Adam-God Theory/Doctrine

[Brian 2.0]

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

Thanks Don. You're a breath of fresh air to this thread.

[Ahab]

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

I think it's important to bear in mind that there is more than one idea regarding Adam and God, so referring to the Adam-God idea or the Adam-God doctrine will trigger different thoughts for different people. Let's look at things line upon line, and precept upon precept.

1) Adam is the same kind of being as our Father, as are all of the rest of us, and our kind of being, generally, is referred to as God. Thus, Adam can be referred to as God.

2) Adam has a prominent position in the family tree of our Father in heaven in that through him all of the rest of us were born to come to this Earth. Thus, Adam is the Father of the whole human race upon this planet, including Jesus Christ through Mary.

All of the details regarding how God our Father begat Adam on this planet aren't given in detail, but it is clear that Adam was begat just as all of the rest of us were, by parents, and that the Father of Adam is the Father of all of the rest of us who came to this planet through Adam.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Ahab

[Stone holm]

I think it's important to bear in mind that there is more than one idea regarding Adam and God, so referring to the Adam-God idea or the Adam-God doctrine will trigger different thoughts for different people. Let's look at things line upon line, and precept upon precept.

1) Adam is the same kind of being as our Father, as are all of the rest of us, and our kind of being, generally, is referred to as God. Thus, Adam can be referred to as God.

2) Adam has a prominent position in the family tree of our Father in heaven in that through him all of the rest of us were born to come to this Earth. Thus, Adam is the Father of the whole human race upon this planet, including Jesus Christ through Mary.

All of the details regarding how God our Father begat Adam on this planet aren't given in detail, but it is clear that Adam was begat just as all of the rest of us were, by parents, and that the Father of Adam is the Father of all of the rest of us who came to this planet through Adam.

This is my understanding as well, however, BY or his scribes may have interjected some confusion into the dialogue, although in the main he seems to have been on the money. The controversy over what was in the veil lecture bothers me some, but if they dropped the reference to Adam being the literal father of Jesus (to the extent that was ever intended) I think the rest can pretty much be read to be consistent with the above.

[Ahab]

This is my understanding as well, however, BY or his scribes may have interjected some confusion into the dialogue, although in the main he seems to have been on the money. The controversy over what was in the veil lecture bothers me some, but if they dropped the reference to Adam being the literal father of Jesus (to the extent that was ever intended) I think the rest can pretty much be read to be consistent with the above.

Adam is the literal father of Jesus, though. Some of us may prefer to say he was the great...great...great grand Father, instead, but a Father is still a Father no matter how great or grand he is and if it had not been for Adam Jesus would not have been born through Mary and Mary would not have been born through her parents who can all be traced back to Adam and Eve.

[Stone holm]

Adam is the literal father of Jesus, though. Some of us may prefer to say he was the great...great...great grand Father, instead, but a Father is still a Father no matter how great or grand he is and if it had not been for Adam Jesus would not have been born through Mary and Mary would not have been born through her parents who can all be traced back to Adam and Eve.

You nailed it Ahab!

[DonBradley]

One clarification to what I wrote: while the young Joseph F. Smith (e.g., at the SLC school of the prophets in 1870) asserted his belief in the Adam-God idea, the elderly Joseph F. Smith, as church president, pretty clearly rejected it. He completed its removal from the temple, authorized the 1916 doctrinal exposition that went a completely different direction, and, based on one 1915 newspaper report, believed that Adam and Eve were the children of our Father and Mother rather than being our Father and Mother.

John Taylor's views on the subject are more enigmatic, though there is some indication that he gave a half-acceptance to Brigham's ideas on Adam: e.g., that Adam came here from another world and that Adam at least might be the father of our spirits. But Taylor seems not to have believed that Adam was the father of Christ.

Don

[cinepro]

Frankly, I can't figure out what President Kimball meant when he said this:

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. 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.

- Our Own Liahona

Did he honestly think it was only "allegedly" taught?

[Ahab]

Frankly, I can't figure out what President Kimball meant when he said this:

Did he honestly think it was only "allegedly" taught?

On one hand there is what Brigham Young meant when he taught what he taught and on the other hand there is what some people think he meant which is not what he meant when he taught what he taught. The first is doctrine and the latter is theory.

[Brian 2.0]

On one hand there is what Brigham Young meant when he taught what he taught and on the other hand there is what some people think he meant which is not what he meant when he taught what he taught. The first is doctrine and the latter is theory.

And since is preposterous and assumptive to think anyone knows "what Brigham Young meant" when he taught it, we ALL fall into the second category. Everyone commenting on this, including you Ahab, fall into the "what some people think he meant" camp.

Meaning it's all theory, and we must look at the evidences to support that theory.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Ahab]

And since is preposterous and assumptive to think anyone knows "what Brigham Young meant" when he taught it, we ALL fall into the second category. Everyone commenting on this, including you Ahab, fall into the "what some people think he meant" camp.

Meaning it's all theory, and we must look at the evidences to support that theory.

Through the power of the Holy Spirit we can know the truth of all things, including what someone means when they say something they were inspired to say by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a common thing we do when we read scripture, with God helping us to know how to interpet the text correctly according to what the Holy Spirit was inspiring that writer to say, helping us to avoid misinterpretations. If you're not guided by the Holy Spirit when you read what a prophet has written then you won't arrive at the correct interpretation, or if you do you may not know it is the correct one and you might pass that by for some other interpretation. That's why we all need God's help when we're in search of the truth. Without his help, you're basically just guessing even if you might think of it as an educated guess and "most likely" to be what is true.

[Brian 2.0]

Through the power of the Holy Spirit we can know the truth of all things, including what someone means when they say something they were inspired to say by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a common thing we do when we read scripture, with God helping us to know how to interpet the text correctly according to what the Holy Spirit was inspiring that writer to say, helping us to avoid misinterpretations. If you're not guided by the Holy Spirit when you read what a prophet has written then you won't arrive at the correct interpretation, or if you do you may not know it is the correct one and you might pass that by for some other interpretation. That's why we all need God's help when we're in search of the truth. Without his help, you're basically just guessing even if you might think of it as an educated guess and "most likely" to be what is true.

Still, through the use of the spirit to help you determine what he meant, you still fall into the category of "what some people think he meant." You don't have a perfect knowledge that you have interpreted the spirit with 100% accuracy. I refuse to accept your claim that you know what Brigham Young meant when he said the things he did. You have to accept the possibility that you might be wrong in your interpretation. We all have to accept that fact.

Edited June 20, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Ahab]

Try reading this again and maybe you'll see something you didn't get as my meaning:

On one hand there is what Brigham Young meant when he taught what he taught and on the other hand there is what some people think he meant which is not what he meant when he taught what he taught. The first is doctrine and the latter is theory.

You've misunderstood someone before and then realized that later, I'm sure. God can help fill in the blanks.

[DonBradley]

On one hand there is what Brigham Young meant when he taught what he taught and on the other hand there is what some people think he meant which is not what he meant when he taught what he taught. The first is doctrine and the latter is theory.

Hey Ahab,

Given that Brigham nearly kicked Orson Pratt out of the 12 over Orson's qualms with Brigham's Adam teachings, it would have been positively cruel from Brigham not to have clarified them to Orson. And it's clear from Orson's statements that what he understood Brigham to teach is what people embracing "the Adam-God theory" have also understood--that our Heavenly Father and Mother began the human race on this earth by descending here and voluntarily taking on themselves again mortality, and that among the titles of our Father in Heaven are Michael and the Ancient of Days.

While there have been attempts (e.g., by Eldon Watson) to reinterpret what Brigham said, it's quite clear what he said and what he meant. And it's quite clear what his contemporaries, from the lowest levels of the church to the highest, understood him to mean. Not one of them is on record with the idea that he was referring to two different Adams or any of that. They understood him to mean what I outlined above.

The best approach is to begin by accepting that Brigham said and meant what he did, and then work from there.

If you read Buerger's article, I think the meaning will be pretty clear.

Don

[DonBradley]

Through the power of the Holy Spirit we can know the truth of all things, including what someone means when they say something they were inspired to say by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is a common thing we do when we read scripture, with God helping us to know how to interpet the text correctly according to what the Holy Spirit was inspiring that writer to say, helping us to avoid misinterpretations. If you're not guided by the Holy Spirit when you read what a prophet has written then you won't arrive at the correct interpretation, or if you do you may not know it is the correct one and you might pass that by for some other interpretation. That's why we all need God's help when we're in search of the truth. Without his help, you're basically just guessing even if you might think of it as an educated guess and "most likely" to be what is true.

Ahab,

I can certainly accept that you may have some inspiration to give you truth as you read Brigham Young's teachings on Adam. Note that this is different from you knowing what Brigham meant.

After all, we all sometimes, if we are diligent in studying them, receive insights while reading the scriptures that are sometimes beyond what the original author intended--insights that are more advanced or more personal. As several recent General Authorities have said, the scriptures can become a personal Urim and Thummim--a medium of revelation beyond merely what the authors wrote.

The historical meaning of a text is best determined historically--which is why, for instance, the Church doesn't (as I can attest) have the people at the Joseph Smith Papers pray to determine their historical meaning, but research to determine their historical meaning. And the meaning of Brigham's Adam teachings in their original context can be determined quite clearly from the study of those teachings in that context.

That you are seeking inspiration as you read them, and receiving impressions of truth for yourself is wonderful and something you are surely right to do. It is also a separate thing from understanding Brigham's teachings in their historical context--which is all I'm referring to in my conclusions above.

Regards,

Don

[Ahab]

Hey Ahab,

Given that Brigham nearly kicked Orson Pratt out of the 12 over Orson's qualms with Brigham's Adam teachings, it would have been positively cruel from Brigham not to have clarified them to Orson. And it's clear from Orson's statements that what he understood Brigham to teach is what people embracing "the Adam-God theory" have also understood--that our Heavenly Father and Mother began the human race on this earth by descending here and voluntarily taking on themselves again mortality, and that among the titles of our Father in Heaven are Michael and the Ancient of Days.

Hey Don,

Yes, that is the theory, and at some point we all need to learn to go to God for our answers regardless fo want anyone else will tell us. An apostle like Orson should have known that as well as anyone else with no need for Brigham to be his personal tutor.

While there have been attempts (e.g., by Eldon Watson) to reinterpret what Brigham said, it's quite clear what he said and what he meant. And it's quite clear what his contemporaries, from the lowest levels of the church to the highest, understood him to mean. Not one of them is on record with the idea that he was referring to two different Adams or any of that. They understood him to mean what I outlined above.

The best approach is to begin by accepting that Brigham said and meant what he did, and then work from there.

If you read Buerger's article, I think the meaning will be pretty clear.

Don

Think and write about whatever you want. I've already shared what I think, and I think we both understand the process for finding out what is true.

[DonBradley]

Hey Don,

Yes, that is the theory, and at some point we all need to learn to go to God for our answers regardless fo want anyone else will tell us. An apostle like Orson should have known that as well as anyone else with no need for Brigham to be his personal tutor.

If Brigham didn't intend to act as a doctrinal tutor, he was free to not repeatedly teach on the Adam-God subject. And there is nothing I have learned of Brigham that portrays him as cruel enough to rake Orson over the coals for not believing a concept that Brigham wasn't even teaching.

Think and write about whatever you want. I've already shared what I think, and I think we both understand the process for finding out what is true.

Actually, we appear to differ on how to obtain truth.

The Lord has provided many means for finding truth, means appropriate to the kinds of truth pursued. For Him to tell us everything would undermine the development of our own faculties of intelligence, which we need to do in order to become like Him.

And if He wanted to tell us everything, He wouldn't have given us minds to search truth out for ourselves, not told us to seek knowledge from the best books, and the like. And, indeed, most truths we learn about this world come from rational, empirical inquiry.

I've already mentioned how the Church has the people at the Joseph Smith Papers Project (where I did a 6-month internship) rely exclusively on historical evidence in determining the historical meaning of Joseph Smith's revelations, letters, and other texts. If the Church regards that as good enough for understanding what Joseph meant, I'm not sure why you think you it not good enough for you in understanding what Brigham meant.

But, and here is a crucial key, it's one thing to know what a historical figure meant by what they said, and it's another to know how God might use what they said as a springboard for teaching truths to you.

I fully affirm your ability to receive from the Spirit as you encounter Brigham Young's Adam sermons truths intended for you, whether or not these were what Brigham intended in the moment of speaking.

But in public discussion of a historical question--What did this historical figure mean in context when he said X?--the evidence appropriate to that discussion is publicly available historical evidence. I've provided sources for that, which you are free to engage or to ignore as you see fit.

On the basis of that voluminous and compelling evidence, I'm no more in doubt, and therefore no more in need of revelation to settle this historical question, than I am that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were intended to secure fundamental rights for American citizens.

That said, I congratulate you for seeking your own personal knowledge from God on what constitutes doctrinal truth, and I agree that you have right, obligation, and ability to do that.

This isn't something I want to continue to argue about, as it appears you don't either. But if you'd like to take the last word on whether Brigham's intent should be understood by historical evidence or by personal inspiration, please do.

Regards,

Don

Edited June 20, 2013 by DonBradley

[Ahab]

This isn't something I want to continue to argue about, as it appears you don't either. But if you'd like to take the last word on whether Brigham's intent should be understood by historical evidence or by personal inspiration, please do.

I'd only like to clarify that I think both should be understood. The historical evidence gives us data/ideas/food for thought we can think about both before and during our discussions with God, some we might not even think about all on our own or while waiting for God to bring it up for us... even when the ideas aren't good and we have to find that out the hard way so we can see both sides on an issue.

[Stone holm]

I'd only like to clarify that I think both should be understood. The historical evidence gives us data/ideas/food for thought we can think about both before and during our discussions with God, some we might not even think about all on our own or while waiting for God to bring it up for us... even when the ideas aren't good and we have to find that out the hard way so we can see both sides on an issue.

Ah Ahab, you do remind me of the Irishman in Braveheart from time to time.

[Ahab]

Ah Ahab, you do remind me of the Irishman in Braveheart from time to time.

I do have a bit of Irish in me.

[ERayR]

And since is preposterous and assumptive to think anyone knows "what Brigham Young meant" when he taught it, we ALL fall into the second category. Everyone commenting on this, including you Ahab, fall into the "what some people think he meant" camp.

Meaning it's all theory, and we must look at the evidences to support that theory.

Yes, that is correct and what I think he taught is not what you think he taught, and what you think he taught is not what Ahab thinks he taught, and what Ahab thinks he taught is not what everybody else thinks he taught. What I think is just as valid as what you think which is just as valid as what Ahab thinks. All this because there is not enough good evidence for an authoritative declaration. So until such comes along we will all grope around the elephant like blind men declaring our own interpretation of what he meant, one of which may be right or then again, maybe not.

[Nevo]

What I think is just as valid as what you think which is just as valid as what Ahab thinks. All this because there is not enough good evidence for an authoritative declaration. So until such comes along we will all grope around the elephant like blind men declaring our own interpretation of what he meant, one of which may be right or then again, maybe not.

There has been "good evidence for an authoritative declaration" for quite some time. As Don correctly noted, "it's quite clear what [brigham Young] said and what he meant." That you and Ahab prefer to remain oblivious does not mean that the evidence is not there.

[ERayR]

There has been "good evidence for an authoritative declaration" for quite some time. As Don correctly noted, "it's quite clear what [brigham Young] said and what he meant." That you and Ahab prefer to remain oblivious does not mean that the evidence is not there.

I am certainly glad that we are close enough and that you know me well enough to declare me oblivious. I on the other hand certainly don't know you well enough to declare you oblivious. Your post is however a bit condescending, can I declare you arrogant?

[Nevo]

I am certainly glad that we are close enough and that you know me well enough to declare me oblivious. I on the other hand certainly don't know you well enough to declare you oblivious. Your post is however a bit condescending, can I declare you arrogant?

I'm sure you're a fine fellow. I just find it irritating when you declare that there's "not enough good evidence" to say one way or the other whether Brigham Young taught Adam-God when it's clear to me that you've not even looked at the evidence.

[ERayR]

I'm sure you're a fine fellow. I just find it irritating when you declare that there's "not enough good evidence" to say one way or the other whether Brigham Young taught Adam-God when it's clear to me that you've not even looked at the evidence.

You have not comprehended what I wrote. I did not say he didn't teach some kind of Adam/God. I said there is not any definitive evidence to know whose interpretation of what they think he taught is correct, if any are. I am quite sure you think your interpretation is the correct one and Ahab thinks his is and Stone thinks his is and I think you all may have some good points but that you are all wrong but that at this time and in this place it is all irrelevant. Fun to discuss and speculate on as long as you don't take yourself too seriously. I am sure that if it is still bothering you when you get to the other side you can go directly to Brigham and he will explain what he meant. Works fine for me I still have lots of room in Warehouse 13.

[Tacenda]

You have not comprehended what I wrote. I did not say he didn't teach some kind of Adam/God. I said there is not any definitive evidence to know whose interpretation of what they think he taught is correct, if any are. I am quite sure you think your interpretation is the correct one and Ahab thinks his is and Stone thinks his is and I think you all may have some good points but that you are all wrong but that at this time and in this place it is all irrelevant. Fun to discuss and speculate on as long as you don't take yourself too seriously. I am sure that if it is still bothering you when you get to the other side you can go directly to Brigham and he will explain what he meant. Works fine for me I still have lots of room in Warehouse 13.

Which begs the question, what is the significance of warehouse 13, why not 2 or 20?