JLHPROF Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 (edited) Cdwois Posted Today, 10:09 AMI think we can all agree that BY made mistakes, and this was certainly one of the most obvious. Posting this as the final word on behalf of everyone else and then locking the thread, a bit rude...I had to open a new one. I do NOT agree that Adam-God was a mistake on Brigham's part, obvious or even at all. I think the mistake has been others dismissing a brilliant teaching that has harmed nothing and replacing it with teachings that make no sense. Edited August 31, 2014 by JLHPROF 1
Tiki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 It's better than the Monkey-Adam theories promoted on this site. 1
blooit Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Often we do not fully understand what a prophet was saying. Many times seers, or even Jesus himself, say things that when properly understood in context - make perfect sense - but when judged based on our limited understanding do not add up. This is often the case with prophecies about the last days, or predictions in patriarchal blessings. I believe the same is probably true with the Adam-God theory. For example, if the Garden of Eden story is largely a parable, then Adam in the garden could very well represent Heavenly Father. I realize there are holes in this, but hopefully you get my point. We may simply not have enough knowledge to render judgement on Brigham Young or his statements on Adam and God.
Tsuzuki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Of possible relevance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Often we do not fully understand what a prophet was saying. Many times seers, or even Jesus himself, say things that when properly understood in context - make perfect sense - but when judged based on our limited understanding do not add up. This is often the case with prophecies about the last days, or predictions in patriarchal blessings. I believe the same is probably true with the Adam-God theory. It obviously requires personal revelation to even approach an understanding.
K-2 Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Of possible relevance.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_KadmonJournal of Wilford Woodruff, September 4, 1860."Brother Cannon said there was a learned Doctor that wanted to be baptized. . . . He (the doctor) is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of Gods and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print it would more than fill this room but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed." 3
Tsuzuki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 I should point out that Adam Kadmon refers more to the archetypal human, rather than an individual man, so if Adam Kadmon is God, then that's just another way of saying we are all gods in embryo, which is already correlated doctrine. 2
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Good advice for this doctrine and any other one doesn't presently understand. Tell the Saints that if this stone does not seem to fit into the great building of their faith just now, to roll it aside. You can help them roll it out of their way, so that they will not stumble [22] against it while at their daily duties, and it will be but a short time till they will find a place in their building where no other stone will fit; then it will be on hand all right, and will come into its place in the building with the sound of hammer or chisel. (Mill. Star 16:534) 2
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 B. H. Roberts view of the doctrine. Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any [26] change come over our countenances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that anyone capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe--the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress--should be so lean of intellect as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means--not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught. (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Roberts, p. 42 1
Tsuzuki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 "There is no god but man." - Aleister Crowley 2
ERayR Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 "There is no god but man." - Aleister Crowley He was a little bit off the mark.
cdowis Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 Posting this as the final word on behalf of everyone else and then locking the thread, a bit rude...I had to open a new one. It was actually locked by the moderator. I briefly UNLOCKED it to make my comment and then locked it back again, in deference to the moderator's decision. I do NOT agree that Adam-God was a mistake on Brigham's part, obvious or even at all. I think the mistake has been others dismissing a brilliant teaching that has harmed nothing and replacing it with teachings that make no sense. OK, and so you have now opened a new thread to add you thoughts.
Tsuzuki Posted August 31, 2014 Posted August 31, 2014 He was a little bit off the mark.I think it's dead on. 1
JLHPROF Posted August 31, 2014 Author Posted August 31, 2014 B. H. Roberts view of the doctrine. Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will thus be the God of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any [26] change come over our countenances when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that anyone capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe--the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress--should be so lean of intellect as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means--not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught. (Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Roberts, p. 42 It's not often I come across a quote that I don't recall reading before that expresses my opinion so well. It is a lean intellect indeed that calls it in question.
ERayR Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 I think BY was scary. Period. Because you don't understand BY. A lot of people think Isaiah is boring but it is all in understanding him. Read 2 Nephi 25:1-7
BCSpace Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Posting this as the final word on behalf of everyone else and then locking the thread, a bit rude...I had to open a new one. I do NOT agree that Adam-God was a mistake on Brigham's part, obvious or even at all. I think the mistake has been others dismissing a brilliant teaching that has harmed nothing and replacing it with teachings that make no sense. Thank you, even though it seems that I would likely disagree with you on Adam-God which is (and was) contrary to doctrine and therefore BY didn't teach it. After much study and debate, I was coming to a conclusion similar to the already extant Adam Sr. Adam Jr which I have adopted as the best explaination imho.
ERayR Posted September 1, 2014 Posted September 1, 2014 Thank you, even though it seems that I would likely disagree with you on Adam-God which is (and was) contrary to doctrine and therefore BY didn't teach it. After much study and debate, I was coming to a conclusion similar to the already extant Adam Sr. Adam Jr which I have adopted as the best explaination imho. I haven't solidified my thinking yet but can definitely see answers to a few questions and it fits nicely with what I already believe about the Garden of Eden. Of course if one views it all as figurative then it is bound to be a bit troublesome.
JLHPROF Posted September 1, 2014 Author Posted September 1, 2014 I would likely disagree with you on Adam-God which is (and was) contrary to doctrine and therefore BY didn't teach it. You are right, we do disagree. I think Brigham taught exactly what is recorded and meant every word of it. And having studied Adam-God AND the current beliefs on Adam and Jehovah I know which make more sense to me, so that is what I've chosen to believe. 1
MDalby Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 At first glance, the following statements appear to be in conflict.Out of sight, out of mind.Absence makes the heart grow fonder.Recognizing the truth in these statements is based on one's perspective. I imagine the same can be said regarding BYs statements regarding the title Adam and God.
cinepro Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 I do NOT agree that Adam-God was a mistake on Brigham's part, obvious or even at all. I think the mistake has been others dismissing a brilliant teaching that has harmed nothing and replacing it with teachings that make no sense. So, what do you understand about Brigham Young's teachings that President Kimball and Elder McConkie didn't? 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. President Kimball, "Our Own Liahona"
Storm Rider Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 Brigham Young has been my favorite prophet for decades. I have always appreciated his directness, his faith, and his great forgiveness and patience while teaching the saints. The Adam God theory has been discontinued and rejected by the Church for a reason; there has been no further revelation and, I suspect, more importantly, it is a teaching that does not edify the saints when we are still trying to understand and learn the meaning of true faith, repentance, baptism, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Some may spend a life time seeking out written information on the mysteries of heaven while forgetting to learn the humble strength of prayer or walking a path of holiness. I do believe that contemplation of the mysteries is of worth and in so doing many truths will be opened to us, but it is not to be done at the expense of the fundamentals. Some stridently embrace this theory and I think this is error when it has been declared false by the Church. These individuals exercise the same pride the Ms. KK does in her willingness to reject the words and directions of the Church. We each have our own free agency to believe and act as we choose, but let us use the same standard of judging ourselves as we do others. 1
K-2 Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 We know more about the full extent and meaning of Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings than people of Spencer W. Kimball's generation. Bruce R. McConkie was simply trying to keep Church doctrine consistent, and he knew that other leaders were already on the record as having rejected what Brigham Young taught. We've come a long way since the explanations of Penrose, Widtsoe and Joseph Fielding Smith that Brigham Young was simply misunderstood and was just teaching that Adam is the patriarchal head of the human family and is only our god in that sense. Spencer W. Kimball, however, must have taken those explanations at face value and innocently repeated them with the assumption that they were accurate.
JLHPROF Posted September 2, 2014 Author Posted September 2, 2014 So, what do you understand about Brigham Young's teachings that President Kimball and Elder McConkie didn't? I understand that Brigham claimed revelation on the subject and Pres. Kimball and Eld. McConkie claimed nothing of the sort when they dismissed it and labelled it a heresy.There is NO reason in all of Mormonism why Adam-God should have been removed other than the fact that it bothers potential investigators. We replaced one prophet's theory with another prophet's theory and for some reason labelled the first one a heresy. And as for what I understand, I understand that Brigham Young was pretty darn clear in his teachings and all the efforts to explain it away doesn't change that.
ERayR Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 I understand that Brigham claimed revelation on the subject and Pres. Kimball and Eld. McConkie claimed nothing of the sort when they dismissed it and labelled it a heresy.There is NO reason in all of Mormonism why Adam-God should have been removed other than the fact that it bothers potential investigators. We replaced one prophet's theory with another prophet's theory and for some reason labelled the first one a heresy. And as for what I understand, I understand that Brigham Young was pretty darn clear in his teachings and all the efforts to explain it away doesn't change that. Agreed and it is clear and reasonable to me. Would I teach it in HP group. Not as Adam-God doctrine. We already teach Michael is Adam. We already teach they consumed something that caused physical changes to their bodies and caused a fall. We teach the outline but not the details and if/when I teach this again it will be the outline. I will leave the details alone just like it is in the lesson manuals. 1
Recommended Posts