Adam God Theory

[Brian 2.0]

For FDR, it gave him a thrill through his whole body

 

See... even President Franklin Delano Roosevelt believed Adam was the father of our spirits!

[Tacenda]

That isn't harmonizing doctrine. That is twisting teachings to make them harmonize. That is NOT what Brigham taught.

If twisting the actual teachings of the prophets to make them match is how God helps you harmonize them, I'd say there's a problem.

Be gentle, like a lot of us he was only fed the milk.

[JLHPROF]

The other aspect is how serious is this in the grand scheme of things? To me it really is no big deal.

 

This is life eternal, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

 

Sounds kind of important.

[Ahab]

That isn't harmonizing doctrine. That is twisting teachings to make them harmonize. That is NOT what Brigham taught.

If twisting the actual teachings of the prophets to make them match is how God helps you harmonize them, I'd say there's a problem.

Like I said a while back, I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink it.

So you go ahead and tell yourself whatever makes you feel good.

[JLHPROF]

It's tough to have a discussion with people who have not read all of Brigham's teachings on Adam-God in full context. I was one of those people who initially thought, "there's no way Brigham believed that," then it became "okay, he had a few weird teachings on it, but he contradicted himself at other times," then I accepted Elden Watson's 2-Adam theory, which conveniently uses only references that could potentially fit his theory and ignores the host of other references that destroy his theory.

 

All of those are wrong. Brigham did not contradict himself. This doctrine is confusing to newcomers/correlated members because certain ideas are pounded in their head that were not believed by 19th Century Mormons, e.g. Jesus is Jehovah or Elohim refers to only one specific person. Look at all the references to Jehovah in 19th Century Mormonism and you'll see it almost always refers to God the Father.

 

Again, if you're interested in learning the meat, in the true history and identity of the being that bore your spirit and you pray to, read all of the source material of the Adam-God doctrine, as found in Drew Briney's "Understanding Adam-God Teachings."

 

 

Personally, I'd recommend "The Adam-God Maze" over Drew Briney (Briney's an interesting fellow).

But sincerely thank you for all the references.  I can 100% see how someone can disagree with Brigham Young's teachings on the subject, but I fail to see how they can honestly deny them.

 

1. The prophet Brigham taught one thing on well over a dozen separate occasions that he claimed by revelation (that was reiterated by John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff & Joseph F. Smith) and it was added to the temple ordinances shortly before his death (presumably with the vote of the 12).

 

2. The prophet Spencer W. Kimball called that teaching a heresy but made no revelatory claim, no backing (but the support of scholarly righteous men like Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Petersen).

 

Given these two choices all we can really do is pray and study for ourselves and decide which makes gospel sense and ask for spiritual confirmation.  I don't believe in the harmonization option and I don't believe Brigham was misquoted over a dozen times.  Two conflicting prophetic teachings - that's really Adam-God in a nutshell for me.  I've studied everything written on the subject and prayed and made my doctrinal position.  That's all anyone can do.

[teddyaware]

It's tough to have a discussion with people who have not read all of Brigham's teachings on Adam-God in full context. I was one of those people who initially thought, "there's no way Brigham believed that," then it became "okay, he had a few weird teachings on it, but he contradicted himself at other times," then I accepted Elden Watson's 2-Adam theory, which conveniently uses only references that could potentially fit his theory and ignores the host of other references that destroy his theory.

 

All of those are wrong. Brigham did not contradict himself. This doctrine is confusing to newcomers/correlated members because certain ideas are pounded in their head that were not believed by 19th Century Mormons, e.g. Jesus is Jehovah or Elohim refers to only one specific person. Look at all the references to Jehovah in 19th Century Mormonism and you'll see it almost always refers to God the Father. And since there are so many titles, people get confused. Boyd Kirkland summarized:

 

 

Since these titles can refer to different people at different times, it can be confusing (much like we would get confused if we used only titles to refer to specific people, e.g. Bishop, Stake President, especially when the Bishop can become a Stake President). As for the temple characters, Brigham Young, the man commissioned by Joseph "to organize and systematize all these ceremonies," clarified in this reference (color-coding to make it clear):

 

 

In other words, the 3 temple characters were 3 different generations. Michael's (or our God the father) father is sometimes referred to as "grandfather" by Brigham to distinguish between the generations:

 

 

 

Contradictions

 

I'll reference some of the places people like to say are Brigham's contradictions.

 

 

Who is the highest intelligence ... that we know of? Do we know of an intelligence higher than our God the father? In proper context, when you put yourself in Brigham's mind, you know he is not contradicting himself saying Adam is not our heavenly father. When Brigham says that Adam and Eve and WE are the offspring of "the highest intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of," he is clearly referring to someone superior to our own direct father, to our "head god" in this sphere. This statement is consistent with the quote above referring to "Grandfather remaining the highest authority, Architect and Chief Commander." And we, with our heavenly parents, are offspring of the grandfather. Much like saying you and your dad are the offspring of your grandfather. Brigham is hitting hard on the nature of man and deity: we are all of the same species:

 

 

 

Now, a couple more seeming contradictions.

 

 

 

Brigham is merely using the Bible here to describe a principle, that our God looks like a man with body parts. Yes, take this in isolation, and you think Brigham has a mainstream, Christian belief of who Adam is. But you cannot take anything in isolation. Compare this to the hundreds of his other statements which are clear as rain, that the same being who condescended in the Garden is the same being who is the father of Jesus and our spirits.

 

 

 

Again, take this in isolation, and you think Brigham has the mainstream, monotheistic Christian view. Who made Adam? God the Father. What is God the Father? Is there only one God the Father in the entire expanse of universe? No, there are gods many and lords many. It is a title. Of course Adam was created by God the Father, or his God the Father. You can isolate any statement by any one person to extrapolate their beliefs. You have to match up all of the statements for clarification. When you understand Brigham's theology, which consists of a lineage of gods and titles, these are not contradictions.

 

Again, if you're interested in learning the meat, in the true history and identity of the being that bore your spirit and you pray to, read all of the source material of the Adam-God doctrine, as found in Drew Briney's "Understanding Adam-God Teachings." It will expand your mind/soul and enrich your faith. For FDR, it gave him a thrill through his whole body:

 

 

 

Read the Lecture at the Veil, as taught in the Temple as doctrine, and Brigham's Oct 8, 1854 discourse, which Wilford Woodruff said "was the greatest sermon that was ever delivered to the Latter-day Saints." Over the last few years, I have noticed more people are willing to discuss this doctrine and it is slowly being resurrected. 

 

You make a good argument in defense of the idea that Brigham Young never really contradicted himself with regard to the subject at hand. But I'm wondering if you're able to demonstrate how the following passages of canonized LDS scripture can be made to harmonize and square with President Young's theology?

 

36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh;

37 That they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, because of theirrebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his servants might also hear his words.

38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithfuldaughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God. (D&C138)

 

So how does the disembodied Adam, who was still a spirit in the spirit world at the time of Christ's death, become the physical Father of the Only Begotten Son in the flesh?

Edited January 20, 2015 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

You make a good argument in defense of the idea that Brigham Young never really contradicted himself with regard to the subject at hand. But I'm wondering if you're able to demonstrate how the following passages of canonized LDS scripture can be made to harmonize and square with President Young's theology:

 

36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh;

37 That they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, because of theirrebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his servants might also hear his words.

38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithfuldaughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God. (D&C138)

 

So how does the disembodied Adam, who was still a spirit in the spirit world at the time of Christ's death, become the physical Father of the Only Begotten Son in the flesh?

 

I see several possible alternatives:

 

1. Pres. Joseph F. Smith was mistaken in who he thought was  Adam, especially since he himself recorded the teaching in his journal.

2. Pres. Smith was correct in what he saw but couldn't tell that Adam was resurrected already and assumed him a spirit.

3. Father Adam held off taking on his immortal body again and stayed a spirit until Christ had passed through resurrection (or perhaps they happened simultaneously - after all, Christ said he did what he saw his father do, ie "take upon himself a resurrected body".)

 

and there are other possibilities, but not having seen the vision of Joseph F. Smith it is all speculation.  But Joseph F. Smith accepted the Adam-God doctrine during the life of Brigham and John etc, and then later implied teachings against it on the public record.

[teddyaware]

I see several possible alternatives:

 

1. Pres. Joseph F. Smith was mistaken in who he thought was  Adam, especially since he himself recorded the teaching in his journal.

2. Pres. Smith was correct in what he saw but couldn't tell that Adam was resurrected already and assumed him a spirit.

3. Father Adam held off taking on his immortal body again and stayed a spirit until Christ had passed through resurrection (or perhaps they happened simultaneously - after all, Christ said he did what he saw his father do, ie "take upon himself a resurrected body".)

 

and there are other possibilities, but not having seen the vision of Joseph F. Smith it is all speculation.  But Joseph F. Smith accepted the Adam-God doctrine during the life of Brigham and John etc, and then later implied teachings against it on the public record.

 

You're always an insightful fellow, but I hope you won't be offended if I say I believe this is the weakest response I've ever seen you make. But perhaps these lame explanations are all an intelligent and insightful man can come up with under the circumstances. And if that's the case, we have a conundrum here that's not likely going to be resolved any time soon. But who knows, maybe there is a perfectly reasonable answer that's internally consistent with President Young;s theology. Maybe our friend iamse7en knows the answer and he's about to knock our socks off with his brilliance.

[JLHPROF]

You're always an insightful fellow, but I hope you won't be offended if I say I believe this is the weakest response I've ever seen you make. But perhaps these lame explanations are all an intelligent and insightful man can come up with under the circumstances. And if that's the case, we have a conundrum here that's not likely going to be resolved any time soon. But who knows, maybe there is a perfectly reasonable answer that's internally consistent with President Young;s theology. Maybe our friend iamse7en knows the answer and he's about to knock our socks off with his brilliance.

 

I would agree that this is a weak response on my part.  But that's because nobody saw Pres. Smith vision and the interpretation thereof.  There was no Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery witnessing it with him.  I really don't know how Pres. Smith's interpretation of what he saw can mesh with Pres. Young's teachings he claimed by revelation.

Pres. Young taught his beliefs clearly and claimed they were by revelation.   Pres. Smith (who originally accepted Pres. Young's teachings) recorded a vision that if interpreted correctly seems to contradict.

My response IS weak, because I don't think there is an answer so no, in this case I don't take it personally.  I have no clear opinion to get defensive about.  Two prophets claiming revelations with an apparent contradiction.

 

At least this contradiction could be one of perspective, unlike the contradiction between Pres Young and Pres Kimball.  There is no harmonizing that one.

[Ahab]

...double post deleted

Edited January 20, 2015 by Ahab

[Ahab]

You make a good argument in defense of the idea that Brigham Young never really contradicted himself with regard to the subject at hand. But I'm wondering if you're able to demonstrate how the following passages of canonized LDS scripture can be made to harmonize and square with President Young's theology?

36 Thus was it made known that our Redeemer spent his time during his sojourn in the world of spirits, instructing and preparing the faithful spirits of the prophets who had testified of him in the flesh;

37 That they might carry the message of redemption unto all the dead, unto whom he could not go personally, because of theirrebellion and transgression, that they through the ministration of his servants might also hear his words.

38 Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all,

39 And our glorious Mother Eve, with many of her faithfuldaughters who had lived through the ages and worshiped the true and living God. (D&C138)

So how does the disembodied Adam, who was still a spirit in the spirit world at the time of Christ's death, become the physical Father of the Only Begotten Son in the flesh?

Through Eve...and a long line of other begats until Mary. You might prefer to think of Adam as a very great and grand Father, but a very great and grand Father is a still a Father, hence, Adam is a Father of Jesus, on the maternal side of our Lord's family.

[Ahab]

I would agree that this is a weak response on my part. But that's because nobody saw Pres. Smith vision and the interpretation thereof. There was no Sidney Rigdon or Oliver Cowdery witnessing it with him. I really don't know how Pres. Smith's interpretation of what he saw can mesh with Pres. Young's teachings he claimed by revelation.

Pres. Young taught his beliefs clearly and claimed they were by revelation. Pres. Smith (who originally accepted Pres. Young's teachings) recorded a vision that if interpreted correctly seems to contradict.

My response IS weak, because I don't think there is an answer so no, in this case I don't take it personally. I have no clear opinion to get defensive about. Two prophets claiming revelations with an apparent contradiction.

At least this contradiction could be one of perspective, unlike the contradiction between Pres Young and Pres Kimball. There is no harmonizing that one.

I could tell you how I see the harmony, but you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you.

[teddyaware]

Through Eve...and a long line of other begats until Mary. You might prefer to think of Adam as a very great and grand Father, but a very great and grand Father is a still a Father, hence, Adam is a Father of Jesus, on the maternal side of our Lord's family.

 

You surely realize your answer doesn't even begin to resolve the conundrum D&C 138 presents on this issue. Christ is God's only begotten son in the flesh. Following your explanation, Adam is the progenitor of Christ but he was also the progenitor of multiple millions of other male descendants (sons?) by the time Christ was born; Christ was not Adam's only male descendent, let alone his only direct line, first generation son (remember Cain and Abel). The LDS doctrine is that Christ is the only literal and actual Son of God. The doctrine of Christ's divine sonship does not speak of a male descendent among millions of other male descendants. Nice try, but no cigar... 

Edited January 20, 2015 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

You surely realize your answer doesn't even begin to resolve the conundrum D&C 138 presents on this issue.

Uh, I don't see no conundrum. Specify, please.

Crist is God's only begotten son in the flesh. Following your explanation, Adam is the progenitor of Christ but he was also the progenitor of multiple millions of other male descendants (sons?) by the time Christ was born; Christ was not Adam's only male descendent, let alone his only direct line, first generation son (remember Cain and Abel). The LDS doctrine is that Christ is the only literal and actual Son of God. The doctrine of Christ's divine sonship does not speak of a male descendent among millions of other male descendants. Nice try, but no cigar...

You don't seem to be getting the picture. The question I answered was how Adam is the Father of Jesus. Did you see where I said a great and grand Father is a Father, however great and how grand? Do you understand how Mary is a child of Adam, with Adam thus being a Father to Jesus on his maternal side?

You sound as if you think Jesus has only one Father, but he, and we, have a lot more than just one, and all of the Fathers of Jesus have him as their son. What sets Jesus apart is that on his paternal side he has our Eternal Father as a Father of his spirit AND of his mortal flesh, but Adam is still one of his Fathers on his maternal side, along with every other Father of Mary.

You should be familiar enough with genealogy to be able to figure this out.

[teddyaware]

Uh, I don't see no conundrum. Specify, please.

You don't seem to be getting the picture. The question I answered was how Adam is the Father of Jesus. Did you see where I said a great and grand Father is a Father, however great and how grand? Do you understand how Mary is a child of Adam, with Adam thus being a Father to Jesus on his maternal side?

You sound as if you think Jesus has only one Father, but he, and we, have a lot more than just one, and all of the Fathers of Jesus have him as their son. What sets Jesus apart is that on his paternal side he has our Eternal Father as a Father of his spirit AND of his mortal flesh, but Adam is still one of his Fathers on his maternal side, along with every other Father of Mary.

You should be familiar enough with genealogy to be able to figure this out.

 

Did you read what I wrote? Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Adam God theory and as a consequence you're not addressing its thorny inconsistencies with D&C 138.

 

To be clear, the Adam god theory stipulates that Adam -- the same personage of the Garden of Eden creation narrative who partook of the forbidden fruit and was married to Eve -- is, in reality, God the Father. Further, the theory goes on to assert that this same Adam, husband of Eve, is the literal Father of the earthly body of Christ, not just an ancestor of Christ.

 

It's settled LDS doctrine that God the Father is the literal Father of Christ, not a distant ancestor. D&C 138 informs us that Adam died and was a disembodied spirit at the time Christ gave up the ghost and conducted His ministry among the righteous n the spirit world who were awaiting resurrection; so there is no way Adam could have been the literal father of Christ because the father of Christ needed a resurrected body of flesh and bone in order to sire the Son of God.

 

D&C 138 throws a real 'monkey wrench' into the Adam god theory, as many understand it, and I will be interested to see if anyone can provide a plausible explanation as to how a disembodied spirit could be the literal father (again, not just distant ancestor) of the earthly flesh and bone body of Christ.

Edited January 21, 2015 by teddyaware

[iamse7en]

D&C 138 throws a real 'monkey wrench' into the Adam god theory, as many understand it, and I will be interested to see if anyone can provide a plausible explanation as to how a disembodied spirit could be the literal father (again, not just distant ancestor) of the earthly flesh and bone body of Christ.

 

Actually, there's no monkey wrench at all. Two options can easily explain this. A) The Adam and Eve that Joseph F. Smith saw were embodied/resurrected beings. There are certainly no rules about resurrected beings visiting the spirit world much as they might visit the mortal world. And why not visit during one of the key events in history, when Jesus makes his visit. Yes, Joseph F. Smith is describing what spirits he is seeing, but notice the language here: Father Adam is "among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation," meaning Adam is there. He sees him. It does not say he is a disembodied spirit. You can go back or forward 10 verses and try to imply the verse is explicit, but it is not. B) Let's suppose Joseph F. Smith really did believe Adam was a disembodied spirit and he believes he saw him as such; most certainly he can be plain wrong here about what he thought he saw. When you've studied the many visions, dreams, and NDEs of church members (or even just leaders) regarding pre- or post-mortal life, you quickly see the variability/contradictions between them all. Who is right? There is confirmation bias inherent in any dream, vision, or NDE. Why was Joseph F. Smith's vs many others from Church leaders canonized? Every word of his memory of what he saw is pure, unalderated truth? Tell that to someone like Joseph Smith who continually and retroactively edited (in some cases even changing the meaning of) his past revelations to reflect new light he received. You can use any strict interpretation of any one verse in the host of the standard works to try and invalidate any new nugget of the restoration. But it is a very weak position.

 

Besides all that, I trust Brigham and Heber more on this subject than your strict interpretation of some vision that Joseph F. Smith had.

 

[W]hen Adam and Eve got through with their Work in this earth. they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit World from whence they came. (Lecture at the Veil, Journal of L. John Nuttall, 2/7/1877)

 

I have been to the altar where Adam offered sacrifices and blessed his sons and then left them and went to heaven. (HCK, JD 12:188, 4/12/1868)

 

Of course, the "spirit world" Brigham refers to in the Lecture at the Veil is not the place of waiting for disembodied spirits, because as he makes clear, A & E did not lay their bodies in the dust. They went back from whence they came as resurrected beings. So, perhaps one might speculate, who then resurrected Adam? Was it his father (sometimes referred to as grandfather), or did he resurrect himself? I don't know, but it seems he could have resurrected himself. Brigham on this principle:

 

I want to throw out a few hints upon the resurrection... I believe we have already acknowledged the truth established that no person can officiate in any office he has not been subject to himself and legally appointed to fill. That no person in this Kingdom can officiate in any ordinance he himself has not obeyed; consequently no being who has not been resurrected possesses the Keys of the Power of Resurrection. (Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, 10/8/1854)

 

In other words, since Adam had already officiated in this ordinance (been resurrected), he possessed the keys of the power of resurrection.

 

If D&C 138 is the only 'monkey wrench' you have (a very strict interpretation of one verse of one vision by one leader that happened to be canonized) versus the HUNDREDS of clear-cut statements on Adam-God teachings by church leaders (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Samuel W. Richards, and Eliza R. Snow), who intimately knew the Prophet and learned from him in private council I should add, then my friend, the 'monkey wrenches' are all over your beliefs.

Edited January 21, 2015 by iamse7en

[teddyaware]

Actually, there's no monkey wrench at all. Two options can easily explain this. A) The Adam and Eve that Joseph F. Smith saw were embodied/resurrected beings. There are certainly no rules about resurrected beings visiting the spirit world much as they might visit the mortal world. And why not visit during one of the key events in history, when Jesus makes his visit. Yes, Joseph F. Smith is describing what spirits he is seeing, but notice the language here: Father Adam is "among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation," meaning Adam is there. He sees him. It does not say he is a disembodied spirit. You can go back or forward 10 verses and try to imply the verse is explicit, but it is not. B) Let's suppose Joseph F. Smith really did believe Adam was a disembodied spirit and he believes he saw him as such; most certainly he can be plain wrong here about what he thought he saw. When you've studied the many visions, dreams, and NDEs of church members (or even just leaders) regarding pre- or post-mortal life, you quickly see the variability/contradictions between them all. Who is right? There is confirmation bias inherent in any dream, vision, or NDE. Why was Joseph F. Smith's vs many others from Church leaders canonized? Every word of his memory of what he saw is pure, unalderated truth? Tell that to someone like Joseph Smith who continually and retroactively edited (in some cases even changing the meaning of) his past revelations to reflect new light he received. You can use any strict interpretation of any one verse in the host of the standard works to try and invalidate any new nugget of the restoration. But it is a very weak position.

 

Besides all that, I trust Brigham and Heber more on this subject than your strict interpretation of some vision that Joseph F. Smith had.

 

 

Of course, the "spirit world" Brigham refers to in the Lecture at the Veil is not the place of waiting for disembodied spirits, because as he makes clear, A & E did not lay their bodies in the dust. They went back from whence they came as resurrected beings. So, perhaps one might speculate, who then resurrected Adam? Was it his father (sometimes referred to as grandfather), or did he resurrect himself? I don't know, but it seems he could have resurrected himself. Brigham on this principle:

 

 

In other words, since Adam had already officiated in this ordinance (been resurrected), he possessed the keys of the power of resurrection.

 

If D&C 138 is the only 'monkey wrench' you have (a very strict interpretation of one verse of one vision by one leader that happened to be canonized) versus the HUNDREDS of clear-cut statements on Adam-God teachings by church leaders (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Samuel W. Richards, and Eliza R. Snow), who intimately knew the Prophet and learned from him in private council I should add, then my friend, the 'monkey wrenches' are all over your beliefs.

 

Although one wouldn't know it as a consequence of how I worded my posts, I'm actually open minded on this subject.

 

As to your first explanation, it's a weak one in my opinion. Just because Adam and Eve are mentioned first on the list of those prominent spirits who were anxiously awaiting the day of their resurrection doesn't mean they had bodies and the others didn't. It's obvious to me that the word "among" pertains to every spirit on the list of the noble and great who were rejoicing (along with all the other spirits) that the day of their deliverance from death had finally come. While anything is possible, your interpretation seems very strained. Was not Abel, and all the others mentioned, also among the vast assemblage? Again, the antecedent among pertains to everyone mentioned on the list.

 

11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.

 12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;

 13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.

 14 ALL these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

 15 I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand. (D&C 138)

 

As to your second point, I don't think it's an accident that D&C 138 is canonized and all the other stuff isn't. Even if it does somehow turn out to be true, the modern prophets of the Church will not vouch for Adam god, so neither will I publicly vouch for it until further canonized light is added to the standard works. Until that day, the council from our leaders is to set it aside for now. 

Edited January 21, 2015 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Did you read what I wrote

I read somw of what you wrote. Which statements are you talking about?

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with Adam God theory and as a consequence you're not addressing its thorny inconsistencies with D&C 138.

I am very familiar with what Joseph and Brigham said about Adam and God, with God referring to a kind of being as well as anyone who is that kind of being including our Eternal Father, and I also know how their teachings are often misunderstood and misrepresented.

To be clear, the Adam god theory stipulates that Adam -- the same personage of the Garden of Eden creation narrative who partook of the forbidden fruit and was married to Eve -- is, in reality, God the Father.

Now you're gwtting into what is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Yes, Adam is the kind of being we refer to as God, which is the same kind of being as our Eternal Father, and yes Adam is our Father, or one of our Fathers, but neither Joseph or Brigham said that Adam is the same person we are usually referring to as our Eternal Father, or at least not in anything I know that they taught. Maybe you could quote or link to specific statements where you think they did?

Further, the theory goes on to assert that this same Adam, husband of Eve, is the literal Father of the earthly body of Christ, not just an ancestor of Christ.

CFR. I think you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting so please point to specific statements.

It's settled LDS doctrine that God the Father is the literal Father of Christ, not a distant ancestor. D&C 138 informs us that Adam died and was a disembodied spirit at the time Christ gave up the ghost and conducted His ministry among the righteous n the spirit world who were awaiting resurrection; so there is no way Adam could have been the literal father of Christ because the father of Christ needed a resurrected body of flesh and bone in order to sire the Son of God.

D&C 138 throws a real 'monkey wrench' into the Adam god theory, as many understand it, and I will be interested to see if anyone can provide a plausible explanation as to how a disembodied spirit could be the literal father (again, not just distant ancestor) of the earthly flesh and bone body of Christ.

I still think you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting some things taught by our Lord's prophets. Look again at what they actually say.

[teddyaware]

I read somw of what you wrote. Which statements are you talking about?

I am very familiar with what Joseph and Brigham said about Adam and God, with God referring to a kind of being as well as anyone who is that kind of being including our Eternal Father, and I also know how their teachings are often misunderstood and misrepresented.

Now you're gwtting into what is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Yes, Adam is the kind of being we refer to as God, which is the same kind of being as our Eternal Father, and yes Adam is our Father, or one of our Fathers, but neither Joseph or Brigham said that Adam is the same person we are usually referring to as our Eternal Father, or at least not in anything I know that they taught. Maybe you could quote or link to specific statements where you think they did?

CFR. I think you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting so please point to specific statements.

I still think you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting some things taught by our Lord's prophets. Look again at what they actually say.

 

I'm beginning to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse so as to try to save face?

 

Let.s cut through the all the muck and murkiness and make this easy: Without referring to any and all of the other beings who could hold the name/title "Adam" (first father), and being strictly careful to refer only to the Adam spoken of in Genesis and Moses, who partook of the forbidden fruit and thereby fell in the garden of Eden: Do you believe this Adam, of whom I am now speaking, is the literal father of the body of Jesus Christ (and by literal father I mean father in the sense that your earthly father  {not a grandfather or ancestor} is the literal and actual father listed on your birth certificate)?

Edited January 21, 2015 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

I'm beginning to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse so as to try to save face?

 

Let.s cut through the all the muck and murkiness and make this easy: Without referring to any and all of the other beings who could hold the name/title "Adam" (first father), and being strictly careful to refer only to the Adam, spoken of in Genesis and Moses, who partook of the forbidden fruit and thereby fell in the garden of Eden; Do you believe this Adam, of whom I am now speaking, is the literal father of the body of Jesus Christ (and by literal father I mean father in the sense that your earthly father  {not a grandfather or ancestor} is the literal and actual father listed on your birth certificate)?

 

I don't know what Ahab believes and I can't say that I believe it that way but one must admit it lends itself to some interesting meditation.

[Brian 2.0]

...but neither Joseph or Brigham said that Adam is the same person we are usually referring to as our Eternal Father, or at least not in anything I know that they taught. Maybe you could quote or link to specific statements where you think they did?

Ahab, the lecture at the veil has been linked to and quoted a number of times in this thread.

"Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness, and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world."

Does this not clearly say that Adam and Eve bore our spirits?

[Ahab]

I'm beginning to wonder if you're being deliberately obtuse so as to try to save face?

Let.s cut through the all the muck and murkiness and make this easy: Without referring to any and all of the other beings who could hold the name/title "Adam" (first father), and being strictly careful to refer only to the Adam spoken of in Genesis and Moses, who partook of the forbidden fruit and thereby fell in the garden of Eden: Do you believe this Adam, of whom I am now speaking, is the literal father of the body of Jesus Christ (and by literal father I mean father in the sense that your earthly father {not a grandfather or ancestor} is the literal and actual father listed on your birth certificate)?

What is listed on my birth certificate is irrelevant to this discussion, but to answer what I believe you intended to ask it my answer to your question is no.

Now please answer some questions for me.

Do you see how Adam is a Father of Jesus?

Do you see how Adam is God, with the word God referring to a specific "kind" of being?

Do you see how our Eternal Father was able to walk around in the garden of Eden both before and after he begat Adam and Eve, and how both of them walked with him there before they "fell"?

Do you see how what Joseph and Brigham said about Adam is true, and that what other prophets of God rejected were the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what they said?

Or do you think Joseph and Brigham were just wrong about what they said was true while you thank God that you know the truth of what they said better than them?

[teddyaware]

What is listed on my birth certificate is irrelevant to this discussion, but to answer what I believe you intended to ask it my answer to your question is no.

Now please answer some questions for me.

Do you see how Adam is a Father of Jesus?

Do you see how Adam is God, with the word God referring to a specific "kind" of being?

Do you see how our Eternal Father was able to walk around in the garden of Eden both before and after he begat Adam and Eve, and how both of them walked with him there before they "fell"?

Do you see how what Joseph and Brigham said about Adam is true, and that what other prophets of God rejected were the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what they said?

Or do you think Joseph and Brigham were just wrong about what they said was true while you thank God that you know the truth of what they said better than them?

 

1 Yes, a father in the same sense that Abraham is called our father (blood-lineal or adopted ancestor). But this is not what the hardcore Adam-God adherents believe. They believe Adam is not just Christ's ancestor, but also that he's the literal first-generation father of His earthly body.

 

2 Yes. But it must be understood that the same Adam-God adherents believe Adam is not only "one of the Gods," but that he the very father in heaven of whom Jesus spoke of when He prayed, "our Father which art in heaven."

 

3 Yes, that's what the scriptures and today's temple narrative teach us.

 

4 I'm not sure about President Young because I've read a great deal on the subject and I believe a very strong case can be made that he believed and taught that the Adam who fell in the earth's garden of Eden is also our Heavenly Father, and also the literal father of the earthly flesh and bone body of Christ. In order to see President Young's Adam-God theology differently, one often has to reject the plain meanings of words and phrases, and jump through lots of logical and semantical "hoops."

 

5 I believe both men were true prophets and that the day will come when the theological minefield of Adam-God will be cleared up and made understandable and scripturally harmonious to all the faithful. Until that day, I'm keeping an open mind.

Edited January 21, 2015 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Ahab, the lecture at the veil has been linked to and quoted a number of times in this thread.

"Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness...

Looking back from the time that was said in a temple built in our dispensation, I can see how all of that is true and in harmony with what we commonly teach today. The earth that he had lived on that is similar to ours now is probably a reference to the one we all lived on before we came here, although it could have been what this one was before the fall, and he did receive the priesthood with keys and he was faithful in all things up to the day that he died. And then he waited until the day when Christ was resurrected with faith that he would also be resurrected. And he was, and is now exalted and numbered among other persons who are exalted and crowned with glory, now able and most likely already having children with his wife and our Mother, Eve, who is the Mother, or one of the Mothers, of all who have been born and are yet to be born on this earth.

and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world."

The words are not as clear as I would prefer but I can still see the truth in them as written. Again, this is a look back at Adam from our present day, or in these latter days, and the spirits that he "had begotten" include the ones that had/have already come to this earth through him and his wife, our Mother, Eve, through whom also all of the rest of us who were born on that other celestial world are still waiting to come here until all who are destined to be born here are eventually born.

Does this not clearly say that Adam and Eve bore our spirits?

It says that, yes, and it is only through them that all of us, including Jesus, were born or are to be born here.

[Ahab]

1 Yes, a father in the same sense that Abraham is called our father (blood-lineal or adopted ancestor). But this is not what the hardcore Adam-God adherents believe. They believe Adam is not just Christ's ancestor, but also that he's the literal first-generation father of His earthly body.

2 Yes. But it must be understood that the same Adam-God adherents believe Adam is not only "one of the Gods," but that he the very father in heaven of whom Jesus spoke of when He prayed, "our Father which art in heaven."

3 Yes, that's what the scriptures and today's temple narrative teach us.

4 I'm not sure about President Young because I've read a great deal on the subject and I believe a very strong case can be made that he believed and taught that the Adam who fell in the earth's garden of Eden is also our Heavenly Father, and also the literal father of the earthly flesh and bone body of Christ. In order to see President Young's Adam-God theology differently, one often has to reject the plain meanings of words and phrases, and jump through lots of logical and semantical "hoops."

5 I believe both men were true prophets and that the day will come when the theological minefield of Adam-God will be cleared up and made understandable and scripturally harmonious to all the faithful. Until that day, I'm keeping an open mind.

You seem to be on the right track. Just don't let the misunderstandings and misrepresentations of others throw you off.