A Theory On The Origin Of Adam-God

[cdowis]

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” 

-- Brigham Young

 

Several decades ago, before the internet, there was a BBS called Compuserve and one of the groups was on on Mormonism.  One time a woman posted that she spoke to her grandmother in the nursing home and she related an experience by her father (I know, this is third hand but listen anyway).

 

Brigham Young was visiting the area and told him that he was going to play a "great joke" on the Saints.  He did not give any details.  Now we know from church history that JS was fond of such "Saint jokes" such as one played on Daniel Wells when he pretended to wandering the streets drunk.  BY was an actor in this joke, telling Wells that 
"We have alot of problems with the prophet and his drinking".  Wells replied that he would prefer a drunk prophet than no prophet at all.   BY then congratulated him and told him that this was a test of his faith.  (I am not sure of the exact details).

 

Anyway, this story on Compuserve then clicked with me that Adam-God was this "grand joke" to test the saints.  Unfortunately it got out of hand, and he got so involved in it, that it took on a life of its own -- he almost believed it himself.

 

So, this is my theory.  It makes some sense, and based on very sketchy evidence.
 

[JLHPROF]

I don't think that Brigham would add a doctrinal lecture to the temple endowment as a joke.  And the idea that it was a joke that got out of hand ignores the foundational doctrines that led to it in the first place.

Whether Adam-God is a doctrine you find ridiculous or one that you just add to the mormon doctrinal cluster as no longer taught, it had a more prophetic origin than a bad joke. 

[cdowis]

 

I don't think that Brigham would add a doctrinal lecture to the temple endowment as a joke. And the idea that it was a joke that got out of hand ignores the foundational doctrines that led to it in the first place.

Whether Adam-God is a doctrine you find ridiculous or one that you just add to the mormon doctrinal cluster as no longer taught, it had a more prophetic origin than a bad joke. 

 

As for it being based on "foundational doctrine", I find myself in agreement with President Spenser Kimball, as he spoke in General Conference

 

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   

 

 

 

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng

 

If you intend to argue this position that it is a foundational doctrine, you may want to start up another thread.  The point here is how BY would be contradicting himself in previous doctrinal statements.

Edited August 29, 2014 by cdowis

[cinepro]

Coincidentally, "joke that got out of hand" has long been my preferred theory for the origins of polygamy and the priesthood ban, so it's entirely possible Adam/God was too.

 

Also the translation of the Book of Abraham.

Edited August 29, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

And the one year waiting period between civil marriages and Temple sealings in the USA.

[cinepro]

And having the members clean the Church buildings.  It's my understanding that the entire program was based on a sarcastic remark President Hinckley made in an elevator about saving money by "having the members clean the buildings themselves."  When he got a report on the success of the program six months later, his response was "Good...wait, what?"

Edited August 29, 2014 by cinepro

[Brian 2.0]

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” 

-- Brigham Young

 

Several decades ago, before the internet, there was a BBS called Compuserve and one of the groups was on on Mormonism.  One time a woman posted that she spoke to her grandmother in the nursing home and she related an experience by her father (I know, this is third hand but listen anyway).

 

Brigham Young was visiting the area and told him that he was going to play a "great joke" on the Saints.  He did not give any details.  Now we know from church history that JS was fond of such "Saint jokes" such as one played on Daniel Wells when he pretended to wandering the streets drunk.  BY was an actor in this joke, telling Wells that 

"We have alot of problems with the prophet and his drinking".  Wells replied that he would prefer a drunk prophet than no prophet at all.   BY then congratulated him and told him that this was a test of his faith.  (I am not sure of the exact details).

 

Anyway, this story on Compuserve then clicked with me that Adam-God was this "grand joke" to test the saints.  Unfortunately it got out of hand, and he got so involved in it, that it took on a life of its own -- he almost believed it himself.

 

So, this is my theory.  It makes some sense, and based on very sketchy evidence.

I don't believe it's true, but I obsolutely love this theory.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Though I don't accept the teaching, a proper understanding of the Adam-God teaching (thank you Ogden Kraut) is the main thing that initially drew me towards Mormon Fundamentalism early on. It is a beautiful teaching if you believe in "Eternal Progression" towards becoming a "Heavenly Father" over your own spirit children. I don't know why the LDS Church and members reject it, quite honestly.

Edited August 29, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[SmileyMcGee]

And having the members clean the Church buildings. It's my understanding that the entire program was based on a sarcastic remark President Hinckley made in an elevator about saving money by "having the members clean the buildings themselves." When he got a report on the success of the program six months later, his response was "Good...wait, what?"

Hahaha...wait, you're just a porn-addicted apostate who never gained a testimony of the boundless blessings that come from scrubbing the porcelain thrones of the saints...just can't leave it alone can you...

[cdowis]

cinepro

 

OK, so nothing in the church is inspired if you disagree with it.  It's all under the control of the insanity of man.

[cdowis]

I don't know why the LDS Church and members reject it, quite honestly.

 

 

Tell us your experience in reading and studying the scriptures.   How many times have you read the BOM, the D&C.  How familiar are you with the Principles of the Gospel manual.

 

Or is your focus mostly on studying Kraut, et al. 

Edited August 29, 2014 by cdowis

[DaddyB]

It feels like a bad joke sometimes. I take this post as given with tongue in cheek. I am looking forward to learning from Brigham just what he was thinking in teaching such a doctrine. 

 

[ERayR]

Though I don't accept the teaching, a proper understanding of the Adam-God teaching (thank you Ogden Kraut) is the main thing that initially drew me towards Mormon Fundamentalism early on. It is a beautiful teaching if you believe in "Eternal Progression" towards becoming a "Heavenly Father" over your own spirit children. I don't know why the LDS Church and members reject it, quite honestly.

 

Neither do I.  I think it is largely misunderstood.

[omni]

... or, BY had difficulty distinguishing revelation from his own personal beliefs.

[ERayR]

... or, BY had difficulty distinguishing revelation from his own personal beliefs.

 

That may be but I do not see anybody here who has the authority to definitively declare tha such was the case.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Tell us your experience in reading and studying the scriptures.   How many times have you read the BOM, the D&C.  How familiar are you with the Principles of the Gospel manual.

 

Or is your focus mostly on studying Kraut, et al. 

I have read the Book of Mormon approx. 9-12 times in in English and Spanish and studied it in Seminary and Institute (2-3x)

I have read the OT completely through 1- and studied it in Seminary and Institute

I have mostly read through the NT approx. 3 times and studied it in Seminary and Institute

I studied the D&C in Seminary 2x (went back after HS to kill time before mission), studied it in Institute, and have read it mostly through approx. 3 times

That is why I no longer accept "Eternal Progression" or the attendant "Adam-God Doctrine"

When I did accept LDS teaching on "Eternal Progression", the "Adam-God Doctrine" as explained by Bro. Ogden- using multiple conference addresses, diary entries, Quorum Minutes etc... made perfect sense to me. To me, those who believe in "Eternal Progression", still believe in those men as prophets and have those sources as acceptable historical materials, and don't believe it doesn't make sense to me.

In all honesty, I think it is something the LDS have chosen to reject basically because the Fundamentalist Mormons are the ones who have kept it alive, and they don't want to soil themselves with "Plyg" teachings- not for any substantive reason.

Edited August 29, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[cdowis]

I assume by the "Eternal Progression" doctrine, that you mean that God progresses in knowledge, among other things.  As I understand, this is still an unresolved issue of doctrine, along with progression between the kingdoms.

 

But not sure how this has to do with the Adam-God theory.  Now I am defining "Adam-God" as meaning "Adam-Eloheim", Eloheim is the Father of Christ, which is a false doctrine.  Adam does have the titles (office) of God and Father, but is not Eloheim.

 

Hopefully that clarifies your thinking.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I assume by the "Eternal Progression" doctrine, that you mean that God progresses in knowledge, among other things.  As I understand, this is still an unresolved issue of doctrine, along with progression between the kingdoms.

 

But not sure how this has to do with the Adam-God theory.  Now I am defining "Adam-God" as meaning "Adam-Eloheim", Eloheim is the Father of Christ, which is a false doctrine.  Adam does have the titles (office) of God and Father, but is not Eloheim.

 

Hopefully that clarifies your thinking.

I am defining it the same way... I am not confused about anything.

Have you read Bro. Ogden's work on the subject? You should at least endeavor to understand what believers teach about it before poo-pooing why they believe it. It would at least give you an appreciation for how and why they arrived at that conclusion, even if you yourself continue to not embrace it.

 Proverbs 18:13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

[katherine the great]

 

Brigham Young was visiting the area and told him that he was going to play a "great joke" on the Saints.  He did not give any details.  Now we know from church history that JS was fond of such "Saint jokes" such as one played on Daniel Wells when he pretended to wandering the streets drunk.  BY was an actor in this joke, telling Wells that 

"We have alot of problems with the prophet and his drinking".  Wells replied that he would prefer a drunk prophet than no prophet at all.   BY then congratulated him and told him that this was a test of his faith.  (I am not sure of the exact details).

 

That just seems so juvenile.  Really.

[cdowis]

I am defining it the same way... I am not confused about anything.

 

And I did not say you were.  I asked your experience in the scriptures to know how to approach a response.  I am aware of the difference between "confused" and "misguided".

Have you read Bro. Ogden's work on the subject? You should at least endeavor to understand what believers teach about it before poo-pooing why they believe it.

It would at least give you an appreciation for how and why they arrived at that conclusion, even if you yourself continue to not embrace it.

 

My apologetic focus is with historic Christians regarding the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and basic church history.  Fundamentalists are a minority in the world of apologetics.

Sorry.

 

[cdowis]

That just seems so juvenile.  Really.

 

And I see your comment as coming from an unbeliever.  An individual who thinks that a book written on gold plates delivered by an angel, and translated by a prophet is utter nonsense.

 

But thank you for sharing your opinions here.

Edited August 29, 2014 by cdowis

[BookofMormonLuvr]

 

I am defining it the same way... I am not confused about anything.

 

And I did not say you were.  I asked your experience in the scriptures to know how to approach a response.  I am aware of the difference between "confused" and "misguided".

Have you read Bro. Ogden's work on the subject? You should at least endeavor to understand what believers teach about it before poo-pooing why they believe it.

It would at least give you an appreciation for how and why they arrived at that conclusion, even if you yourself continue to not embrace it.

 

My apologetic focus is with historic Christians regarding the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and basic church history.  Fundamentalists are a minority in the world of apologetics.

Sorry.

 

 

Then really you have no foundation to stand on for which to challenge what I have asserted in this thread.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Here is a good place to start to get you up to speed on the teaching, so next time you can enter an "Adam-God" discussion in better possession of the facts. Then you can know what you are actually dialoguing against...

http://ogdenkraut.com/Michael%20Adam.htm

Edited August 30, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[The Nehor]

Coincidentally, "joke that got out of hand" has long been my preferred theory for the origins of polygamy and the priesthood ban, so it's entirely possible Adam/God was too.

 

Also the translation of the Book of Abraham.

 

I want to believe. If God's sense of humor runs that deep there is a good chance I will make apostle. Oh....the fun I could have.

[katherine the great]

And I see your comment as coming from an unbeliever.  An individual who thinks that a book written on gold plates delivered by an angel, and translated by a prophet is utter nonsense.

 

But thank you for sharing your opinions here.

I don't like mind games therefore I am an unbeliever?  I'm not following your logic but okay...  I have never had a church leader who uses those tactics or an employer or a professor or a mentor of any kind.  It is completely foreign to me.  Why not get to know people and judge their loyalty from their actions over time?  That seems like a much more reasonable method of assessing loyalty and much less frustrating to the object of the test.  I don't think I am alone in that view.  At any rate, I see how you are forming your hypothesis.  You are looking at a documented method used by Joseph Smith for assessing loyalty in his followers and applying it to an anomaly in doctrine. It is an interesting idea.