Jump to content

Recommended Posts

President Woodruff was quite annoyed about the debate over Adam/God:

 

"Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject.... Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things?... God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.... We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever, that should be sufficient for us to know." (Wilford Woodruff, April 7, 1895, Mill. Star 57:355)

 

Sounds' like President Uchtdorf ....  "Stop it!"

Link to comment

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.

 

It may be produced by anti's but ALL the "evidentiary" quotes showing the transition pre-Adam God, through its height, to today, are from LDS references with no analysis.  Just what WE taught on Adam down through our history in our own words.

 

I personally find that a useful gathering of data, not anti at all.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment

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

And exactly what do you think he repudiated?

If you think he was denying the idea that Adam was and still is the kind of being we refer to as God, which is the kind of being our Eternal Father is, or that Adam is one of our Fathers, now in heaven, you might want to ponder on that a little bit.

Link to comment

Well, the journal of discourses is not a primary source.

A lot of Adam God material comes from the diaries of Wilford Woodruff. You don't much more primary than that

Link to comment

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.

There is a hearty endorsements of the prophet . He taught heresy, That inspires such great confidence .

Link to comment

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

Pure and utter horse poo.

Link to comment

And exactly what do you think he repudiated?

If you think he was denying the idea that Adam was and still is the kind of being we refer to as God, which is the kind of being our Eternal Father is, or that Adam is one of our Fathers, now in heaven, you might want to ponder on that a little bit.

What has been repudiated is the teaching that Adam is the father of our spirits as well as the father Christ in the flesh.  This is in complete contradiction to the church's current tecahings about God the Father and Adam.  God the Father is the father of our spirits while Adam and Eve were the first of God's spirit children to come to earth.  So either Brigham Young is correct or the church today is correct on this point.

 

I personally don't think it terribly important believe one way or the other.  When Christ taught the life eternal is knowing God, I believe he was saying know in the relationship sense.

Edited by Rivers
Link to comment

Yes the Adam-God doctrine as believed and taught by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Samuel W. Richards, and Eliza R. Snow is a true doctrine. Those saying Brigham Young contradicted himself, was misquoted, didn't really mean what he said, or start parroting Watson's silly 2-Adam theory, haven't done an actual serious study of the topic. I've read about 6 books on the topic, but the very best one that everyone should read is Drew Briney's compilation. If pressed for time, the best lectures on the topic are BY's October 8, 1854 discourse and the Lecture at the Veil. I'm grateful for the condescensions of God.

Link to comment

Yes the Adam-God doctrine as believed and taught by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Samuel W. Richards, and Eliza R. Snow is a true doctrine. Those saying Brigham Young contradicted himself, was misquoted, didn't really mean what he said, or start parroting Watson's silly 2-Adam theory, haven't done an actual serious study of the topic. I've read about 6 books on the topic, but the very best one that everyone should read is Drew Briney's compilation. If pressed for time, the best lectures on the topic are BY's October 8, 1854 discourse and the Lecture at the Veil. I'm grateful for the condescensions of God.

If the Adam-God Theory doesn't exist, nor can eternal marriage and progression exist. Gods and Goddesses creating their worlds, makes sense that BY believed this. Adam progressed to Godhood and created this earth. But I don't think I believe it, but par for the course with so much in my life now, that there isn't an anchor anywhere (please excuse the personal stuff).
Link to comment

If the Adam-God Theory doesn't exist, nor can eternal marriage and progression exist. Gods and Goddesses creating their worlds, makes sense that BY believed this. Adam progressed to Godhood and created this earth. But I don't think I believe it, but par for the course with so much in my life now, that there isn't an anchor anywhere (please excuse the personal stuff).

Adam has been resurrected and I am confident he has received his exaltation.  So if one believes in eternal life or exaltation, one has to believe is a God in every sense of the word.  I see clear indication in the scriptures that Adam was placed in a special position over the earth and the human family and that position exists today.  I believe that Adam was made Lord over all the earth in the garden and that his position he obtained from the Father and Son continues to this day.  When angels are sent to administer to man, Adam directly sends them.  He watches over the earth and runs the day to day operations here.  He holds the keys to salvation but everything he  does is under the direction of the Father and Son.  The way I sort of envision the universe and how God the Father and Christ run things is they create worlds and put key players to run them.  Sort of like a a head of a corporation will build manufacturing plants over the world and hire certain people to run the day to day operations of those plants and every so often they will come to visit for certain reasons.

Link to comment

And exactly what do you think he repudiated?

If you think he was denying the idea that Adam was and still is the kind of being we refer to as God, which is the kind of being our Eternal Father is, or that Adam is one of our Fathers, now in heaven, you might want to ponder on that a little bit.

I think he repudiated the notion that Adam and God the Father are the same individual.
Link to comment

I think he repudiated the notion that Adam and God the Father are the same individual.

Brigham Young specifically named Michael or Adam and named him third on the list after the Father and Son.  Anyone who thinks that Brigham Young thought that Adam and God the Father were the same being either forgot to read that part or purposely ignores it to misrepresent his position.

Link to comment

Brigham Young specifically named Michael or Adam and named him third on the list after the Father and Son.  Anyone who thinks that Brigham Young thought that Adam and God the Father were the same being either forgot to read that part or purposely ignores it to misrepresent his position.

But this is what's so confusing about the thing. Brigham Young seems to contradict himself in several places about this.  I suppose some of it could be attributed to errors in recording the speeches. 

Link to comment

But this is what's so confusing about the thing. Brigham Young seems to contradict himself in several places about this.  I suppose some of it could be attributed to errors in recording the speeches. 

I know that in many times in my life I have something that I have organized and thought out in my head but when I express my thoughts in words, especially if they are not prepared or planned out ahead of time, I fumble my words and things don't come out right.  There is no reason to believe that Brigham Young had all of his sermons written out and edited ahead of time so I grant to him the same considerations that I hope people grant to me when I try to explain something. 

Link to comment

I think he repudiated the notion that Adam and God the Father are the same individual.

 

I think he did too, but with no more authority than when President Young proclaimed it.

 

And given that option it becomes up to men to decide for themselves through prayer and study.  Pres. Young or Pres. Kimball.

 

I don't buy for a second the "Brigham was misquoted/misunderstood" excuse.  The doctrine is too well explained and too complete for those who have studied it.

Link to comment

Brigham Young specifically named Michael or Adam and named him third on the list after the Father and Son.  Anyone who thinks that Brigham Young thought that Adam and God the Father were the same being either forgot to read that part or purposely ignores it to misrepresent his position.

 

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

 

9cba3104488ebe0bd5388c26d801bc89.jpg

 

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.

Edited by JLHPROF
Link to comment

A lot of Adam God material comes from the diaries of Wilford Woodruff. You don't much more primary than that

 

President Woodruff was quite annoyed about the debate over Adam/God:

 

"Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject.... Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things?... God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.... We have had letter after letter from Elders abroad wanting to know concerning these things. Adam is the first man. He was placed in the Garden of Eden, and is our great progenitor. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are the same yesterday, today, and forever, that should be sufficient for us to know." (Wilford Woodruff, April 7, 1895, Mill. Star 57:355)

 

Sounds' like President Uchtdorf ....  "Stop it!"

 

And it's that kind of back and forth that leads to so much confusion.  Wilford believed it, taught it, and then asked us to leave it alone.

Link to comment

I never even heard about the Adam God Theory until I came to these boards. We don't know about stuff like this in Massachusetts because it's never brought up. People would rather talk about the New England Patriots.

 

Probably a less contentious topic.

Link to comment

Brigham Young specifically named Michael or Adam and named him third on the list after the Father and Son.  Anyone who thinks that Brigham Young thought that Adam and God the Father were the same being either forgot to read that part or purposely ignores it to misrepresent his position.

I completely agree

Link to comment

I completely agree

 

And you'd be completely wrong.  Brigham was very clear, and the temple endowment from 1870 till about 1900 made it even clearer.

Link to comment

I know that in many times in my life I have something that I have organized and thought out in my head but when I express my thoughts in words, especially if they are not prepared or planned out ahead of time, I fumble my words and things don't come out right.  There is no reason to believe that Brigham Young had all of his sermons written out and edited ahead of time so I grant to him the same considerations that I hope people grant to me when I try to explain something. 

 

Which is another good reason to not trust everything we read in the JOD. Most of their speeches were not written out beforehand; they were extemporaneous and someone wrote them down in shorthand.   Elder Orson Pratt once said of one of his speeches, “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.” 

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