CV75 Posted June 16, 2013 Posted June 16, 2013 Here is a great podcast about Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings.The wonderful thing about the Internet is that topics like this get "great" treatment so often, and are given more attention than ever merited/warranted; people figure that out quickly, tire of the “controversy” and move on to something else (hopefully more essential), depending on their orientation.
Glenn101 Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Do you understand it correctly?Probably not entirely. There is just too much room for error in the transcriptions.Glenn
Teancum Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 And yet none of them continued it after BY's death, including the teaching in the temple.. Yes. So how does this confirm what you said? Ad how does it solve the issues that come from Brigham teaching the doctrine?
Teancum Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 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.htmNotice 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 The two Adam idea to explain away BYs clear statements about Adam/God is one of the worst apologetics out there. I know of know apologist worth their salt who takes it seriously,
cinepro Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I believe that it is this statement that is the origin of the claimed Adam-God theory:As others have noted, it wasn't just one statement. It was many, many statements over a period of decades, including discussions (and arguments) with other apostles (most forcibly Orson Pratt).You can get a good overview of the situation in this article:https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N01_16.pdf
Nevo Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 (edited) 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.If this was the only statement Brigham Young ever made on the subject, you might have a case, but Brigham Young taught the doctrine on numerous occasions over several years. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you consult one or more of the following:Rodney Turner, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology," (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1953)David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 14-58Gary James Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13, no. 2 (Summer 1980): 7-49; also, Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002)Edit: Dang, I see cinepro already beat me to it. Edited June 17, 2013 by Nevo
rayhale Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 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?Yes, 'Legends of the Jews' is a book, here is a link to a search on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.co...,stripbooks,473
Yep Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 As others have noted, it wasn't just one statement. It was many, many statements over a period of decades, including discussions (and arguments) with other apostles (most forcibly Orson Pratt).You can get a good overview of the situation in this article:https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N01_16.pdfI am aware of the various statements made by BY. I merely cited that JoD reference as the one I think is the origin statement, if I am wrong feel free to correct me. I did enjoy this article though and had not read it before. However, I think overall that the other BY statements can be reconciled as well. I do not believe that the various quotation used to support conceptions Adam-God theory are sufficient to the claim. Sufficient evidence suggests that Brigham Young held to a differentiation between God the Father and Adam. I believe that the conflict exists/ed due to Brigham's inability to state things more clearly, not because there was/is a true conflict. In my research, I have seldom, if ever, found statement that could not be reconciled with current doctrine/practice.
Glenn101 Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 If this was the only statement Brigham Young ever made on the subject, you might have a case, but Brigham Young taught the doctrine on numerous occasions over several years. If you don't believe me, I would suggest you consult one or more of the following:Rodney Turner, "The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology," (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1953)David John Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15, no. 1 (Spring 1982): 14-58Gary James Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 13, no. 2 (Summer 1980): 7-49; also, Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum: Orson Pratt, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002)Edit: Dang, I see cinepro already beat me to it.I think that the number of sermons that he is quoted as saying something pertaining to Adam-God is around thirty, out of all of the sermons that he preached. But, by and large, his portrayals of the relationships between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and Adam comport pretty well with traditional LDS doctrine.Glenn 1
Stone holm Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 Yes, 'Legends of the Jews' is a book, here is a link to a search on Amazon.com: http://www.amazon.co...,stripbooks,473Thank you for the link.
Lachoneus Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 It was never taught in the lecture at the veil. Nuttall's journal entry for February 7, 1877, is not the lecture at the veil.Nuttall recorded the lecture at the veil in the St George Temple on February 1, 1877. "Also at the veil. President Young was present and gave some instructions not previously given, which I wrote for safe keeping and reference hereafter" (L John Nuttall Journal (1 February 1877)). "President [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts" (7 Wilford Woodruff's Journal 325 (1 February 1877)).On the other hand, Nuttal's journal entry for the 7th records some remarks Brigham Young made to a small group of men gathered in his private residence in St George, not in the temple. "After supper went to President Young's. Present Prest. Young, W. Woodruff, E. Snow, B. Young, Jr., I. G. Bleak, E. M. Greene and myself" (L John Nuttall Journal (7 February 1877)). No one (including Buerger and Lindbloom) has ever produced any evidence that President Young's remarks at his home on the 7th had anything at all to do with his lecture at the veil delivered in the temple on the 1st.
BCSpace Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 The two Adam idea to explain away BYs clear statements about Adam/God is one of the worst apologetics out there. I know of know apologist worth their salt who takes it seriously,It's the only way to rationally explain BY's statements while still maintaining he believed in standard LDS doctrine. Some apologists have merely invested too much of their time on Adam God to admit they may be wrong.
tagriffy Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 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 5:332That 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.GlennReading the entire discourse, I do not get the impression Brigham was saying Adam-God was not binding on the Church. Rather, he was talking about one topic, went into an excursus, and was now transitioning back to the main topic.
Stone holm Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 It was never taught in the lecture at the veil. Nuttall's journal entry for February 7, 1877, is not the lecture at the veil.Nuttall recorded the lecture at the veil in the St George Temple on February 1, 1877. "Also at the veil. President Young was present and gave some instructions not previously given, which I wrote for safe keeping and reference hereafter" (L John Nuttall Journal (1 February 1877)). "President [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts" (7 Wilford Woodruff's Journal 325 (1 February 1877)).On the other hand, Nuttal's journal entry for the 7th records some remarks Brigham Young made to a small group of men gathered in his private residence in St George, not in the temple. "After supper went to President Young's. Present Prest. Young, W. Woodruff, E. Snow, B. Young, Jr., I. G. Bleak, E. M. Greene and myself" (L John Nuttall Journal (7 February 1877)). No one (including Buerger and Lindbloom) has ever produced any evidence that President Young's remarks at his home on the 7th had anything at all to do with his lecture at the veil delivered in the temple on the 1st.Is this the sole source of the notion that it was part of the veil lecture? As I had not heard that assertion before this thread, although I confess to not spending any significant amount of time reading anti Mormon works.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 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?There are many people who think Brigham was teaching heresy anytime he taught true doctrine which he received through revelation from God, and those who don't understand what he taught and say it's not true are teaching what I consider to be heretic teachings. There are true teachings about Adam/God, and there are false teachings about Adam/God. The key is in being able to find out what is true.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 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.That's all true, as long as you understand it correctly. Jesus was born through Mary and Mary was a child of Adam and Eve, if you trace her family tree. That means Jesus was a child of Adam and Eve, too, although some people may prefer to call him a great...great grand child, but all those greats and grands are simply adjectives to give some more detail about what kind of child he was.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.Yes, and it is simply the truth and very basic doctrine of the Church. We just need to understand in what sense that is true.The heresies are the false teachings concerning that true doctrine. Anytime anyone doesn't believe something is true they can call it a heresy, but that doesn't make what they say become the truth.
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 The two Adam idea to explain away BYs clear statements about Adam/God is one of the worst apologetics out there. I know of know apologist worth their salt who takes it seriously,The two Jesus idea isn't any better. All that matters is correctly understanding the truth about Jesus, and the truth about Adam, and the truth about God.
Stone holm Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 The two Jesus idea isn't any better. All that matters is correctly understanding the truth about Jesus, and the truth about Adam, and the truth about God.What is the two Jesus idea?
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 What is the two Jesus idea?You know, when some Christians try to tell us we worship a "different" Jesus than the one they worship.
Tacenda Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 You know, when some Christians try to tell us we worship a "different" Jesus than the one they worship.They might get that from a quote from Pres. Hinckley admitting to the fact that we do indeed worship a different Jesus. "In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).
Ahab Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 They might get that from a quote from Pres. Hinckley admitting to the fact that we do indeed worship a different Jesus."In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints 'do not believe in the traditional Christ.' 'No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.'" (LDS Church News Week ending June 20, 1998, p. 7).Still, the argument doesn't help us to know the truth about the only Jesus Christ there is. Everyone just needs to focus on learning the truth about him rather than talking about things that aren't really true about him.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 It was never taught in the lecture at the veil. Nuttall's journal entry for February 7, 1877, is not the lecture at the veil.Nuttall recorded the lecture at the veil in the St George Temple on February 1, 1877. "Also at the veil. President Young was present and gave some instructions not previously given, which I wrote for safe keeping and reference hereafter" (L John Nuttall Journal (1 February 1877)). "President [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts" (7 Wilford Woodruff's Journal 325 (1 February 1877)).On the other hand, Nuttal's journal entry for the 7th records some remarks Brigham Young made to a small group of men gathered in his private residence in St George, not in the temple. "After supper went to President Young's. Present Prest. Young, W. Woodruff, E. Snow, B. Young, Jr., I. G. Bleak, E. M. Greene and myself" (L John Nuttall Journal (7 February 1877)). No one (including Buerger and Lindbloom) has ever produced any evidence that President Young's remarks at his home on the 7th had anything at all to do with his lecture at the veil delivered in the temple on the 1st.I did not know that it was in debate over whether BY included Adam-God in the lecture at the veil.I need to do more research, but this is what I found in a quick google search regarding your source. This is not written by me, nor to I vouche for it's accuracy, but it's provided source for those wanting to look further.In 1877 Brigham Young asked L. John Nuttall, his private secretary, to transcribe the endowment ceremony in a book now in the LDS Archives in Salt Lake City. Fortunately, Elder Nuttall also transcribed part of the temple ritual's "lecture at the veil" into his own personal diary (Journal 2: December 1876 - August 1877), which is in the BYU Special Collections, in Provo, Utah. The "lecture" reveals that Brigham Young's "Adam-God Doctrine" was taught in the temple ceremonies.He writes:"In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments written, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elder J.D.T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which Presi-dent Young refers to Adam in his creation &c./s/ L. John NuttallFor Presidents W. WoodruffGeo. Q. CannonJos. F. SmithJune 3, 1892Salt Lake City" (Source: L. John Nuttall Papers; BYU Special Collections, Mss 188, Letterpress copy book #4, p. 290.)Below is Brigham's Lecture at the VeilIn the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth. & putting Michael or Adam upon it. these things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will enable you to understand the expression of Jesus made while in Jerusalem. This is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. We were once acquainited [acquainted] with the Gods & lived with them but we had the privilige of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. we did so and forgot all and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned. We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. how they were formed &c some think he was made like an adobie and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return" Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth. he was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth. Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours he had received the Priesthood and the Keys thereof. and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation and was crowned with glory immortality and eternal lives and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world. and when this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael who is Adam our common Father. Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of Progression. consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. and when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this Kingdom our earth he came to it. and slept and forgot all and became like an Infant child. it is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve-this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other Men had the seed within him to propagate his species. but not the Woman. she conceives the seed but she does not produce it. consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. this explains the mystery of Moses's dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam & Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh. bones and sinews. but upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit that was nesesary that they might be together that man might be. the woman was found in trans-gression not the Man- Now in the law of Sacrifice we have the promise of a Savior and man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks- this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood.[Four lines without any writing on them.]Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) 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 [glory] to Mary and she conceived for when Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came.I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me-(Source: Journal of L. John Nuttall; BYU Special Collections; Pres. Brigham Young; delivered in St. George; Wed., Feb. 7, 1877. This was the first draft of the Lecture at the Veil. Brother L. John Nuttall was the private secretary to President Brigham Young until his (Brigham's) death in 1877. He then became the private secretary to President John Taylor (1879-1887) and again to President Wilford Woodruff (1887-1892)
Stone holm Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 I did not know that it was in debate over whether BY included Adam-God in the lecture at the veil.I need to do more research, but this is what I found in a quick google search regarding your source. This is not written by me, nor to I vouche for it's accuracy, but it's provided source for those wanting to look further.If this is the veil lecture, it is pretty ambiguous.
Nevo Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 If this is the veil lecture, it is pretty ambiguous.What is ambiguous about it? The Adam-God teaching is unmistakable. Young says that Adam passed through mortality, was resurrected, and exalted prior to coming to this earth, and begot all of the spirits that would ever come to the earth, the first of these being Jesus Christ. That is about as clear as it gets. 1
Stone holm Posted June 17, 2013 Posted June 17, 2013 You know, when some Christians try to tell us we worship a "different" Jesus than the one they worship.Oh...but we do worship a different Jesus and Heavenly Father than the majority of Christianity, its just they believe ours doesn't exist and we believe theirs doesn't exist. No point in arguing with them that we worship the same one. 1
Recommended Posts