Adam-God Theory/Doctrine

[Rivers]

Here is a great podcast about Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings.

http://mormonmatters...hat-when-still/

It is clear that this was a teaching which was taught consistently by Brigham Young for a few decades. And it has now become considered a heresy. What do we make of this? How can a doctrine be taught by one prophet and later be rejected by later prophets?

Edited June 16, 2013 by Rivers

[Glenn101]

Here is a great podcast about Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings.

http://mormonmatters...hat-when-still/

It is clear that this was a teaching which was taught consistently by Brigham Young for a few decades. And it is now become considered a heresy. What do we make of this? How can a doctrine be taught by one prophet and later be rejected by later prophets?

Not again!!!! (And I hate podcasts!)

If people really understood the Adam-God theory correctly, there would be no controversy, at least among the LDS. It is evident that people from all ages since the subject was first broached did not understand what Brigham was saying. (And I think that he played with people's minds on the subject a bit.)

However, the bottom line is that Brigham never put the "doctrine" up to be canonized and publicly stated that it was not binding on the church.

Glenn

[tagriffy]

Not again!!!! (And I hate podcasts!)

If people really understood the Adam-God theory correctly, there would be no controversy, at least among the LDS. It is evident that people from all ages since the subject was first broached did not understand what Brigham was saying. (And I think that he played with people's minds on the subject a bit.)

However, the bottom line is that Brigham never put the "doctrine" up to be canonized and publicly stated that it was not binding on the church.

Glenn

CFR on the "publicly stated that it was not binding on the church" part.

[Rivers]

If people really understood the Adam-God theory correctly, there would be no controversy, at least among the LDS.

Do you understand it correctly?

[rhythm]

CFR on the "publicly stated that it was not binding on the church" part.

Way too many acronyms on this board... I give up. CFR means what?

[canard78]

Way too many acronyms on this board... I give up. CFR means what?

LOL IMHO you're not ITK.

FWIW, CFR is the most important acronym on MDDB:

Call

For

References

Usually used to mean 'Prove it/show evidence'

But can also mean 'that sounds interesting, can you point me to where I can read more.' But I'd suggest you avoid using CFR for that purpose as its generally taken to be the first one. In this case just say 'source please' or similar.

Basically the board is the most 'academically rigorous' (that I've found) in the Mormon bloggernacle. It means claims can't be made without sources. That way, whether they support or critique the church (or something in between) we can all go and check the reference.

(BTW we should put a pinned thread in the social forum with board acronyms)

[canard78]

Not again!!!! (And I hate podcasts!)

If people really understood the Adam-God theory correctly, there would be no controversy, at least among the LDS. It is evident that people from all ages since the subject was first broached did not understand what Brigham was saying. (And I think that he played with people's minds on the subject a bit.)

However, the bottom line is that Brigham never put the "doctrine" up to be canonized and publicly stated that it was not binding on the church.

Glenn

I guess it can be spun out. But I think that it simply means what it says. Else why would later prophets feel the need to refute it?

But I agree, podcasts and videos are a pain. The least they could do is provide a transcript.

[Stone holm]

Do you understand it correctly?

What is your understanding of it. Anti-Mormons usually use it to discredit the Church. And yes from time to time we have teachings that the Church later disavows. An example being one that BRM helped prolong was the idea that Africans were neutrals in the war in heaven. As I understand the Church, what it has disavowed is the notion that some have taken from BY talks is the idea that Adam was Heavenly Father who somehow shed his immortality and came down along with one of the Heavenly Mothers who became Eve. That may or may not have been what he intended to teach, but that is not the doctrine of the Church. Some anti Mormons argue this was standard fare in the Church for decades, but I have only seen that assertion as standard fare in anti Mormon blogs.

[Rivers]

What is your understanding of it?

That Adam was both the physical father of the human race as well as the father of our spirits. Adam was also the father of Jesus' physical body.

And all of us may become Adams and Eves on other planets. I don't see any point in trying to make any of this fit with the church's current teachings about the Godhead. It is what it is.

[edit - No temple content] Now it is considered a heresey. I find that interesting.

[Nevo]

It is clear that [Adam-God] was a teaching which was taught consistently by Brigham Young for a few decades. And it has now become considered a heresy. What do we make of this?

I think it shows that prophets are fallible and can, at least temporarily, lead the Church astray. But I think it also illustrates the truth of J. Reuben Clark's statement: "“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings were quickly repudiated. His teachings on blacks and the priesthood had a longer shelf life but they too were ultimately rejected. I don't hold it against Brother Brigham that he was wrong on these issues. I think he did the best he could with the light he had.

[Deborah]

Adam-God was rejected by other members of the First Presidency and Qof12 even in Brother Brigham's day. I believe it was one of the Pratt's who was especially hostile toward it. I find it interestng that it's not something that you hear Joseph Smith teaching but for Brigham it was a pet "doctrine", which he even tried to bring into the temple ceremony. I think it shows that we needn't worry about the prophets leading us astray because the Lord has provided for course corrections through the official channels of the church. In any case I think too many people use it for their own purposes which is why the church has totally dismissed it today. It may have elements of truth to it but I don't think even BY was able to adequately explain what he meant by it.

[Stone holm]

No it does not fit , if it is a correct understanding of what he taught. I have never heard the bit about the veil lecture and am not sure if that is actually true.

[thesometimesaint]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

[K-2]

I think it shows that prophets are fallible and can, at least temporarily, lead the Church astray. But I think it also illustrates the truth of J. Reuben Clark's statement: "“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.” Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings were quickly repudiated. His teachings on blacks and the priesthood had a longer shelf life but they too were ultimately rejected. I don't hold it against Brother Brigham that he was wrong on these issues. I think he did the best he could with the light he had.

I wonder who here can bear testimony that the Holy Ghost has revealed to them that Adam-God is false - that would be a greater assurance of it's falsehood than any argument or than declaration of a simple supposition or belief that it is.

[Nevo]

I wonder who here can bear testimony that the Holy Ghost has revealed to them that Adam-God is false - that would be a greater assurance of it's falsehood than any argument or than declaration of a simple supposition or belief that it is.

Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching has been rejected as false by Church leaders for over a century now and it does not square with the scriptures. I am satisfied that it is not true.

[thesometimesaint]

Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching has been rejected as false by Church leaders for over a century now and it does not square with the scriptures. I am satisfied that it is not true.

Agreed.

[Teancum]

Adam-God was rejected by other members of the First Presidency and Qof12 even in Brother Brigham's day. I believe it was one of the Pratt's who was especially hostile toward it. I find it interestng that it's not something that you hear Joseph Smith teaching but for Brigham it was a pet "doctrine", which he even tried to bring into the temple ceremony. I think it shows that we needn't worry about the prophets leading us astray because the Lord has provided for course corrections through the official channels of the church. In any case I think too many people use it for their own purposes which is why the church has totally dismissed it today. It may have elements of truth to it but I don't think even BY was able to adequately explain what he meant by it.

.

It is simply not true that the FP and 12 rejected AG. Orson Pratt rejected it and was called on the carpet over and over by Brigham for this and other things they disagreed on. But most of the top leadership believed what Brigham taught, Heber Kimball, as did Daniel Wells, Woodruff, Cannon and so on. Young claimed he learned it from Joseph Smith. The doctrine was part of the Lecture at the Veil in St George. The records show BY was quite clear about what he taught and if you read what he said it is pretty clear. It even makes some sense in light of the teachings about polygamy, eternal increase for those who are exalted, creating and populating worlds which also was taught in the 19th century with vigor.

So yes Brigham taught it, many believed it, he was hardly opposed at all by top leadership. If you can show he was I would like to see it.

So was BY right or wrong? If wrong it seem a problem for surely a prophet of God ought to know who God is. If right then is the church in error today?

[Deborah]

.So yes Brigham taught it, many believed it, he was hardly opposed at all by top leadership. If you can show he was I would like to see it.

And yet none of them continued it after BY's death, including the teaching in the temple.

[Stone holm]

And yet none of them continued it after BY's death, including the teaching in the temple.

And that pretty much sums it up, given that it does not fit with the rest of our doctrine.

[BCSpace]

It is clear that this was a teaching which was taught consistently by Brigham Young for a few decades. And it has now become considered a heresy. What do we make of this? How can a doctrine be taught by one prophet and later be rejected by later prophets?

I maintain BY never taught an Adam-God theory in the first place. While doing my own research, and debating with stn9, I discovered that BY's opinion was an Adam Sr Adam Jr theory (also heresy) and then found that someone else had discovered it too and fleshed it out:

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

Notice also that, without necessarily agreeing with it, FAIR seems to consider Adam Sr/Jr a worthwhile explanation:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

[DBMormon]

It is apparent from fist and second hand statements that BY felt he had recieved this Doctrine from Joseph Smith and that he felt he knew a deeper truth that the church was slow to grasp. Some of the apostles bore witness that they knew as sure as anything that the Adam-God doctrine as BY taught it was true. It is easy to argue that If it wasn't for the Pratts it would have been a firm teaching in our Church.

[Glenn101]

CFR on the "publicly stated that it was not binding on the church" part.

Those were not his exact words. here is what he said after talking about people grumbling about his thoughts on Adam, " But those are ideas which do not concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible − This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." JOD 5:332

That is not saying that Brigham did not believe that what he was teaching was correct, just that it did not concern us at the present.

Glenn

Edited June 17, 2013 by Glenn101

[Yep]

I believe that it is this statement that is the origin of the claimed Adam-God theory:

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.

Most commonly people do not read the entire statement. 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.

Now, I am not entirely positive what BY meant earlier in the statement where he states "[Adam] is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." However, given the typical response of LDS critics stating that "gods" references "judges" combined with the LDS belief that Adam will sit as a judge over all Man, logic leads me to believe that Adam is the Father of all Man and is the judge of all mankind. This follows the similar to the statement that the original 12 apostles will judge Israel.

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.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Yep

[rayhale]

In Legends of the Jews page 64 under the heading Woman, it says:

'When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are Thy works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer him adoration.'

It goes on a bit, but here is a tidbit that I like:

'And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts,” when God caused leep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.'

[Stone holm]

In Legends of the Jews page 64 under the heading Woman, it says:

'When Adam opened his eyes the first time, and beheld the world about him, he broke into praise of God, “How great are Thy works, O Lord!” But his admiration for the world surrounding him did not exceed the admiration all creatures conceived for Adam. They took him to be their creator, and they all came to offer him adoration.'

It goes on a bit, but here is a tidbit that I like:

'And not alone the creatures on earth, even the angels thought Adam the lord of all, and they were about to salute him with “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts,” when God caused leep to fall upon him, and then the angels knew that he was but a human being.'

Is that a book? If God had put Eve on Earth quicker, I am sure she could have straightened out the animals on that issue. But where is that book available?