Adam God Theory

[iamse7en]

face palm. I cannot even begin to describe how ridiculous you sound.

[Ahab]

face palm. I cannot even begin to describe how ridiculous you sound.

Yeah, I get that a lot, and I've become accustomed and even comfortable with the fact that there will always be some people somewhere who do not agree with me and many of my Fathers as well as many other persons who are and always will be God. Just not perfect, yet.

[bobatnauvoo]

The doctrine was never taught by the church. Brigham Youngs sermon has been misquoted and subsequently clarified by recent church leaders who re-affirm that Adam is Michael the Archangel but also our Father in that sense that he was the first mortal man on earth and thus the Father of the human race. He isn't however God the Eternal Father.

 

This confused theory doesn't invalid Brigham Youngs Presidency in any way.

[ERayR]

The doctrine was never taught by the church. Brigham Youngs sermon has been misquoted and subsequently clarified by recent church leaders who re-affirm that Adam is Michael the Archangel but also our Father in that sense that he was the first mortal man on earth and thus the Father of the human race. He isn't however God the Eternal Father.

 

This confused theory doesn't invalid Brigham Youngs Presidency in any way.

 

I am not advocating or denying the doctrine but must point out you do err some in your understanding.  It was taught by several of the Church general authorities besides Brigham Young.  Unfortunately what we have left of what was taught is not clear and irrefutable. However with a bit of work a pretty good picture can be reconstructed.  Unfortunately misinterpretation of the data has led to a lot of misunderstanding. 

 

The confusion about this theory doesn't invalidate it.

[Ahab]

The doctrine was never taught by the church. Brigham Youngs sermon has been misquoted and subsequently clarified by recent church leaders who re-affirm that Adam is Michael the Archangel but also our Father in that sense that he was the first mortal man on earth and thus the Father of the human race. He isn't however God the Eternal Father.

This confused theory doesn't invalid Brigham Youngs Presidency in any way.

Some confusion results from how some people refer to what Joseph and Brigham taught regarding Adam, and Eve, which is why I try to choose my words carefully. What they taught is true, but some people misunderstand and misrepresent what they taught, and those misrepresentations are what I and (other) prophets of God don't agree with.

Even the term "Adam-God doctrine" conveys different ideas in some people's minds. Not everyone agrees on what is being referred to.

What they actually taught and meant when they taught what they taught, or somebody's misrepresentation of what they taught and meant? I just know, by the Spirit of God, that what they taught is true, and I can spot a misrepresentation of truth when I see one.

[Coreyb]

The doctrine was never taught by the church. Brigham Youngs sermon has been misquoted and subsequently clarified by recent church leaders who re-affirm that Adam is Michael the Archangel but also our Father in that sense that he was the first mortal man on earth and thus the Father of the human race. He isn't however God the Eternal Father.

 

This confused theory doesn't invalid Brigham Youngs Presidency in any way.

Those who clarify that Brigham or any else did not teach this doctrine (Joseph fielding Smith, Mark E. Peterson) are the ones who misquote their sermons. If you don't believe me just read the full sermons. Now I am not necessarily advocating the Adam God doctrine, but we have to get past this rhetoric that it was never taught.

[ERayR]

Some confusion results from how some people refer to what Joseph and Brigham taught regarding Adam, and Eve, which is why I try to choose my words carefully. What they taught is true, but some people misunderstand and misrepresent what they taught, and those misrepresentations are what I and (other) prophets of God don't agree with.

Even the term "Adam-God doctrine" conveys different ideas in some people's minds. Not everyone agrees on what is being referred to.

What they actually taught and meant when they taught what they taught, or somebody's misrepresentation of what they taught and meant? I just know, by the Spirit of God, that what they taught is true, and I can spot a misrepresentation of truth when I see one.

 

It does feel right when combined with other things i accept as true.

[JLHPROF]

Those who clarify that Brigham or any else did not teach this doctrine (Joseph fielding Smith, Mark E. Peterson) are the ones who misquote their sermons. If you don't believe me just read the full sermons. Now I am not necessarily advocating the Adam God doctrine, but we have to get past this rhetoric that it was never taught.

 

Thank you.  This exactly!

 

Believe it or don't believe it.  That is your choice.  But it WAS taught and it WASN'T misinterpreted or misquoted.  That old argument holds about as much water as "we lived plural marriage because of the shortage of men".  It's a relic argument long since disproved.

[JLHPROF]

The doctrine was never taught by the church. Brigham Youngs sermon has been misquoted and subsequently clarified by recent church leaders who re-affirm that Adam is Michael the Archangel but also our Father in that sense that he was the first mortal man on earth and thus the Father of the human race. He isn't however God the Eternal Father.

 

This confused theory doesn't invalid Brigham Youngs Presidency in any way.

 

This doctrine WAS taught by the Church, if you read the over a dozen discourses teaching it and understand that it was part of the offical temple endowment (starting at the St. George Temple).  It was taught to thousands as part of the endowment.  To say otherwise is to deny historical fact.

 

No, the contradiction comes from the later authorities who took a doctrine Brigham claimed was revealed by revelation and labelled it heresy with no revelation to do so.

[Brian 2.0]

"....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?

 

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

 

It's not talking about us being born mortally here on earth though.

 

It's saying Adam "had begotten all the spirit that WAS to come to earth."  Eve "bore those spirits IN THE CELESTIAL WORLD."

 

In what way are these statements referring to us being born here mortally on earth and not our spiritual birth in the pre-mortal realm?

[ERayR]

It's not talking about us being born mortally here on earth though.

 

It's saying Adam "had begotten all the spirit that WAS to come to earth."  Eve "bore those spirits IN THE CELESTIAL WORLD."

 

In what way are these statements referring to us being born here mortally on earth and not our spiritual birth in the pre-mortal realm?

 

Think about what you just posted.

[Brian 2.0]

Think about what you just posted.

I thought about it. Now what?

[ERayR]

I thought about it. Now what?

 

I may be confused as I do not understand what you are getting at.

[Ahab]

It's not talking about us being born mortally here on earth though.

It's saying Adam "had begotten all the spirit that WAS to come to earth." Eve "bore those spirits IN THE CELESTIAL WORLD."

In what way are these statements referring to us being born here mortally on earth and not our spiritual birth in the pre-mortal realm?

As I said, not as clear as I would have preferred. Try it this way:

...had begotten all of the spirits that were to come to this earth [directly through him, and those that he begat directly (Cain, Abel, Seth, etc) were to beget all of the others on the other celestial earth that were destined to come to this earth indirectly through him. And] Eve bore those spirits [that were there, with some of us still there to this day] in the celestial world (that is the one we lived on before we came here, with some of us who have yet to be born here still there to this day].

I hope that makes it more clear to you now.

[Ahab]

I thought about it. Now what?

Pray.

[Brian 2.0]

As I said, not as clear as I would have preferred. Try it this way:

...had begotten all of the spirits that were to come to this earth [directly through him, and those that he begat directly (Cain, Abel, Seth, etc) were to beget all of the others on the other celestial earth that were destined to come to this earth indirectly through him. And] Eve bore those spirits [that were there, with some of us still there to this day] in the celestial world (that is the one we lived on before we came here, with some of us who have yet to be born here still there to this day].

I hope that makes it more clear to you now.

Your revised statement doesn't seem to change the fact that Adam and Eve bore/begat the SPIRITS of those who have come and still will come to this Earth.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had anything to do with the birth/creation of our spirit bodies? (I am NOT talking about our physical bodies).

[JLHPROF]

As I said, not as clear as I would have preferred. Try it this way:

...had begotten all of the spirits that were to come to this earth [directly through him, and those that he begat directly (Cain, Abel, Seth, etc) were to beget all of the others on the other celestial earth that were destined to come to this earth indirectly through him. And] Eve bore those spirits [that were there, with some of us still there to this day] in the celestial world (that is the one we lived on before we came here, with some of us who have yet to be born here still there to this day].

I hope that makes it more clear to you now.

 

You seem to like to post vagaries as explanations.  Basically you seem to be saying that the only way that Adam is our father is by descent and authority, not by actual creation of our spirits, not first generation.  This is NOT what Brigham taught in the Adam-God doctrine.  This is not harmonizing doctrines.  If that is not what you are saying, please correct me.

Edited January 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Brian 2.0]

I may be confused as I do not understand what you are getting at.

 

The Lecture at the Veil statement reads pretty clear that Adam & Eve bore/begat our SPIRITS that would eventually come to earth.  I see no other reading of that that doesn't make Adam & Eve our Heavenly Father and Mother (the ones that created our spirit bodies).  

 

People can call that false doctrine, misquoted, whatever, and I can at least understand those arguments even if I don't believe them.  But Ahab seems to be saying that the Lecture on the Veil is not false doctrine, is in harmony with current church teachings, but just misunderstood and Adam & Eve are not Heavenly Father and Mother.  

 

I have yet to see how he reads the Lecture on the Veil statement to harmonize it.  How do Adam & Eve beget our SPIRITS in a pre-mortal realm and not be considered Heavenly Father and Mother?  

Edited January 22, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Coreyb]

So I don't personally subscribe to the Adam God doctrine, though I am by no means opposed to it, and I wouldn't be so dogmatic as to say that it is false. The biggest problem I have with it is not that I am an evolutionist (I am somewhat, but I can imagine several ways in which this doctrine could fit quite nicely with evolution), but that I tend to accept the documentary hypothesis of biblical scholarship. Adam God teachings seem to be dependent upon the Gods Elohiem and Jehovah and the man/god Adam being part of one continuous creation narrative. According to the DH, genesis has two separate creation stories growing out of two separate traditions about two different Gods that were later stitched together in the name of monotheism. I am wondering if either of you Adam God-ers have wrestled with this before. If so, do you find the DH to be more compatible with Adam God teachings than our current Jehovah doctrine or less compatible? And how?

[Jude2]

Hasn’t this been beat to death, Brigham Young got it wrong so what! put it to bed and let's move on!

[iamse7en]

Jude2, if only it were that simple. Did Church leaders Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Samuel W. Richards, and Eliza R. Snow ALL get it wrong? Each of them believed and taught the principle. What about George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Eliza R. Snow, Helen Mar Whitney, and Benjamin F. Johnson who EACH stated they learned Adam-God from Joseph? Why are you so quick to say, "Brigham got it wrong, so what, let's move on?" How do you determine he's wrong? Because Spencer Kimball or Bruce McConkie or Mark Peterson said so? Why do these three people trump these 10+ leaders/confidants of Joseph? Because they're more contemporary to you? What does this say about Brigham's and Heber's revelatory process and prophetic credibility, when they say they learned it by revelation as well? If you say the standard works makes it wrong, then why would all of these other leaders (not to mention the host of 19th Century saints who learned and believed this principle) believe something so contrary to the standard works? Maybe your interpretation of the scriptures is wrong and it isn't contrary to scripture?

 

It's not just "brigham got it wrong" - there are many implications of that statement, some of which I addressed in the above questions.

Edited January 22, 2015 by iamse7en

[Ahab]

Your revised statement doesn't seem to change the fact that Adam and Eve bore/begat the SPIRITS of those who have come and still will come to this Earth.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had anything to do with the birth/creation of our spirit bodies? (I am NOT talking about our physical bodies).

Our spirits were born into bodies begat by Adam and Eve. Does that make it more clear to you now? We are their children, mortal body and eternal spirit combined. You seem to want to split us up into parts and act as if they had and now have morhing to do with our spirits at all. Egads! Think about it some more.

[Brian 2.0]

Our spirits were born into bodies begat by Adam and Eve. Does that make it more clear to you now? We are their children, mortal body and eternal spirit combined. You seem to want to split us up into parts and act as if they had and now have morhing to do with our spirits at all. Egads! Think about it some more.

 

You keep mashing together the mortal body creation with the spirit body creation to make it work.  Why are you doing that?

 

I keep wanting to split us up into parts?  That's the huge part of the whole plan of salvation... sprit body creation, then gaining a mortal body, losing that mortal body, then gaining back and immortal body...

 

You keep harping back to BODIES begat by Adam and Eve... that's not what is talked about in the quotes... it's SPIRITS begat by Adam & Eve... and yes there is quite a difference... our spirits were begat long before these mortal bodies of ours... and those spirits were begat by Heavenly Father & Mother.

 

Why do you insist on conflating the spirit and body creation in every single post?

[Brian 2.0]

Our spirits were born into bodies begat by Adam and Eve. Does that make it more clear to you now? We are their children, mortal body and eternal spirit combined. You seem to want to split us up into parts and act as if they had and now have morhing to do with our spirits at all. Egads! Think about it some more.

The event of a spirit entering a mortal body is NOT the birth of the spirt. That's not the point where the spirit was "begat".

[sunstoned]

Jude2, if only it were that simple. Did Church leaders Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Franklin D. Richards, Samuel W. Richards, and Eliza R. Snow ALL get it wrong? Each of them believed and taught the principle. What about George Q. Cannon, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Eliza R. Snow, Helen Mar Whitney, and Benjamin F. Johnson who EACH stated they learned Adam-God from Joseph? Why are you so quick to say, "Brigham got it wrong, so what, let's move on?" How do you determine he's wrong? Because Spencer Kimball or Bruce McConkie or Mark Peterson said so? Why do these three people trump these 10+ leaders/confidants of Joseph? Because they're more contemporary to you? What does this say about Brigham's and Heber's revelatory process and prophetic credibility, when they say they learned it by revelation as well? If you say the standard works makes it wrong, then why would all of these other leaders (not to mention the host of 19th Century saints who learned and believed this principle) believe something so contrary to the standard works? Maybe your interpretation of the scriptures is wrong and it isn't contrary to scripture?

 

It's not just "brigham got it wrong" - there are many implications of that statement, some of which I addressed in the above questions.

Wouldn't this same logic apply to the priesthood ban.  Apparently the church is now saying that BY and all those who followed got it wrong.