Adam God Theory

[mfbukowski]

Is the KFD representative of LDS doctrine?  It seems that the recent Church essays on the subject are moving away from this idea.  Even President Hinckley said "I don't know" when asked about some of these ideas.

 

I want to make sure I"m following you.   Let's just take everything you have said as a given.  The question we've been discussing is whether "Adam" is the same being as "Elohim."  What you have laid out supports the idea they are two separate people but the Elohim consumed fruit in a garden quite separate from Adam/Michael in the process of him becoming a God.  

Exactly, just as the person Jesus the Annointed (Christ) born at Nazareth of Mary etc is not "ADAM" the human being who was our first parent, but can be called "Adam" as a title, meaning "the first one, and originator" of the resurrection.

 

Christ was the first resurrected, but comes after the human person we call "Adam", believed to be the first human male on the earth, the person who fell in the garden.

 

Because Christ lived after the person Adam who fell, but yet is the originator of the resurrection and our eternal life, he can be seen as the "Second Adam" as a title, meaning that just as Adam was the first man, Jesus is the first resurrected man, another giver of life and so can be seen symbolically as the "Second Adam"

 

So to the father of our spirits could be a figurative "Adam" as the father of our spirits- the first to give our spirits life.

[mfbukowski]

I don't see how the "Adam as title" concept works with what BY taught. He said consistently that God came here with one of his wives and entered into mortality by falling. This is what the 19th-century apostles called "multiple probations." It isn't that God has the title of Adam but that an already exalted being (God) came to earth and became a mortal, fallen man again.

That's the heresy that the church has repudiated.

No it is not.

 

The fact that the title "Adam" as a title can be applied symbolically to multiple people is scriptural.  The church may have repudiated that the PERSON Adam is our Heavenly Father but not this.

 

Everything is interpretation John.  You have a little consistency problem- it's clear.  Read what I wrote to Video

 

Edited for an error

Edited October 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Ok.  So you *are* talking about two separate people.  Then we are in agreement.  I think this can make sense within the context of LDS doctrine.

The problem is that there are a lot of fundamentalists in the church due to the Protestant background I think.

 

Mostly what I see causing conflict is the support and interpretation of everything literally- that is the biggest enemy of the church, imo. 

 

We all have to be like John and believe that everything is interpretation.  

[mfbukowski]

Maybe Brigham himself was a fundamentalist.  I am not ruling that out.  If he was, then he was in error.

 

But I like the idea of the symbolic Adam, and I think we can apply the story to heavenly Father and Mother pretty well.  But it is of course all a story- but what is not?

 

It's all interpretation after all.  Stories can be true or false too.

Edited October 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

The problem is that there are a lot of fundamentalists in the church due to the Protestant background I think.

 

Mostly what I see causing conflict is the support and interpretation of everything literally- that is the biggest enemy of the church, imo. 

 

We all have to be like John and believe that everything is interpretation.  

 

The protestant influence is definitely still with us.

[ERayR]

Maybe Brigham himself was a fundamentalist.  I am not ruling that out.  If he was, then he was in error.

 

But I like the idea of the symbolic Adam, and I think we can apply the story to heavenly Father and Mother pretty well.  But it is of course all a story- but what is not?

 

It's all interpretation after all.  Stories can be true or false too.

 

True  but I like it too.

[Coreyb]

There seems to be some misunderstandings on this thread. Brigham Youngs doctrine of Adam is not that Adam is Elohiem. In the temple drama it refers to three divine creators, Elohiem, Jehovah, and Michael. Michael is then identified as the Man Adam. Brigham treats these as three Gods. Sometimes as three generations of Gods. He does not identify Elohiem from the drama with Michael/Adam from the drama. Give him the credit of understanding the mechanics of the endowment, after all we do owe our knowledge of it largely to him. Also, the current Mormon doctrine that identifies Elohiem, Jehovah, and Micheal as God the Father, Jesus, and Adam was not fully laid out in Brigham Youngs lifetime. We cannot read our current doctrines back into his sermons. It is because people try to do so that so many say he does make sense or his doctrines are absurd. Just my thoughts

[Teancum]

There seems to be some misunderstandings on this thread. Brigham Youngs doctrine of Adam is not that Adam is Elohiem. In the temple drama it refers to three divine creators, Elohiem, Jehovah, and Michael. Michael is then identified as the Man Adam. Brigham treats these as three Gods. Sometimes as three generations of Gods. He does not identify Elohiem from the drama with Michael/Adam from the drama. Give him the credit of understanding the mechanics of the endowment, after all we do owe our knowledge of it largely to him. Also, the current Mormon doctrine that identifies Elohiem, Jehovah, and Micheal as God the Father, Jesus, and Adam was not fully laid out in Brigham Youngs lifetime. We cannot read our current doctrines back into his sermons. It is because people try to do so that so many say he does make sense or his doctrines are absurd. Just my thoughts

Well I don't know about you but I think a prophet of God ought to know who God is.

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. See Teachings of Joseph Smith page 345. In the same sermon he said "If any man does not know God, . . . he will realize that he has not eternal life; for there can be eternal life on no other principle” See Teachings, 344.

BY did not teach Adam was Eloheim but he did teach Adam was the God of this world, our God and the father of Jesus. He taught Adam was an exalted being who had lived on another world and received exaltation and that he came to this earth, brought one oh his wives, ate of the fruit of this earth, bacame mortal again and so on.

So did BY know for a certainty the charecter of God?

[Ahab]

It just seems to weird and wrong to think that Adam is our God. That God would sin and could only be saved from sin by Jesus.

The key to all of this is all in a particular definition of the word God. As in a particular kind of being.

When I say Adam is the only God any of us have anything to do with what I mean is that he is the only kind of being that we refer to as God and all of us have as much to do with Adam as we do with any other person who is that kind of being, which is also the same kind of being that all of us are.

All you need to do is interpret the words correctly without coming up with your own misunderstandings and false interpretations.

[JLHPROF]

Well Adam-God continued to be taught to members in the temple under John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (can't remember if it ended under Lorenzo Snow or Jos. F. Smith).

Woodruff also records the teaching in his journal with no sign of doubt or disagreement. I think Brigham and his contemporaries (Orson Pratt aside) accepted this teaching in a more widespread time period that people think. Pratt was brought up for discipline for disagreeing with the doctrine, yet no other Apostle of the day is on record as disagreeing. Either none of them knew who God was or there is more to this doctrine than a wild Brigham speculation.

[Teancum]

Well Adam-God continued to be taught to members in the temple under John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (can't remember if it ended under Lorenzo Snow or Jos. F. Smith).

Woodruff also records the teaching in his journal with no sign of doubt or disagreement. I think Brigham and his contemporaries (Orson Pratt aside) accepted this teaching in a more widespread time period that people think. Pratt was brought up for discipline for disagreeing with the doctrine, yet no other Apostle of the day is on record as disagreeing. Either none of them knew who God was or there is more to this doctrine than a wild Brigham speculation.

Careful friend. I have told you your ideas on this border on apostasy as much as my skepticism does.... ;-)

[mfbukowski]

Well Adam-God continued to be taught to members in the temple under John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (can't remember if it ended under Lorenzo Snow or Jos. F. Smith).

Woodruff also records the teaching in his journal with no sign of doubt or disagreement. I think Brigham and his contemporaries (Orson Pratt aside) accepted this teaching in a more widespread time period that people think. Pratt was brought up for discipline for disagreeing with the doctrine, yet no other Apostle of the day is on record as disagreeing. Either none of them knew who God was or there is more to this doctrine than a wild Brigham speculation.

Interesting. Where did you find this?

[Ahab]

Well Adam-God continued to be taught to members in the temple under John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (can't remember if it ended under Lorenzo Snow or Jos. F. Smith).

Adam-God... you say that as if everybody will automatically understand and agree on WHAT you are talking about and yet people have had and continue to have different ideas about what that idea is about.

The word God has more than one true definition and it can correctly apply to Adam as well as anyone else who is the same kind of being as any of our Fathers.

Woodruff also records the teaching in his journal with no sign of doubt or disagreement. I think Brigham and his contemporaries (Orson Pratt aside) accepted this teaching in a more widespread time period that people think. Pratt was brought up for discipline for disagreeing with the doctrine, yet no other Apostle of the day is on record as disagreeing. Either none of them knew who God was or there is more to this doctrine than a wild Brigham speculation.

Uh, yah, I think I'd go with the latter option if I were you. More than just a wild Brigham speculation. They definitely all knew who God was and still is while also knowing that the word God correctly applies to more than one person.

[Lachoneus]

Well Adam-God continued to be taught to members in the temple under John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (can't remember if it ended under Lorenzo Snow or Jos. F. Smith).

Woodruff also records the teaching in his journal with no sign of doubt or disagreement. I think Brigham and his contemporaries (Orson Pratt aside) accepted this teaching in a more widespread time period that people think. Pratt was brought up for discipline for disagreeing with the doctrine, yet no other Apostle of the day is on record as disagreeing. Either none of them knew who God was or there is more to this doctrine than a wild Brigham speculation.

 

CFR

[strappinglad]

Can immortals become mortals again? What kind of offspring to two immortals produce? Mortal or immortal or they can flip a switch and choose ? To me mortals can produce only mortals and immortals can produce only immortals ( spirits) which can then be clothed in mortal bodies which can be made immortal after the resurrection.

My only recourse is to remember that time is not linear in the eternities.

Edited October 28, 2015 by strappinglad

[Calm]

I want to have a positive experience with pregnancy and the first three years of life but it isn't going to happen in mortality now. I hope there is a way to swing it as an immortal though right now it doesn't fit what I know save God saying my righteousdesires will all be filled.

[Zakuska]

CFR

 

 

 

Beginning around 1892, church leaders privately decided to no longer publicly teach the doctrine. In a private meeting held on April 4, 1897, church president Wilford Woodruff said. "Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with [the] Josephites [Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] or any one else."^[59]

In 1892, the doctrine was publicly opposed in St. George, Utah by Edward Bunker. The First Presidency—Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith—traveled to St. George to address the issue. Records of the meeting state that Bunker was corrected: "Pres Woodruff and Cannon showed ... that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made."^[60] "The doctrine preached and contended for by Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville was investigated, condemned and Father Bunker set right. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon present."^[61]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam%E2%80%93God_doctrine

 

Apparently President Wilford Woodruff proved from the scriptures the Adam God Doctrine.  I'd like to see those proof texts!

Edited October 28, 2015 by Zakuska

[JLHPROF]

I'd love to answer the CFR but I'm stuck with a non smart-phone in a hotel room.

You'll just have to use google yourself, but the only two points I stated that are CFR are that the lecture at the veil Brigham placed in the temple remained their unaltered till around 1900 and that no other apostle (except Pratt) is on record as doubting or disagreeing with it publicly or privately.

Both easily verifiable. Get to googling or I can answer this weekend.

[Kyle Kenley Kopitke]

I researched this for a book I was writing, and found that Brother Brigham had to be catheterized on a regular basis.  After I donated a kidney to my Brother Terry, I myself had issues and had to be catheterized a number of times.  I can't think of how painful when he did that to himself, and when others assisted him, by using a hollow glass tube. 

 

I would expect, the pain level caused by that process, required some sort of relief through medications,  He may have used opiates as from my research, they were somewhat common back then.  This could explain why one day he was teaching the adam-god theory, and then a few days later, he was not.

[ERayR]

I researched this for a book I was writing, and found that Brother Brigham had to be catheterized on a regular basis.  After I donated a kidney to my Brother Terry, I myself had issues and had to be catheterized a number of times.  I can't think of how painful when he did that to himself, and when others assisted him, by using a hollow glass tube. 

 

I would expect, the pain level caused by that process, required some sort of relief through medications,  He may have used opiates as from my research, they were somewhat common back then.  This could explain why one day he was teaching the adam-god theory, and then a few days later, he was not.

 

Seems like a lot of speculation to me.  In other words Gossip.

[JLHPROF]

I researched this for a book I was writing, and found that Brother Brigham had to be catheterized on a regular basis.  After I donated a kidney to my Brother Terry, I myself had issues and had to be catheterized a number of times.  I can't think of how painful when he did that to himself, and when others assisted him, by using a hollow glass tube. 

 

I would expect, the pain level caused by that process, required some sort of relief through medications,  He may have used opiates as from my research, they were somewhat common back then.  This could explain why one day he was teaching the adam-god theory, and then a few days later, he was not.

 

A quick Google shows Brigham Young's medical treatment with a  catheter didn't start until 1874, 3 years before his death.

 

At that point he had taught Adam-God in approximately 23 recorded instances over 20 years.

 

So, nope, not a valid explanation.

 

[ERayR]

A quick Google shows Brigham Young's medical treatment with a  catheter didn't start until 1874, 3 years before his death.

 

At that point he had taught Adam-God in approximately 23 recorded instances over 20 years.

 

So, nope, not a valid explanation.

 

 

Did you find anything about him taking opiate pain medicines?

[JLHPROF]

Did you find anything about him taking opiate pain medicines?

 

Just this Samuel W. Taylor piece again mentioning 1874 and speculating that Brigham was murdered - http://saintsalive.com/index.php/resourcelibrary/mormonism/69-brigham-youngs-last-moments-arsenic-or-old-age

 

But this link is a great read (and a new use for consecrated oil) - http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2009/12/01/random-reasons-why-i-like-brigham-young-three/

and appears to be Kyle's only source for his claim based on an Amazon review he wrote on that ridiculous "Joseph Smith fought polygamy book.

 

But once again, it limits any opiate use to the last few years of his life and discounts the 20 years prior where Brigham clearly taught Adam-God.

 

See also page 373-374 of Brigham Young: Pioneer Prophet (https://books.google.com/books?id=nGgSuTW-dgIC&pg=PA374&dq=%22brigham+young%22+catheter&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAGoVChMIwYa93sX8yAIVzOMmCh3iwwt1#v=onepage&q=%22brigham%20young%22%20catheter&f=false)

 

Isn't it amazing the false claims a quick Google can take care of?

Edited November 6, 2015 by JLHPROF

[VideoGameJunkie]

Go read Ether chapter 3 in BOM. It says that Jesus is God and the Father and the Son. If you want confusion on deity read Ether 3 all 28 verses when Jesus shows himself to the brother of Jared.

[JLHPROF]

Go read Ether chapter 3 in BOM. It says that Jesus is God and the Father and the Son. If you want confusion on deity read Ether 3 all 28 verses when Jesus shows himself to the brother of Jared.

 

Not confusing at all.

Christ says:

"14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters."

 

He clearly explains how he will transition to being our Father.  He is not saying that he is God the Father.