Adam-God Theory/Doctrine

[Glenn101]

Reading 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.

Oh, I agree that the bit on Adam was an aside, an excursion off the path. Brigham's words, that those were "ideas that did not concern us at the present" can be interpreted several ways. However, there is very little more in the Journal of Discourse on the matter. Brigham backed off quite a bit from that time on. And, of course, he never brought it up to be voted on to become scripture.

Glenn

[Brian 2.0]

Oh, I agree that the bit on Adam was an aside, an excursion off the path. Brigham's words, that those were "ideas that did not concern us at the present" can be interpreted several ways. However, there is very little more in the Journal of Discourse on the matter. Brigham backed off quite a bit from that time on. And, of course, he never brought it up to be voted on to become scripture.

Glenn

For me, a lot of it comes down to if Brigham Young implemented it into the Endowment or not.

We can discount a lot of comments from Brigham Young and other prophets without much consequence as "speaking as a man", but if you have to wait for church-wide or even Quorum of the 12-wide voting of acceptance to take comments as "speaking as a Prophet of God" then I think there is about one instance of "speaking as a Prophet of God" in my entire lifetime.

Does the concept that "gender is eternal" even pass that standard? Or that we have a "Mother in Heaven"?

That obviously isn't the standard most members use practically on when deciding to believe the Prophet is speaking for God or just for himself. There are other things you consider.

And a prohpet implemeting a doctrine in the Endowment session is definately one of those things to consider.

Edited June 17, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Teancum]

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.

Your premise is faulty because it was clear he did not hold to what you are calling standard LDS doctrine about Adam. It is clear his contemporaries understood him and why one so opposed him. I have asked you before to provide evidence anyone living when Brigham T preached AG understood him in the way the two Adam theory requires. You have failed to do so,

[Brian 2.0]

While I don't believe in any of it, at all. The Adam-God doctrine is pretty awesome.

As God, you're an exalted immortal being being fathering countless sprit children, but every once in a while you go down and be mortal on a new earth to start it up.

Bascially, God gets to go camping as a mortal every so often. Kind of a cool perk.

And you know those spirit children are all "alright, Mom & Dad are gone for while, what are we gonna do." I'd hate to be the archangel put in charge of that deal.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Stone holm]

Well, have read the banter in this thread, have a hard time buying into the concept that Brigham taught that Heavenly Father somehow shed his status as God, abandoned His post in the heavens and came down here to become mortal Adam. Arab is right without the need for his claims of a direct phone line to God, the transcriptions don't flow well and misunderstanding just a few words can change their whole meaning.

[Brian 2.0]

Well, have read the banter in this thread, have a hard time buying into the concept that Brigham taught that Heavenly Father somehow shed his status as God, abandoned His post in the heavens and came down here to become mortal Adam. Arab is right without the need for his claims of a direct phone line to God, the transcriptions don't flow well and misunderstanding just a few words can change their whole meaning.

That is not the only quote explaing this doctrine. I was using that one specifically in reference to the idea that is was taught in the Endowment.

There are plenty more quotes on the doctrine.

I refer you to David John Buerger's Dialogue article on it:

https://www.google.c....47883778,d.cGE

Here is one quote from it from Brigham Young:

After men have . . . become Gods they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit . . . and then commence the organization of tabernacles. . . How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spirit children.

It's an article worth a read before deciding on the issue.

Edited June 18, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Stone holm]

That is not the only quote explaing this doctrine. I was using that one specifically in reference to the idea that is was taught in the Endowment.

There are plenty more quotes on the doctrine.

I refer you to David John Buerger's Dialogue article on it:

https://www.google.c....47883778,d.cGE

Here is one quote from it from Brigham Young:

It's an article worth a read before deciding on the issue.

What this suggests is that under the theory immortality would be a very tennuous thing that could be affected by diet. That does not sound compatible with other teachings.

[DBMormon]

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

Only 30?

We culturally create Doctrine with one talk of an LDS leader, 30 makes it almost official doesn't it?

[Stone holm]

Only 30?

We culturally create Doctrine with one talk of an LDS leader, 30 makes it almost official doesn't it?

No you need to publish it in a book and then get someone to quote it on this board.

[ERayR]

What this suggests is that under the theory immortality would be a very tennuous thing that could be affected by diet. That does not sound compatible with other teachings.

D&C 89

[Stone holm]

D&C 89

Yeah but Christ indicated that He would sit down to a bottle of wine with us in the Kingdom.

[Brian 2.0]

What this suggests is that under the theory immortality would be a very tennuous thing that could be affected by diet. That does not sound compatible with other teachings.

Again...

I'm not trying to show evidence that Adam-God is consistent among all LDS doctrine. That's not what the discussion was. It was "what did Brigham Young teach regarding the Adam-God doctrine." He may have taught stuff incompatible with other church teachings...

Just because we don't believe something... or a piece of information doesn't jive with current LDS doctrine, doesn't mean Brigham Young didn't teach it.

Brigham Young could have even been contradicting his own earlier teachings... that doesn't mean he didn't teach it.

[ERayR]

Again...

I'm not trying to show evidence that Adam-God is consistent among all LDS doctrine. That's not what the discussion was. It was "what did Brigham Young teach regarding the Adam-God doctrine." He may have taught stuff incompatible with other church teachings...

Just because we don't believe something... or a piece of information doesn't jive with current LDS doctrine, doesn't mean Brigham Young didn't teach it.

Brigham Young could have even been contradicting his own earlier teachings... that doesn't mean he didn't teach it.

And just because we don't believe something or see the correlation to other principles doesn't mean it isn't true.

[Ahab]

Again...

I'm not trying to show evidence that Adam-God is consistent among all LDS doctrine. That's not what the discussion was. It was "what did Brigham Young teach regarding the Adam-God doctrine." He may have taught stuff incompatible with other church teachings...

Just because we don't believe something... or a piece of information doesn't jive with current LDS doctrine, doesn't mean Brigham Young didn't teach it.

Brigham Young could have even been contradicting his own earlier teachings... that doesn't mean he didn't teach it.

You don't seem to realize how much prophets of God know about things. I know he wasn't perfect but it doesn't take that much effort to know and understand the truth on this issue from God, especially for someone who has the keys for the whole Church and can open that door to God by just asking him a question. And he also received knowledge directly from Joseph Smith, who was also adept at getting revelation directly from God.

Try not putting so much trust in what his scribes wrote, as if they were perfect stenographers.

[Brian 2.0]

Ahab,

We are not talking about the same thing.

I, and most in this thread, are talking about trying to determine what Brigham Young taught based on the written evidences we have.

You "counter" by arguing that your know what Brigham Young believed and what the true doctrine is based on your personal revelation from god and encouraging me to do the same

These are two completely different things. I am not interested in discussing this with you if the evidences you are using is your own personal revelation. I don't discount your experiences, but it is off topic.

[Ahab]

Ahab,

We are not talking about the same thing.

I, and most in this thread, are talking about trying to determine what Brigham Young taught based on the written evidences we have.

You "counter" by arguing that your know what Brigham Young believed and what the true doctrine is based on your personal revelation from god and encouraging me to do the same

These are two completely different things. I am not interested in discussing this with you if the evidences you are using is your own personal revelation. I don't discount your experiences, but it is off topic.

I've considered all of "the written evidences we have" from Brigham, though, and I'm still coming up with a different picture than the one you have of his teachings. I'm not relying exclusively on personal revelation from God to me without having read all of the written evidences we have, or can find. You seem to be paying more attention to some of that evidence without considering all of it, together, and I'm suggesting that you consider all of it, together, to get an overall picture and then ask God to help you understand the truth in what Brigham taught. I think it's clear from the evidence that he knew quite a bit more than most other members of the Church and I don't see any of us knowing more than he knew on this issue.

[Stone holm]

Ahab,

We are not talking about the same thing.

I, and most in this thread, are talking about trying to determine what Brigham Young taught based on the written evidences we have.

You "counter" by arguing that your know what Brigham Young believed and what the true doctrine is based on your personal revelation from god and encouraging me to do the same

These are two completely different things. I am not interested in discussing this with you if the evidences you are using is your own personal revelation. I don't discount your experiences, but it is off topic.

But Ahab has interesting things going on in his head, heck I sometimes have interesting things going on in my head -- and if our wives won't listen to it, who are we suppose to tell it to?

[Ahab]

But Ahab has interesting things going on in his head, heck I sometimes have interesting things going on in my head -- and if our wives won't listen to it, who are we suppose to tell it to?

Exactly. Feel free to vent at will, at your leisure. Dare to share and declare the ideas you have in your head.

And take your hat off if you think that will help you. Or you can leave your hat on.

[Calm]

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).

Another CARM quote that has been borrowed far and wide....

Since he was responding to the claim that we worship a different Jesus, then I doubt that the origin of their belief is his comment that we don't believe in the traditional portrayal of Christ.

President Hinckley continued (with words usually omitted by critics): Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I'm trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Jesus_Christ/Gordon_B._Hinckley_states_that_Latter-day_Saints_don't_believe_in_the_%22traditional%22_Christ

And they can only draw the conclusion that we don't worship the Biblical Christ if they focus solely on that quote and not on other teachings, even from Pres. Hinckley:

Believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the greatest figure of time and eternity. Believe that His matchless life reached back before the world was formed. Believe that He was the Creator of the earth on which we live. Believe that He was Jehovah of the Old Testament, that He was the Messiah of the New Testament, that He died and was resurrected, that He visited the western continents and taught the people here, that He ushered in this final gospel dispensation, and that He lives, the living Son of the living God, our Savior and our Redeemer.

[Calm]

I've studied all of his teachings

Have you read in some fashion every one of his sermons, public and private, recorded and unrecorded?

[Ahab]

Have you read in some fashion every one of his sermons, public and private, recorded and unrecorded?

As far as I know, yes. I've read all of his discourses in the JODs, and as far as I know those include all of them. And even if I may have missed one because I don't know where to find it I've read enough to know how much he knew about Adam and God to know that I don't know more than he knew about the truth of Adam and God and I know that what I know about Adam and God is true.

[Brian 2.0]

Have you read in some fashion every one of his sermons, public and private, recorded and unrecorded?

As far as I know, yes.

You've read Brigham Young's unrecorded private sermons?!

I gotta figure out how your revelation process works, because it's amazing!

[DonBradley]

The idea that the General Authorities rejected the Adam-God idea right after Brigham's death and that it was not continued in the temple after his death is incorrect.

David John Buerger's Dialogue article "The Adam-God Doctrine" shows that the idea was also taught by Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith. Buerger also shows that the Adam-God idea continued to be taught in the temple into at least the 1890s, when it became a point of dispute in the Bunkerville Stake high council. (President Woodruff and his counselor George Q. Cannon even visited the stake to address the dispute. Their comments, including Cannon's endorsement of the Adam-God material then in the temple, are in the Bunkerville Stake high council minutes, cited by Buerger and reproduced in full by Culley K. Christensen in The Adam-God Maze.

The best indications offered by these authors and their sources are that some of Brigham's Adam-God thinking (e.g., that Adam was Christ's father) was removed from the temple within months of his death and that the rest was removed by Joseph F. Smith, early in his presidency (ca. 1902-1904).

None of this information tells how we ought to deal with the fact that this idea was taught. But I think it's good to have the basic history of the idea in mind.

I also think it's very encouraging that there's a greater openness today about the fact that this was taught than there was, say, when I was a kid.

Don

[Ahab]

You've read Brigham Young's unrecorded private sermons?!

I gotta figure out how your revelation process works, because it's amazing!

Read in some fashion in the sense that I've become familiar enough with all of his teachings I have read to know that he would not have contradicted himself in any of his teachings I might not have found. Prophets of God don't flip flop when they know what is true, don't cha know.

[Stone holm]

Read in some fashion in the sense that I've become familiar enough with all of his teachings I have read to know that he would not have contradicted himself in any of his teachings I might not have found. Prophets of God don't flip flop when they know what is true, don't cha know.

Only when they don't know what is true? am confused.