Adam God Theory

[Teancum]

And my problem is with  those who think prophets are supposed to answer all their questions for them.

You keep saying this but I have never said I think prophets should answer ALL QUESTIONS, Yet you downplay what a prophet offers thqt isnin so different thqn what the church claims as well as has no real meaning .

[Jim Stiles]

And the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and revelations in the Pearl of Great Price have the same ultimate author.

The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price have the same ultimate author, but a different author than the ultimate author of the Bible.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Except according to the apologists we really cannot expect clear and direct information. It is all cloudy and fallible .

It"s cloudy? Really? I have never heard that one before. Fallible sure, and it is not perfect because of the medium used. But cloudy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price have the same ultimate author, but a different author than the ultimate author of the Bible.

Actually they don't, they all have the same ultimate author. That was an easy counter.

[ERayR]

Except according to the apologists we really cannot expect clear and direct information. It is all cloudy and fallible .

 

Only when you disagree with them.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I want to create a new theory. I want to create a Moroni-God theory just for the kick of it. Sounds fun.

[Radix]

Since this doctrine is not taught by the LDS Church today and was not taught by Joseph Smith, how should we interpret the apparent calling of church presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff?

This was not something taught openly by Joseph Smith (like polygamy.)  According to the Minutes of Meeting at Historian's Office, April 4, 1860 B. Young did claim it was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God.

 

 " The Bre[thren] are at liberty to publish anything that they see proper or at conference. I would like to enumerate items, firstly - preached & publish, that Adam is the fa[ther] of our spirits, & father of Spirit & father of our bodies - When I read the Rev given to Joseph I read directly the opposite - Lord spake to Adam, which w Man eventually became Adam's (3 blank lines) B.Y. Your statements to night, You come out to night & place them as charges, & have as many against me as I have you. One thing I have thought that I might still have omitted. It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God &c When in Luke Johnson's at O. Hydes the power came upon us, or shock that alarmed the neighborhood. God comes to earth & eats & partakes of fruit. Joseph could not reveal what was revealed to him, & if Joseph had it revealed, he was not told to reveal it."  

[Teancum]

It"s cloudy? Really? I have never heard that one before. Fallible sure, and it is not perfect because of the medium used. But cloudy.

It's called hyperbole.

[mfbukowski]

Or perhaps you misunderstood which Father and Son he was referring to.

 

 

Trying to remove Michael/Adam from Godhood and replace him with the Holy Ghost and trying to combine Christ's spirit body with the OT Jehovah so we are left with just one Godhead that has never changed since forever has left more holes in the scriptures, temple ceremonies, and teachings of the prophets than you can shake a stick at.

 

If we had left Adam-God alone as Brigham taught it it would make much more sense with established revelation and much fewer questions raised about the Godhead every five minutes.

I definitely like that!!

 

And it links Joseph and Brigham to ancient Judaism in a "restoration" of it all.

 

Surprise surprise.  

 

You mean they knew what they were talking about?  

[mfbukowski]

In other words, there is no objective theological standard. The evangelical concept of sola scriptura is an objective theological standard.

 

Show me scientific proof for the truth of sola-scriptura.

 

THAT would be "objective".  A God standing in front of us saying "Do this" and everyone seeing him would be an objective standard.

 

A collection of legends about talking donkeys and floods is not an "objective standard".

 

If the standard was "objective" no one would disagree with it.

 

Yes, one may accept it because God has revealed the same truths to themselves- but that is hardly "objective".   Rational, yes, justifiable logically yes, but not "objective".

 

"Objective" means verifiable by anyone anytime.  The temperature of water when it freezes.  The time the sun will rise tomorrow.  What Obama will say at the next press conference.

 

Anyway, you get the idea.   Hopefully.

[mfbukowski]

Adam is no God the Father. Adam is the Fathers son. He was born immortal, thus Christ is the first born in mortality.

But figuratively as Christ is the Second Adam figuratively?  Couldn't Eloheim (a plural name) refer to generations of Gods both male and female as the Bible seems to indicate?

 

Successive generations of "Adams" used as a title?  Seems to fit well with King Follette?  Successive generations of Gods?

[mfbukowski]

Wrong.

Ah, yes

A well- argued position thoughtfully executed.

 

Snore.

[mfbukowski]

The bible is written down in one place. No one can add to or subtract from it.

Nevermind.

 

You don't have to answer any of my posts.

[mfbukowski]

Interesting. I have Briney's and a handful of other books on AG. Briney's book of course lists just about every statement that Brigham Young made regarding the idea. I would like very much to understand the concept and how it might harmonize with scripture. Are You aware of any writings or blogs that lay AG out in any systematic fashion? Has anyone sat down and tried to work out various pro-AG models? I know many are adverse to "creating" theology and, as You said, wrong speculation might have led to a quieting down and eventual elimination of AG. However, since i am not LDS it would not be appropriate for me to seek a spiritual confirmation or negation of the idea. I'd love to see any number of possible AG theologies all laid out in systematic fashion, what problems they solve, what questions they raise etc.

Good to see you.

 

You do not have to be LDS to seek a spiritual confirmation of anything.  We would never have a convert if that were the case- all converts pray about it while still holding other religious beliefs- by definition.

 

I must say this view of AG seems to put it into harmony with Kabbalah, and I find that fascinating in its implications

[JLHPROF]

I definitely like that!!

 

And it links Joseph and Brigham to ancient Judaism in a "restoration" of it all.

 

Surprise surprise.  

 

You mean they knew what they were talking about?  

 

Whoa.

Dead thread resurrection....

But in truth, I think I have the Heavenly triangle upside down...still works though.

[mfbukowski]

Hello ERayR. Thank You for Your suggestion. However AG (and for that matter Christianity) is not part of my tradition and is not a "spiritual" question for me. If You were to ask me about the Sephirotic tree i would provide a reading list which presented different models, questions raised and solutions. Afterwards, i might recommend meditating on its truth value. As an outsider to LDS, that's what i'm interested in. Then i can compare AG theories  with my own tradition (and i believe there are some correlations). I very much would like to know other people's conclusions and what problems they see as being resolved... if they're out there to be known.

OK I get that.

For me it solves two quandaries- the first the AG theory itself.  It seems contrary to LDS doctrinal notions in that the person Adam is clearly not the person "Eloheim" - the term we use as a name for God the Father.  Mormons, believing in the pre-existence are very much believers in personhood- each of us were who we are for eternity and will continue to be.  I am not you, Eloheim was not Adam.

 

But Paul speaks about the idea of the "second Adam"- referring to Christ because Christ is the "Father" of our salvation and resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15)  Just as Adam was our "father" of our bodies as the first human, Christ was the "father" of our second life- after resurrection.

 

So we have this notion that "Adam" could well be a title as well as a person.  Anyone who is "first" and a "giver of life" could be construed as an "Adam" as a title.

 

So seeing the Father Eloheim as an Adam is new to me. Seeing Christ as an "Adam" is routine.   But this solves the quandary established in Joseph Smith's King Follette Discourse where he discusses different generations of God(s).

 

The idea of different generations of Gods is crucial to make sense of our exaltation doctrine- that we may one day after an eternity of perfecting ourselves, become a God, still beneath our Father as a worldly son is still the son of his father no matter how old they become.

 

So for me that solves two problems- first, why Brigham would teach such a thing that seems blatantly against other doctrines, and also then gives a good explanation for different generations of Gods as Exalted Ones each of whom receive their own Kingdoms, including the title of "Adam".

 

I am picking random quotes since I have not read this in detail, so I hope you are still around to see it.  Hope it helps.

[mfbukowski]

Whoa.

Dead thread resurrection....

But in truth, I think I have the Heavenly triangle upside down...still works though.

uh oh.

 

Didn't check the dates 

Just saw it and clicked

 

Thought it was the present AG thread.  Oops

Edited October 14, 2015 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

OK I get that.

For me it solves two quandaries- the first the AG theory itself.  It seems contrary to LDS doctrinal notions in that the person Adam is clearly not the person "Eloheim" - the term we use as a name for God the Father.  Mormons, believing in the pre-existence are very much believers in personhood- each of us were who we are for eternity and will continue to be.  I am not you, Eloheim was not Adam.

 

But Paul speaks about the idea of the "second Adam"- referring to Christ because Christ is the "Father" of our salvation and resurrection. (1 Corinthians 15)  Just as Adam was our "father" of our bodies as the first human, Christ was the "father" of our second life- after resurrection.

 

So we have this notion that "Adam" could well be a title as well as a person.  Anyone who is "first" and a "giver of life" could be construed as an "Adam" as a title.

 

So seeing the Father Eloheim as an Adam is new to me. Seeing Christ as an "Adam" is routine.   But this solves the quandary established in Joseph Smith's King Follette Discourse where he discusses different generations of God(s).

 

The idea of different generations of Gods is crucial to make sense of our exaltation doctrine- that we may one day after an eternity of perfecting ourselves, become a God, still beneath our Father as a worldly son is still the son of his father no matter how old they become.

 

So for me that solves two problems- first, why Brigham would teach such a thing that seems blatantly against other doctrines, and also then gives a good explanation for different generations of Gods as Exalted Ones each of whom receive their own Kingdoms, including the title of "Adam".

 

I am picking random quotes since I have not read this in detail, so I hope you are still around to see it.  Hope it helps.

Oh, it gets more interesting than that:

Brigham also said in General Conference that:

 

 

Elohim looked around upon the eternity of matter, and said to his associates, and those that he was pleased to call upon at that time for his counselors, with regard to the elements, worlds, planets, kingdoms and thrones; said he, “Yahovah Michael, see that eternal matter on all sides, this way and that way; we have already created worlds upon worlds, shall we create another world? Yes, go and organize the elements yonder in space;”... “Yahovah Michael, go and create a world, make it, organize it, form it; and then put upon it every thing in all the variety that you have seen… “ Yahovah Michael, goes and does as he is told. What I am going to tell you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you. When Yahovah Michael had organized the world… Michael, or Adam, goes down to the new made world, and there he stays… Moses said Adam was made of the dust of the ground, but he did not say of what ground. I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was made of the dust of the earth where he lived, where he honored his calling, believing in his Savior, or Elder Brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed, and got a glorious resurrection… Adam is the Father of our spirits… Now, many inquiries will be made about the Savior such as, “Who is he?” “Is he the Father of Adam?” “Is he the God of Adam?” When Christ has finished his labor and presented it to his father, then he, Adam will receive a fullness… Adam then, was a resurrected being; and I reckon, our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve. “How are we going to know this?” I reckon it… I tell you, when you see your Father in the heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bears your spirit, you will see mother Eve...

[ERayR]

uh oh.

 

Didn't check the dates 

Just saw it and clicked

 

Thought it was the present AG thread.  Oops

That is alright I, for one, appreciate your view on this.

[Ahab]

How could Adam be God?

By defining "God" as a kind of being and any person who is that kind of being.

[Tony Frank]

Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophet from 1970 to July 1972, put forth a clear perspective on the alleged Adam-God theory. You can find all of this in volume 1 of Doctrines of Salvation.

                                       

SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted--in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!--as having said: "Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

 

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

 

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael." Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate.

 

STATUS OF ADAM KNOWN BY BRIGHAM YOUNG. From these passages President Brigham Young could very properly say that we are subject to Adam; that he rules over his posterity, and he gives us commandments, even as he receives commandments from Jesus Christ, who directs him in his ministry and will do so to the latest day of time. And this does not detract anything from the power, greatness, and glory of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

 

Men who harp upon this saying in the discourse of President Brigham Young should know just as well as they know anything -- for it has come to their attention hundreds of times -- that Brigham Young did not confuse Adam with Jesus Christ or the Father whom he worshipped.

 

There is a volume published containing the saying of President Brigham Young in which his doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, and Adam's relationship to them is clearly declared in many pages. But when men desire to malign and misrepresent, such things count for nothing.

 

This is from one of the discourses of Brigham Young: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." Now, if he believed what some people like to interpret him as saying, then he could not say such a thing as that!

 

Again he said: "The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" This certainly does not sound like the interpretations, erroneously credited to him, give his views in relation to the Father and the Son and Adam whom God created!

[JLHPROF]

Oh Tony,

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith may have written that but it's just plain false. Brigham was not misquoted because he taught the same thing dozens of times and others refer to it directly. It's a historical fact he taught it.

This was Pres Smith doing what leaders did with polygamy, the priesthood ban, and other troublesome issues.

This is not anti doctrinal lies. This is a historical belief that has been disavowed. But you can't change history.

[Ahab]

Oh Tony,

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith may have written that but it's just plain false. Brigham was not misquoted because he taught the same thing dozens of times and others refer to it directly. It's a historical fact he taught it.

This was Pres Smith doing what leaders did with polygamy, the priesthood ban, and other troublesome issues.

This is not anti doctrinal lies. This is a historical belief that has been disavowed. But you can't change history.

How well people understand what someone else says, or how well they don't understand and misinterpret, says a lot about why they are where they are on the road to progression.

Thank you for the insights of people like you.

[Ahab]

Joseph Fielding Smith, the prophet from 1970 to July 1972, put forth a clear perspective on the alleged Adam-God theory. You can find all of this in volume 1 of Doctrines of Salvation.

SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted--in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!--as having said: "Now hear it, 0 inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

RELATIONSHIP OF ELOHIM, JEHOVAH, AND MICHAEL. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael." Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate.

STATUS OF ADAM KNOWN BY BRIGHAM YOUNG. From these passages President Brigham Young could very properly say that we are subject to Adam; that he rules over his posterity, and he gives us commandments, even as he receives commandments from Jesus Christ, who directs him in his ministry and will do so to the latest day of time. And this does not detract anything from the power, greatness, and glory of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ.

Men who harp upon this saying in the discourse of President Brigham Young should know just as well as they know anything -- for it has come to their attention hundreds of times -- that Brigham Young did not confuse Adam with Jesus Christ or the Father whom he worshipped.

There is a volume published containing the saying of President Brigham Young in which his doctrine concerning the Father and the Son, and Adam's relationship to them is clearly declared in many pages. But when men desire to malign and misrepresent, such things count for nothing.

This is from one of the discourses of Brigham Young: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the Highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." Now, if he believed what some people like to interpret him as saying, then he could not say such a thing as that!

Again he said: "The greatest desire in the bosom of our Father Adam, or of his faithful children who are co-workers with God, our Father in Heaven, is to save the inhabitants of the earth" This certainly does not sound like the interpretations, erroneously credited to him, give his views in relation to the Father and the Son and Adam whom God created!

More clarification on who is saying what in your post would make it easier to understand you.

Not that I need clarification. I am a prophet and agree with all other prophets of God.

[Mike1991]

I have never heard of the Adam-God theory until just now. But I don't believe it.