Apologies...Again

[Yep]

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

...

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.

I believe that I agree with Ahab's response to your post that included the hymn.

Usually these statements are used to support the teaching of Adam-God theory. The problem is that some hold the same interpretational problems that we are debating. While others (e.g. Hosea Stout's diary) have the same error that I, and it appears Ahab, believe you to have.

I feel that the JoD I:50-51 quote is sufficient to repudiate the Adam-God doctrine. It is internally inconsistent with such a claim.

Defining the titles and looking at the text in context with LDS beliefs as well as all of BY's statements does not allow for Adam-God theory to be valid. BY did not believe the Man Adam, Cain and Abel's father, to be God the Father, our Eternal Heavenly Father.

[Tacenda]

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.

What about the scripture about there being no other father's before Him and after? Edited March 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[savedbygrace]

Can I respectfully ask, does anyone in the church today believe this teaching? I don't mean general authorities, but is there a group 'cultists' I believe Apostle McConkey calls them, or does anyone know any individuals who believe it, or anyone on these boards?

[Yep]

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.

My personal opinion is that BY was trying to teach the physical lineage of Adam, father of Cain and Abel. I believe that his degree of ambiguity here is because he is trying to keep from stating it directly, not in his being confusing or in error. BY, imo, wanted to share some of the knowledge he had received from God, but was given a limitation as to what he could say to us. But that is just my opinion.

[Brian 2.0]

Can I respectfully ask, does anyone in the church today believe this teaching? I don't mean general authorities, but is there a group 'cultists' I believe Apostle McConkey calls them, or does anyone know any individuals who believe it, or anyone on these boards?

I never known or ever heard of anyone in the church today that believes Adam is God the Father. If there are some, and I'm sure you could find some somewhere, I either haven't met them, or they keep it to themselves.

[ALarson]

I believe that I agree with Ahab's response to your post that included the hymn.

Usually these statements are used to support the teaching of Adam-God theory. The problem is that some hold the same interpretational problems that we are debating. While others (e.g. Hosea Stout's diary) have the same error that I, and it appears Ahab, believe you to have.

I feel that the JoD I:50-51 quote is sufficient to repudiate the Adam-God doctrine. It is internally inconsistent with such a claim.

Defining the titles and looking at the text in context with LDS beliefs as well as all of BY's statements does not allow for Adam-God theory to be valid. BY did not believe the Man Adam, Cain and Abel's father, to be God the Father, our Eternal Heavenly Father.

I completely disagree. But that's ok. I doubt anything anyone tries to manipulate and twist and turn will change my mind here because I feel there are just too many very plain and simple statements given by Brigham Young and others that reveal what he believed. I won't be replying to any other posts on this thread because I feel I've expressed my point of view, but I will still follow it. Thanks!

[Ahab]

What about the scripture about there being no other father's before Him and after?

Quote it, please. I'm not familiar with what you're talking about, and it doesn't sound like anything he would say.

We have many fathers here on Earth, so there are fathers who have come after him. And we're also able to become fathers one day, whether on Earth or in heaven.

[Ahab]

My personal opinion is that BY was trying to teach the physical lineage of Adam, father of Cain and Abel. I believe that his degree of ambiguity here is because he is trying to keep from stating it directly, not in his being confusing or in error. BY, imo, wanted to share some of the knowledge he had received from God, but was given a limitation as to what he could say to us. But that is just my opinion.

I think he put it as plain as he knew how to and some people just don't correctly understand what he meant.

There is a limitation to how effective our words can be, though. Even so-called "God's" word can be misunderstood.

That's why we need the Holy Spirit to help us get in tune with the mind of God so we can be sure about what he really means.

[Ahab]

Can I respectfully ask, does anyone in the church today believe this teaching? I don't mean general authorities, but is there a group 'cultists' I believe Apostle McConkey calls them, or does anyone know any individuals who believe it, or anyone on these boards?

What is the "it" you're referring to? Be more specific, please.

[Yep]

Can I respectfully ask, does anyone in the church today believe this teaching? I don't mean general authorities, but is there a group 'cultists' I believe Apostle McConkey calls them, or does anyone know any individuals who believe it, or anyone on these boards?

I've never met anyone that believes Adam-God theory, and I am unaware of any group that teaches Adam-God theory.

[Calm]

I've never met anyone that believes Adam-God theory, and I am unaware of any group that teaches Adam-God theory.

Apparently the FLDS and Apostolic United Brethren take it as one of their beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_doctrine#Reaction_by_Mormon_fundamentalists

[Yep]

Apparently the FLDS and Apostolic United Brethren take it as one of their beliefs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam–God_doctrine#Reaction_by_Mormon_fundamentalists

Interesting. Is there information somewhere about exactly how it is taught, to what extent?

[Ahab]

I've never met anyone that believes Adam-God theory, and I am unaware of any group that teaches Adam-God theory.

There is a difference between what is called the Adam-God theory and what is called the Adam-God doctrine.

There is a theory floating around that that Adam fathered Jesus directly, rather than through Mary as one of his descendants. To know the truth all you have to know is how both Adam and the person we refer to as our Father in heaven fit within our family tree.

It's not complicated. It's just a matter of correctly understnading what was involved, and Brigham knew it just as well as anyone ever has.

[T-Shirt]

I used to be a staunch defender of orthodoxy. I was among those who valiantly defended Brigham Young against the Adam-God doctrine, claiming he was misunderstood. I have since changed my position. I think it is quite clear that Brigham Young believed it. The doctrine makes some degree of sense and answers a lot of questions. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not an adherent of the doctrine, but I do find it interesting. It is important to remember that in the early days of the Church, the names/titles of Elohim and Jehovah were not as well defined as they are now. When Brigham Young spoke of Elohim, he was not necessarily referring to what we would refer to as God the Father. Elohim, to him, was the head of the heavenly council of gods. Among this council was Michael (Adam) who was a resurrected and exalted being. Michael, along with his wives, in their exalted state had spirit children (we were among these spirits). Elohim, in this council, gave Michael the opportunity to create a world for his spirit children and to go there as Adam to bring his children to earth. Jehovah, or Jesus, was the first born spirit son of Michael. After Adam's death on earth, he returned to his place as a resurrected, exalted being, and is our Heavenly Father. The doctrine , then goes to teach that it will be the privilege of each of us, upon our exaltation, to follow the same pattern and become Adam's and Eve's for our spirit children.

I used to think Brigham Young was both misunderstood and mis-transcribed. I no longer believe this. Right now, I believe that he was simply wrong and the Lord weeded the doctrine out of the Church. While I don't believe it, I have wondered if the possibility exists that, maybe he was right, but the Church was not ready for it and the Lord took it from us and allowed us to have milk instead of meat. Either way, it does not affect my testimony of the gospel.

[Ahab]

I used to be a staunch defender of orthodoxy. I was among those who valiantly defended Brigham Young against the Adam-God doctrine, claiming he was misunderstood. I have since changed my position. I think it is quite clear that Brigham Young believed it. The doctrine makes some degree of sense and answers a lot of questions. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not an adherent of the doctrine, but I do find it interesting. It is important to remember that in the early days of the Church, the names/titles of Elohim and Jehovah were not as well defined as they are now. When Brigham Young spoke of Elohim, he was not necessarily referring to what we would refer to as God the Father. Elohim, to him, was the head of the heavenly council of gods. Among this council was Michael (Adam) who was a resurrected and exalted being. Michael, along with his wives, in their exalted state had spirit children (we were among these spirits). Elohim, in this council, gave Michael the opportunity to create a world for his spirit children and to go there as Adam to bring his children to earth. Jehovah, or Jesus, was the first born spirit son of Michael. After Adam's death on earth, he returned to his place as a resurrected, exalted being, and is our Heavenly Father. The doctrine , then goes to teach that it will be the privilege of each of us, upon our exaltation, to follow the same pattern and become Adam's and Eve's for our spirit children.

This is not the Adam-God doctrine I was referring to earlier, and what I was referring to is what we now know is true, which Brigham also knew was true, which is what I would spell out if I were to correct these false ideas you are presenting. Brigham and we as a Church now know the role Michael played in the creation of this Earth, including his role as the Father of all of us here, and he knew as much about it as Joseph did when he taught the truth on this issue.

Why some people get the wrong ideas and think they are right is something I still have trouble with understanding, especially when the truth is so simply and so plainly laid out and available to all of us as faithful members. I guess it's just part of the learning curve, which isn't so bad I guess since we can usually learn about where we might have gone wrong as we go further along on the path to perfection.

[T-Shirt]

This is not the Adam-God doctrine I was referring to earlier, and what I was referring to is what we now know is true, which Brigham also knew was true, which is what I would spell out if I were to correct these false ideas you are presenting. Brigham and we as a Church now know the role Michael played in the creation of this Earth, including his role as the Father of all of us here, and he knew as much about it as Joseph did when he taught the truth on this issue.

Why some people get the wrong ideas and think they are right is something I still have trouble with understanding, especially when the truth is so simply and so plainly laid out and available to all of us as faithful members. I guess it's just part of the learning curve, which isn't so bad I guess since we can usually learn about where we might have gone wrong as we go further along on the path to perfection.

I used to be just like you in defending the position you are taking. I have since come to realize that such a position is untenable. It doesn't bother me that Brigham taught something that we declare, today, to be false doctrine. I still regard him as a great prophet and believe the Church to be exactly what it claims to be. I have no argument with you. I am simply sharing what I have come to understand after many years of reading about it.

[Ahab]

I used to be just like you in defending the position you are taking. I have since come to realize that such a position is untenable. It doesn't bother me that Brigham taught something that we declare, today, to be false doctrine. I still regard him as a great prophet and believe the Church to be exactly what it claims to be. I have no argument with you. I am simply sharing what I have come to understand after many years of reading about it.

I don't have any harsh feelings against you either. I've read up on this too and I've seen most if not all of the testimonies of Brigham and other people who say they understood what he meant but are not right in their understanding of the way it is true. That's the clencher, don't cha know. We know what really happened and Brigham can be shown to have understood at least as much as we know about this. He was the President of the High Priesthood with the keys to the kingdom, for goodness sake. Even I now know the truth on this issue.

[T-Shirt]

Ever since I changed my position, I have pretty much stayed away from the topic, unless someone else brings it up. I have found, over the years, that some people are troubled when they find out that prophets said things we claim to be wrong today, and so I have tried not to contribute to anyone's loss of faith. Even though it doesn't bother me and I don't think it should bother anyone else, the fact remains, not everyone thinks like I do. I can post references, but I am not sure I want to.

[Brian 2.0]

I used to be a staunch defender of orthodoxy. I was among those who valiantly defended Brigham Young against the Adam-God doctrine, claiming he was misunderstood. I have since changed my position. I think it is quite clear that Brigham Young believed it. The doctrine makes some degree of sense and answers a lot of questions. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not an adherent of the doctrine, but I do find it interesting. It is important to remember that in the early days of the Church, the names/titles of Elohim and Jehovah were not as well defined as they are now. When Brigham Young spoke of Elohim, he was not necessarily referring to what we would refer to as God the Father. Elohim, to him, was the head of the heavenly council of gods. Among this council was Michael (Adam) who was a resurrected and exalted being. Michael, along with his wives, in their exalted state had spirit children (we were among these spirits). Elohim, in this council, gave Michael the opportunity to create a world for his spirit children and to go there as Adam to bring his children to earth. Jehovah, or Jesus, was the first born spirit son of Michael. After Adam's death on earth, he returned to his place as a resurrected, exalted being, and is our Heavenly Father. The doctrine , then goes to teach that it will be the privilege of each of us, upon our exaltation, to follow the same pattern and become Adam's and Eve's for our spirit children.

I used to think Brigham Young was both misunderstood and mis-transcribed. I no longer believe this. Right now, I believe that he was simply wrong and the Lord weeded the doctrine out of the Church. While I don't believe it, I have wondered if the possibility exists that, maybe he was right, but the Church was not ready for it and the Lord took it from us and allowed us to have milk instead of meat. Either way, it does not affect my testimony of the gospel.

I also followed a similar path as you and now believe as you do regarding this doctrine.

[Glenn101]

So, the upshot is that we can't even agree among ourselves just what Brigham Young actually taught. To accept that BY taught that Adam (Michael the Archangel) was the Adam/God the Father, who was the physical sire of Jesus Christ ignore so many other quotes by BY that paint a traditional picture of the relationship between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Adam (about 99 percent).

Accepting that BY taught that Adam was the name given to every first man on every world and that those men attained godhood and created their own worlds rather eleiminates those contradictions. But there will be people who will disagree with that also.

That there were people in the apostolic quorums that disagreed with Brigham is not an indicator that they actually understood what he was saying. The only fact that we can derive from it is that they disagreed.

It doesn't really matter to me. I am not defending Brigham Young. He does not need my defense. He can take care of himself. And I an sure that he is doing so, if what President Woodruff said is true (and I believe that it is). The purported Adam-God doctrine was never canonized and Brigham hinself said that the church was not to be bound by it. It just remains fodder for discussion lo these many years hence.

The Lord has given us enough truth to enable us to attain the Celestial Kingdom, if we abide by that truth. He has not given us a knowledge of all things as of yet. We probably could not grasp it even if He did. But I suspect that there are many surprises in store for even the faithful members of the Church.

Glenn

[MichelleD]

I also followed a similar path as you and now believe as you do regarding this doctrine.

Same for me. But others like Ahab simply have to make it work for them. I understand that as I did this in the beginning too. With more research, reading and study, my conclusions and beliefs now mirror yours and T-shirt's. This does not affect my testimony of the gospel in the least.

[Yep]

There is a difference between what is called the Adam-God theory and what is called the Adam-God doctrine.

There is a theory floating around that that Adam fathered Jesus directly, rather than through Mary as one of his descendants. To know the truth all you have to know is how both Adam and the person we refer to as our Father in heaven fit within our family tree.

It's not complicated. It's just a matter of correctly understnading what was involved, and Brigham knew it just as well as anyone ever has.

Yes, I understand this. It is part of the text in JoD I:50-51.

[MormonMason]

What about the scripture about there being no other father's before Him and after?

I don't recall such a scripture saying anything about "no fathers before and after." Where may we find it? If that is true, we all have a problem. Jesus is called "everlasting father" in Isaiah. Adam is referred to in even the Bible as the father of mankind. People are referred to as "our fathers" by various people in the scriptures...

[MormonMason]

We should probably be aware that some portions of the Journal of Discourses are not transcribed or printed correctly in all places. I have found several examples over the years where the printing is erroneous and where the Discourses differ in content from official, printed sources such as in the Deseret News and so forth. Unfortunately, I lost my notes containing these examples in a move long ago and will have to look it all up all over again. I am not looking forward to doing that again....

[savedbygrace]

What is the "it" you're referring to? Be more specific, please.

The A/G theory/doctrine that we have been discussing here