Apologies...Again

[volgadon]

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

It is easily available online, but in Hebrew.

[savedbygrace]

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.

So please explain it to me, because I truly do not understand it

[ALarson]

I would like to know more about some of the information presented in this thread (by MormonMason and others). I find that to be very interesting.

However, I do find it difficult to interpret things that Brigham Young stated in any other manner than that he believed Adam was God.

Quotes like this one:

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 ... I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51).

If BY was not referring to Adam (the "character that was in the garden of Eden"), who was he speaking of?

[Yep]

I would like to know more about some of the information presented in this thread (by MormonMason and others). I find that to be very interesting.

However, I do find it difficult to interpret things that Brigham Young stated in any other manner than that he believed Adam was God.

Quotes like this one:

If BY was not referring to Adam (the "character that was in the garden of Eden"), who was he speaking of?

God the Father was also in the garden of Eden. IMO this is another example of BY not speaking in a manner that was easily understood. I believe this was a method BY used to emphasize that God the Father physically visited Adam and Eve in the Garden.

[ALarson]

God the Father was also in the garden of Eden. IMO this is another example of BY not speaking in a manner that was easily understood. I believe this was a method BY used to emphasize that God the Father physically visited Adam and Eve in the Garden.

Um....ok.

And you also believe this church hymn from back then was referring to God the Father?

In 1856 the Mormons published a hymnal which contained a hymn entitled, "We Believe In Our God.":

"We believe in our God the great Prince of His race,

The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for his children again.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who, in love

To his brethren and sisters, came down from above

To die to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the Gospel we preach."

Yep, you have every right to do the mental gymnastics required to hold onto what you want to believe. I respect your right to do this. It just seems odd that you don't take the words spoken by Brigham Young at face value (it's not like he only referred to this once and was misunderstood). From journal records and quotes from members and leaders of the church back then, it becomes very clear they believed Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the father. But, I guess you'll claim that all of them misunderstood too.

We will just agree to disagree.

[Glenn101]

I would like to know more about some of the information presented in this thread (by MormonMason and others). I find that to be very interesting.

However, I do find it difficult to interpret things that Brigham Young stated in any other manner than that he believed Adam was God.

Quotes like this one:

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 ... I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51).

If BY was not referring to Adam (the "character that was in the garden of Eden"), who was he speaking of?

Maybe you could answer your own question by answering another question. When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, who was the God that visited him?

When you understand that Brigham Young believed that every world that God creates and populates has an Adam and Eve who become the head of all of the generations of that world, and that the Father in Heaven was once one of those Adams, maybe a different picture will emerge.

One cannot get an accurate picture of what Brigham Young actually believed and taught about Jesus, Heavenly Father, and Adam without reading all of the available material, rather than selected quotes out of context. The actual context is, as I have noted, all of Brigham's teachings on Jesus, Heavenly Father, and Adam.

Glenn

[ALarson]

Maybe you could answer your own question by answering another question. When Adam was in the Garden of Eden, who was the God that visited him?

Glenn

Seems like Brigham Young believed he was visited by his Father:

From a discourse given by Brigham Young regarding Jesus Christ (given on February 19, 1854), he states:

"Who did beget him [Jesus Christ]. His Father, and his father is our

God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the

framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord

Jesus Christ. Who is he. He is Father Adam; Micheal;

the Ancient of days. Has he a father? He has. Has he

a mother? He has."

Edited March 13, 2013 by ALarson

[ALarson]

For me, the bigger question is regarding whether or not Joseph Smith taught that Adam was God.

In 1860, Brigham Young stated this:

"It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God."

Do we have much information to back this up? I'd love to read anything written or spoken by Joseph Smith on this. Thanks!

[Ahab]

So please explain it to me, because I truly do not understand it

Kinda hard to do on an internet message board, but I'll try. First tell me what you understand about how we got on this planet from heaven. From the council in heaven, to the creation of this planet, to all of the forms of life being placed here, including our own kind of being eventually, and including who was involved in all of that. I'll then step in and clarify if you don't seem to understand some point correctly.

[Ahab]

I would like to know more about some of the information presented in this thread (by MormonMason and others). I find that to be very interesting.

However, I do find it difficult to interpret things that Brigham Young stated in any other manner than that he believed Adam was God.

Quotes like this one:

"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 ... I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.... Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pp. 50-51).

What part did you leave out when using those .... dots? Include the whole text, please.

If BY was not referring to Adam (the "character that was in the garden of Eden"), who was he speaking of?

Consider who was in the garden of Eden when the spirit of Adam was placed in the body our Father in heaven created for him.

[savedbygrace]

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.

I agree with that

[savedbygrace]

For me, the bigger question is regarding whether or not Joseph Smith taught that Adam was God.

In 1860, Brigham Young stated this:

"It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God."

Do we have much information to back this up? I'd love to read anything written or spoken by Joseph Smith on this. Thanks!

Thnakyou for your thoughts there is a book, The Unknown God, it can be seen online, it is by Nate E Taylor, you may know it. In it he discusses JS being the first person to put forward this doctrine, there are references there. Interestingly this book is about someone who believes the A/G doctrine as true and who uses extant sources to prove it

[Ahab]

Um....ok.

And you also believe this church hymn from back then was referring to God the Father?

"We believe in our God the great Prince of His race,

The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,

Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain,

Who'll counsel and fight for his children again.

This is a reference to Adam, who was a child of the person we refer to as our Father in heaven. Our Father in heaven begat Adam, and then through Adam all of the rest of us came to this Earth as children (including grand and great children) of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve are in our family tree. It's not like our Father in heaven did it all without Adam and Eve. First he created our spirits, in heaven, and then through Adam and Eve we received (other) bodies for our spirits to inhabit. Basic doctrine, brother, although it may seem a bit complicated.

We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ, who, in love

To his brethren and sisters, came down from above

To die to redeem them from death, and to teach

To mortals and spirits the Gospel we preach."

Jesus Christ is a child (although a great and grand child) of Adam and Eve as well as a child of our Father in heaven.

Got it, yet? If not, what part of this are you having trouble accepting?

Yep, you have every right to do the mental gymnastics required to hold onto what you want to believe. I respect your right to do this. It just seems odd that you don't take the words spoken by Brigham Young at face value (it's not like he only referred to this once and was misunderstood). From journal records and quotes from members and leaders of the church back then, it becomes very clear they believed Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the father.

Is Adam the same kind of being as our Father in heaven? Yes.

Can we correctly refer to that kind of being as God? Yes.

So is Adam "God", as well as our Father in heaven? Yes, the same kind of being, although at one time Adam was not as perfect as our Father in heaven.

Was Adam our Father, though? Yes.

Even when Adam was not as perfect as our Father in heaven? Yes.

Even though we also have another person in heaven who we also refer to as our Father in heaven, aka Elohim? Yes.

Really? Yes.

But, I guess you'll claim that all of them misunderstood too.

We will just agree to disagree.

You sure give up easy, and on very basic doctrine. Oh well.

[ALarson]

What part did you leave out when using those .... dots? Include the whole text, please.

I agree. I do hate the "... 's"

Ok, if you have the entire quote available, please post it. But a quick search shows this:

When the Virgen 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; [first set of ...'s start here] 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 tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were [...'s end here] I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.[second set of ...'s start here] I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing. It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! [...'s end here] Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

Let me know if that's correct! Thanks.

[ALarson]

Thnakyou for your thoughts there is a book, The Unknown God, it can be seen online, it is by Nate E Taylor, you may know it. In it he discusses JS being the first person to put forward this doctrine, there are references there. Interestingly this book is about someone who believes the A/G doctrine as true and who uses extant sources to prove it

Thanks savedbygrace! I will look into this book and I appreciate the reference. This is a very interesting topic and as you can see, I doubt everyone will ever agree on what Brigham Young was teaching. Great discussion!

[ALarson]

savedbygrace,

Here is some of what is written over on the FAIR website regarding this:

Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.^[5]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God: We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.^[6]

Apologetic approaches

There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.

Adam as the patriarch of the human family

The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: quotes D&C 78:15–16].^[7]

It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.

Scribal error

A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.

"Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."

LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.^[8] Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and © Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things.

Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.

Brigham was wrong

Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.^[9] Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981: Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.^[10]

We don't know

A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

As you can see, there are several different theories or interpretations of what Brigham Young meant with his teachings. I guess each person has to read what's available and come to their own conclusions. Even the apologists don't agree, but that's what makes it interesting.

For me, I believe BY was just simply mistaken (the "Brigham Young was wrong" explanation above) but I would love to find out more regarding what Joseph Smith may have taught on this (again, thanks for the book referral).

What seems obvious and plain to me is not to others (as you can see from the other posts in this thread). Again, everyone is definitely entitled to their opinion and I disagree with putting others down, insulting them or criticizing them if they don't agree. That doesn't accomplish anything.

[MichelleD]

I find it interesting that we have journal entries and statements made by those who actually served with Brigham Young and who personally heard his teachings on this, yet there are those who choose to ignore these accounts and try to state what they think Brigham "meant to say" or what he REALLY was trying to teach. I don't know about others, but I put more weight on what eye witnesses and associates of Brigham Young believed. Look up what early church members like John Nuttall, George Q. Cannon, Heber C. Kimball, and Hosea Stout wrote about this for starters. Also, BY was definitely not one to allow his teachings to be misunderstood or disagreed with or taught against. Just read about Orson Pratt on this topic and how he was dealt with by BY. Or, read about Bishop Edward Bunker's church court held on him because he disagreed with the Adam-God teachings. Brigham Young did not speak in riddles and he did not like being contradicted or misunderstood.

I also find it ironic that the very same people who proclaim that we don't believe our Prophets are infallible, fight so hard against the possibility that Brigham Young was just simply wrong about this. That's what I believe and I have no issue with that and at the same time believing that he was truly a Prophet of God and that the church is true.

[Ahab]

I agree. I do hate the "... 's"

Ok, if you have the entire quote available, please post it. But a quick search shows this:

Good enough. Now I'll show you how easy it is to correctly understand how Brigham Young taught basic and true doctrine.

When the Virgen 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; [first set of ...'s start here] 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 tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession. I could tell you much more about this; but were [...'s end here]

So he said when Mary conceived Jesus, the Father had begotten him, rather than him being begotten by the Holy Ghost (who is another person than the person of our and his Father). And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family (meaning the first to begat our kind of being on this planet, the one we refer to as our Father in heaven); and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, even after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and he rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father (meaning our Father in heaven), and so on in succession.

I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone.[second set of ...'s start here] I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and exhaust all the wisdom they possessed. All Scripturalists, and approved theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great is the mystery of godliness," and tell nothing. It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!" What a learned idea! [...'s end here] Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

Some people don't seem to realize our Father in heaven was in the garden of Eden along with Adam, but he was.

Let me know if that's correct! Thanks.

It is correct. Brigham Young spoke the simple truth and everyone should understand what he meant while knowing it is true.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Ahab

[ALarson]

It is correct. Brigham Young spoke the simple truth and everyone should understand what he meant while knowing it is true.

Great. And I completely agree with your last statement other than I do not believe that BY's Adam/God teachings were the truth.

I feel these complete statements support my beliefs on this topic. Again, this just shows how people can look at the same evidence and come away with diverse opinions.

[ALarson]

I find it interesting that we have journal entries and statements made by those who actually served with Brigham Young and who personally heard his teachings on this, yet there are those who choose to ignore these accounts and try to state what they think Brigham "meant to say" or what he REALLY was trying to teach. I don't know about others, but I put more weight on what eye witnesses and associates of Brigham Young believed. Look up what early church members like John Nuttall, George Q. Cannon, Heber C. Kimball, and Hosea Stout wrote about this for starters.

Very true. Here are a few quotes from these men you named above:

Hosea Stout wrote the following in his diary on 1852:

"Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurected [sic] body &C more hereafter"

Heber C. Kimball, who was the 1st counselor to BY, wrote that "there is but one God that pertains to this people, and he is the God that pertains to this earth—the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world ." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p. 1).

On June 23, 1889, Abraham Cannon wrote that George Q. Cannon taught:

"Jesus Christ is Jehovah" and "Adam is His Father and our God" (vol. 11, p. 39).

L. John Nuttall, who was "a special secretary to President Young", recorded in his journal On Wednesday, February 7, 1877:

"Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Savior) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams first begotten in the spirit World, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived ...(" Journal of L. John Nuttall," vol. 1, pp. 18-21, taken from a typed copy at Brigham Young University).

I'll also take the words of those who heard Brigham Young speak and teach over someone today who tries to imply meaning into his words. However, I do love to read and discuss other's opinions and I also believe they have the right to their beliefs.

[savedbygrace]

I am completely flummoxed!! But it is a geat discussion and refreshing too

[savedbygrace]

Good enough. Now I'll show you how easy it is to correctly understand how Brigham Young taught basic and true doctrine.

So he said when Mary conceived Jesus, the Father had begotten him, rather than him being begotten by the Holy Ghost (who is another person than the person of our and his Father). And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family (meaning the first to begat our kind of being on this planet, the one we refer to as our Father in heaven); and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven, even after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and he rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father (meaning our Father in heaven), and so on in succession.

Some people don't seem to realize our Father in heaven was in the garden of Eden along with Adam, but he was.

It is correct. Brigham Young spoke the simple truth and everyone should understand what he meant while knowing it is true.

I am sinking......help!!

[Ahab]

I am sinking......help!!

Let me know when you're not sinking anymore and then I'll continue the discussion.

.. and watch out for those sharks.

[savedbygrace]

savedbygrace,

Here is some of what is written over on the FAIR website regarding this:

Rejection of Adam-God by the LDS Church

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.^[5]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God: We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.^[6]

Apologetic approaches

There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and/or harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought. Following are some of the better-known approaches.

Adam as the patriarch of the human family

The most well-known is the approach taken by Charles W. Penrose (and followed by John A. Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith) that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith: quotes D&C 78:15–16].^[7]

It is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with the multitude of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and private comments, and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them. This explanation is perhaps the most widely-known, but it suffers because it ignores many of Brigham's statements on Adam-God where he was quite clear in his intent.

Scribal error

A related approach is that scribal limitations and transmission errors resulted in unclear transcripts that do not convey Brigham Young's original meaning. Most feel, however, that this possibility cannot fully account for all the statements he made on this subject.

"Adam Sr." and "Adam Jr."

LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.^[8] Watson has the advantage of being more familiar with Brigham Young's sermons than perhaps any other living researcher, and he does clearly grasp that Brigham did not equate Elohim/Jehovah/Michael with God the Father/Jesus Christ/Adam as modern Latter-day Saints do. However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and © Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

Another approach similar to Watson's would be to suggest that perhaps Brigham Young was speaking of at least two Adams, but that he was intentionally veiling what he was talking about, and left it up to individuals to get revelation on the true interpretation. This would be similar to the Lord's use of parables. Some basis for this assertion may rest in the fact that Brigham Young stated that Moses was using "dark sayings" with regard to his story of the rib in Eve's creation, and the fact that President Young dismissed those stories of Adam's and Eve's creations as childish fairy tales. He himself may have practiced the same types of "dark sayings" following a tradition that he believed was started by Moses, by veiling what he was talking about in confusing language. Since he himself was an American Moses, so to speak, he may have felt that he could engage in the same type of practice, and was cluing people in on it by bringing up Moses' use of such things.

Another author suggests a similar theory, that Adam is the generic name that can be used to refer to each male of the species. And that the name Adam symbolically refers to a continuum of progress in degrees along man's journey from pre-existence all the way to Godhood. But this rejects the multiple mortality theories in some interpretations of Adam-God, where Adam falls from an exaltation into another mortality. Each male person that is eventually exalted is both an "Adam Jr." and an "Adam Sr." along different parts of his path of progression. Once he is exalted, he takes on the status of an "Adam Sr." Therefore, Michael becomes a symbol of all men along the path to exaltation, and Elohim becomes a symbol of all men who have reached exaltation. So, in this view, while Adam-God to some degree is about Michael the Archangel and his Father, it is also about each man's journey and eternal progression.

Brigham was wrong

Another approach, championed by LDS researcher Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken.^[9] Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. Elder Bruce R. McConkie also took this position in a letter he wrote in 1981: Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.^[10]

We don't know

A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson wrote:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

As you can see, there are several different theories or interpretations of what Brigham Young meant with his teachings. I guess each person has to read what's available and come to their own conclusions. Even the apologists don't agree, but that's what makes it interesting.

For me, I believe BY was just simply mistaken (the "Brigham Young was wrong" explanation above) but I would love to find out more regarding what Joseph Smith may have taught on this (again, thanks for the book referral).

What seems obvious and plain to me is not to others (as you can see from the other posts in this thread). Again, everyone is definitely entitled to their opinion and I disagree with putting others down, insulting them or criticizing them if they don't agree. That doesn't accomplish anything.

Thankyou, it will take a while for me to digest all this

[Ahab]

Thankyou, it will take a while for me to digest all this.

It's a very simple issue. I think too many people just think it is more complicated than it is.

Think about it this way:

Who is your Father? [insert name here]

Does your Father also have a Father? Yes.

Would it be correct to refer to your Father's Father as your Father too, in some sense? Yes, like how my Grandfather is also my father/Father, who begat me through one of his sons.

So what is that person's name? [insert name here]

Okay, now at this point you recognize the fact that you have 2 Fathers, but let's not stop here.

Your Father's Father also has a Father, doesn't he. Yes, he does.

And so on, and so on, and so on, etc, into eternity past? Yes.

So how many Fathers do you have? There is no end to their number.

And if you wanted to single out one in particular for some reason, could you just say Father when referring to him? Yes.

Even though you could be referring to any one of your Fathers? Yes, they're all my Fathers, so I could single any one of them out by that name.

Kinda confusing, isn't it? No, not really. I know I have many Fathers, and I don't mind at all referring to any one of them by that name.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Ahab