with respect to this Adam-God business is that God is also known as Adam Kadmon (Archetypal Man or Primal Adam) in Kabbalistic thought, at one phase of the creation. The figure for this is the letters of the Tetragrammaton arranged in the form of a man, thus:

I can see this latter idea as having some influence on President Young and others, particularly considering what Brigham Young said about Joseph Smith teaching something about this at Luke Johnson's home. If God also could be called Adam, as in Kabbalistic thought, it would not be too difficult to see President Young going down that road and adding 2+2 to get 5, so to speak. He already had learned of Joseph's teaching regarding Adam being the Ancient of days and likely added the idea of Adam Kadmon to what he already knew and believed.

I am pretty certain that there was a small amount of Kabbalistic influence involved because of another comment that Joseph Smith made regarding the creation wherein he gave the Kabbalistic number of 2,555,000,000 as a figure regarding the age of the earth. I do not recall the source at the moment, however, but I do distinctly recall reading it and being surprised by it. The very idea mentioned by Brigham Young of "Adam and one of his wives" also rings of Kabbalistic thought, such as the underlying Jewish legendry of Adam's wives Lillith and Eve.

Fact is, prophets don't live in a vacuum. They sometimes know little more than their contemporaries in even the Bible (see the Introductory material to Dummelow's One-Volume Bible Commentary). Klausner's The Messianic Idea in Israel also has some interesting things to say about prophets being influenced in their teachings and political leanings by their surroundings.

I wish I were home with my books so I could quote a couple items...

Edited March 13, 2013 by MormonMason

[volgadon]

There was something else I wanted to add to the discussion and that is that Joseph Smith had come into contact with various texts of Kabbalism through Alexander Neibaur.

I don't remember if in the one kabbalistic book that it seems was almost certainly in Neibaur's possesion there was much or any discussion of Adam Kadmon.

One thing that is a curiosity and which rings a bell with respect to this Adam-God business is that God is also known as Adam Kadmon (Archetypal Man or Primal Adam) in Kabbalistic thought, at one phase of the creation. The figure for this is the letters of the Tetragrammaton arranged in the form of a man, thus:

I can see this latter idea as having some influence on President Young and others, particularly considering what Brigham Young said about Joseph Smith teaching something about this at Luke Johnson's home. If God also could be called Adam, as in Kabbalistic thought, it would not be too difficult to see President Young going down that road and adding 2+2 to get 5, so to speak. I am pretty certain that there was a small amount of Kabbalistic influence involved because of another comment that Joseph Smith made regarding the creation wherein he gave the Kabbalistic number of 2,555,000,000 as a figure regarding the age of the earth.

I do not recall the source at the moment, however, but I do distinctly recall reading it and being surprised by it. The very idea mentioned by Brigham Young of "Adam and one of his wives" also rings of Kabbalistic thought, such as the underlying Jewish legendry of Adam's wives Lillith and Eve. Fact is, prophets don't live in a vacuum. Klausner's The Messianic Idea in Israel has interesting things to say about prophets being influenced in their teachings and political leanings by their surroundings. I wish I were home with my books so I could quote a couple items...

A likelier source might be masonic influence, but others here would know more on that...

I need to study the topic more at some time, but I think that the boldest writings of this kind were by ibn Tabul and not that accessible, but I could be wrong.

[Yep]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that while I believe Adam-God theory to be false...I'm also not convinced that we completely know what Brother Brigham was talking about. One thing that is clear from his speeches is that he did not equate Adam with Elohim, to whom we now call God the Father. Brigham associated Michael with Adam, and yet called him God. I can't say where this leaves us...but what he said isn't so quickly sorted out into understandability.

I believe this as well. I believe that especially in the JoD quote I used above, which I believe to be the central quote for those who cite Adam-God theory, Brigham Young uses the titles "Adam", "God" and "Father" in a manner that is confusing if not read carefully. I believe that all the support for the belief that BY taught Adam-God is based in a misunderstanding of the manner that BY used these titles.

Adam is the highest judge over the race of Man, below God the Father, thus "God" is an accurate title for Adam. Adam is the father of all living, he is rightfully titled "Father." God the Father is also appropriately titled "Adam" as well. The titles run into each other in BY's language, imo.

Also a response to ALarsen, I believe that this answers your statement as well. I disagree with your response, and do not feel that your quote adequately defines to what BY was referring, it does not necessitate that he believed the supposed Adam-God theory.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Yep

[Stargazer]

Oddly enough, though I had previously thought I was completely "at sea" about the A/G doctrine, after this brief conversation I suddenly find myself subtly enlightened about it.

I had read someone (can't remember who) who wrote that the Brethren didn't really understand what Brother Brigham meant by it, and that's why it has dropped out of our current official inventory of Gospel doctrines. The thing is, BY may have understood the doctrine but failed to convey it correctly.

I, for one, am willing to wait for full explication of the matter, and don't expect it to be anytime soon, or even in this life (for me). I trust God, in other words.

[MormonMason]

I don't remember if in the one kabbalistic book that it seems was almost certainly in Neibaur's possesion there was much or any discussion of Adam Kadmon.

An article appeared in a Church periodical that had quotations from several rabbinical and other sources. The source for the article was Alexander Neibaur, if I recall correctly. I would have to check to see which one, however.

A likelier source might be masonic influence, but others here would know more on that...

No, it wouldn't have been. The concept of Adam Kadmon formed no part of the rituals or lectures of Freemasonry at the time of Joseph Smith. It was incorporated into the lectures of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in the Southern Jurisdiction (Joseph Smith lived in the Northern Jurisdiction and there was no Scottish Rite Masonry in Illinois during the Nauvoo Period), after 1859.

I need to study the topic more at some time, but I think that the boldest writings of this kind were by ibn Tabul and not that accessible, but I could be wrong.

As I said, I would have to do some checking around--which will have to wait until I am home with my books--to see what else would have been around at the time.

[volgadon]

An article appeared in a Church periodical that had quotations from several rabbinical and other sources. The source for the article was Alexander Neibaur, if I recall correctly. I would have to check to see which one, however.

They are all quoted in Menasseh ben Israel's Nishmat Hayim.

No, it wouldn't have been. The concept of Adam Kadmon formed no part of the rituals or lectures of Freemasonry at the time of Joseph Smith. It was incorporated into the lectures of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in the Southern Jurisdiction (Joseph Smith lived in the Northern Jurisdiction and there was no Scottish Rite Masonry in Illinois during the Nauvoo Period), after 1859.

Like I said, others such as yourself, would know more.

[MormonMason]

They are all quoted in Menasseh ben Israel's Nishmat Hayim.

...

Where? I would be curious to consult the work for context.