Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Adam God Theory

Jim Stiles

By Jim Stiles
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted

An interesting link. I would like to know where these sources come from and who created this anonymous anti-mormon website. Provide me some genuine scholarship and documents actually produced by Brigham young. I just don't think it is clear what he taught on the matter.  

 

Not an anti-Mormon website at all.  Every source on there is LDS.  From History of the Church, to Council Minutes, to the Ensign, to the Journals.

It shows both pro and anti Adam-God teachings.

 

All it shows is the progression of the doctrine from the time it was introduced to the time it was repudiated.

And your request for documents produced by Brigham Young personally is 100% ridiculous.  We would have no teachings from any of the prophets in Conference if we held to that standard.  All are recorded using the best technology of the time.

We would have no teachings of Joseph Smith at all using that standard.

2
Link to comment
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

Hmmmm

Seems to me the prophet really ought to know who and what God is. JS taught that knowing who God is and what gods attributes are were the first principle of revealed religion .

 

Perhaps the Prophets revealed more than the people were ready to accept.

1
Link to comment
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

The Adam-God theory, as it is called, is nothing of the sort. A more accurate title would be the Adam-God Heresy.

 

We just have to accept that Brigham and the others taught heresies. Either that, or our modern leaders do.

 

Perhaps.

Link to comment
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

An interesting link. I would like to know where these sources come from and who created this anonymous anti-mormon website. Provide me some genuine scholarship and documents actually produced by Brigham young. I just don't think it is clear what he taught on the matter.  

 

The problem is all we have is reports of what someone thinks he said but even that is intriguing.

Link to comment
JAHS Grand Master

JAHS

Posted
Posted

Hmmmm

Seems to me the prophet really ought to know who and what God is. JS taught that knowing who God is and what gods attributes are were the first principle of revealed religion .

Brigham Young himself didn't seem to think it was all that important:

 

"Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species." (JOD 4: 215)

1
Link to comment
Mars Experienced

Mars

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not an anti-Mormon website at all.  Every source on there is LDS.  From History of the Church, to Council Minutes, to the Ensign, to the Journals.

It shows both pro and anti Adam-God teachings.

 

All it shows is the progression of the doctrine from the time it was introduced to the time it was repudiated.

And your request for documents produced by Brigham Young personally is 100% ridiculous.  We would have no teachings from any of the prophets in Conference if we held to that standard.  All are recorded using the best technology of the time.

We would have no teachings of Joseph Smith at all using that standard.

 

Not every source.  They have the Institute of Religious Research at the top.  And as far as content owners, Mormon Research Ministry strikes me as a few pegs down from 'Critical, well reasoned, and professional outlet I respect even though I disagree with their conclusions.'  I don't know that that makes them 'anti-Mormon,' though...

 

I know I don't really like the smattering of quotes, but that can hardly be helped.

Edited by Mars
1
Link to comment
Mars Experienced

Mars

Posted
Posted

Also, FWIW, not every evidence they cite seems to be a teaching or quote that elaborates, elucidates, or furthers the Adam-God theory.

 

Randomly clicked on the April 18, 1870 source.  It took me to Journal of Discourses, vol 13, pp. 311 which read (from their own copied source, I don't have the published book in front of me, in case there's a discrepancy)

 

"The Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve. Some say, 'We are the children of Adam and Eve.' So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." Brigham Young, "Keeping the Commandments", Journal of Discourses, vol. 13, pp. 311, April 17, 1870.

 

If the point of the long compendium of evidences is to impress upon the reader's mind just how deep the theory of Adam-God goes, and that it cannot be dismissed because of how important the early Prophets took it (a tactic most recently employed by our dear friend Canadaigua in the Animal Sacrifices thread), then they should make sure that list is scrubbed of entries like these. 

 

I haven't gone through the entire list - just clicked that one - so if that's the only one, then ok.

Link to comment
JAHS Grand Master

JAHS

Posted
Posted

Here's an example of something else Brigham Young said in the JOD:

 

"It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents." (JOD 9: 147)

 

This statement Young made seems quite contradictory to Adam being God the Father, unless of course he meant that Adam was often found talking to himself ;-)

 

Many agree that many things in the JOD can not be considered an accurate representation of what was actually said. It's not like they had any kind of recording devices to get the exact words. They had to rely on things being written down by shorthand and then trying to reproduce those things months later into print.

1
Link to comment
carbon dioxide Grand Master

carbon dioxide

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have my own version of the Adam-God theory.  I don't fully understand what Brigham Young was getting at.  I don't know if it is because the scribes who wrote his words down were not accurate or that Brigham Young did not articulate his intent well or what.  So my version is not completely based on what Brigham Young said but what the scriptures and accepted views about Adam suggest.  The major components of my version include the following:

 

1.  Adam helped in the creation of the world.  He was a co-creator with Jesus and possibly others not revealed.

 

2.  Adam is Michael and according to Joseph Smith (don't have the reference with me right now) but no angel is sent to man without the authority of Adam.  Adam sent Moroni to Joseph Smith for example.  Of course God the Father and Jesus directed Adam to do that.

 

3.  Adam holds the keys to salvation under the direction of Jesus Christ.  D&C 78:16 "Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life."

 

4.  Adam is the the one called "the ancient of days".  Adam sits on a throne.  He judges people.  Heavenly beings serve him. 

 

Daniel 7:9-10:"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.”

 

5.  Jesus comes to Adam (council of Adam-ondi-Ahman I believe) and Adam transfers authority and dominion and the kingdom to Jesus at that point.  There is no reason to believe that Jesus current has this as there would be no reason for Jesus to come to Adam for this if he already had all of it. 

 

Daniel 7:9-14: "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed."

 

6.  God the Father declared Adam to be Lord over all the earth while in the garden.  I believe that Adam still is Lord over all the earth.  There is nothing to suggest that he lost that position when he died.  He will retain that position until everything is fully transferred to Jesus at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

 

As I said, this is my version.  He appears to be a very important figure with great power and position.  Power and position fitting for a divine being to have.

Edited by carbon dioxide
1
Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted (edited)

The problem is all we have is reports of what someone thinks he said but even that is intriguing.

 

To me the "problem" is that he actually taught it and for some reason we don't like it.  I mean, if it turned out he was right about the doctrine (as I believe he was) why on earth does that trouble so many people?

 

I mean, I get why blood atonement or polygamy trouble different people.  But whyever is the idea the Heavenly Father is Adam such an emotion stirrer?

The temple is pretty clear as to who the three members of the creation Godhead were, even if we don't agree on their identities.

Edited by JLHPROF
1
Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted

Modern

 

Why...unless they have a recorded canonized revelation their opinions are no more correct than the opinions of someone in the 1800s.

In the absence of clear direction from God, we get to choose.

1
Link to comment
ERayR Grand Master

ERayR

Posted
Posted

To me the "problem" is that he actually taught it and for some reason we don't like it.  I mean, if it turned out he was right about the doctrine (as I believe he was) why on earth does that trouble so many people?

 

I mean, I get why blood atonement or polygamy trouble different people.  But whyever is the idea the Heavenly Father is Adam such an emotion stirrer?

The temple is pretty clear as to who the three members of the creation Godhead were, even if we don't agree on their identities.

 

I am totally with you but only as I understand it, which may not be as you understand because of the lack of accurate reporting.  To me the concept is simple and very LDS. 

Link to comment
JLHPROF Grand Master

JLHPROF

Posted
Posted (edited)

Where does Elohim fit into the adam-God doctrine? Is he the father of Adam and grandfather of Jesus?

 

Elohim (which is generally rendered plural) refers to the council of Gods of which Jehovah and Michael are members.

The individual known as Elohim would probably best be described as the president of that Council, or as Joseph referred to him, the Head of the Gods.

 

Then we see the three Gods who are given direction to oversee this creation - Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael.

 

As to their family relationship - Brigham taught they were father, son and grandson.  Whether literal or adopted, we'll see.  The star of David - the two trinities combined, teaches this perfectly.

Edited by JLHPROF
2
Link to comment
BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted
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?

 

 

The proper interpretation imho is that the Adam-God doctrine was never taught, not even by BY, and not extant even in the Nutall case.

 

How can I say this?  Because I hold to the Adam Sr/Jr approach.  In any case, Adam Sr/Jr is also not doctrine.

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

1
Link to comment
Calm Grand Master

Calm

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not an anti-Mormon website at all.  

 

MRM which owns the site is an antimormon ministry.  It also includes links to antimormon productions like Tanners, McKeever and and others.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted

Adam God was something the BY taught on and off over a number of years.  There was a lot of push back by several of the twelve with his views on Adam God.   It is not something that was every accepted by the church as a whole and it really just died out after few years after BY passed away.

And in later years was overtly repudiated by President Spencer W. Kimball.

Link to comment
Scott Lloyd Grand Master

Scott Lloyd

Posted
Posted

MRM which owns the site is an antimormon ministry.  It also includes links to antimormon productions like Tanners, McKeever and and others.

And just because a site quotes LDS sources, that alone does not excuse it from being an anti-Mormon site. Authentic quotes can easily be given out of context to convey a false impression.

Link to comment
The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

Why...unless they have a recorded canonized revelation their opinions are no more correct than the opinions of someone in the 1800s.

In the absence of clear direction from God, we get to choose.

No, we get to either not worry about it or find out from God. We need to get to choose what is real.

1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...