Theology Of Adam/god Theory

[HappyJackWagon]

From a previous thread.

"HappyJackWagon, on 09 May 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

This is fascinating. I think we need to start a new thread.

You're right that I view the story of Adam and Eve as allegorical. Of course Elder Hollands insistence that it is literal, and that there was a literal fall from the Garden does create some problems for those inclined to literal belief.

So did God tell Jehovah to go down with Michael (God himself) to create the world and everything on it?

Did Adam, the mortal God physically die but become ressurrected? If that's true, why the need for Christ's resurrection? So many questions.

JLHPROF said:

Jehovah as Christ is incompatible with Adam-God in my opinion.

BY said that Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael were all resurrected Grandfather, Father, Son. And as in the temple, Eloheim sends Jehovah and Michael/Adam to create.

My personal belief is that Christ claimed the title of Jehovah (as in D&C 110) AFTER performing his atoning sacrifice and resurrection. He earned it. The Jehovah of the OT was a person who had done the same work previously."

To me it doesn't seem that Adam/God theory fits either a literal or allegorical interpretation of the Adam/Eve creation/Fall narrative. It seems like it tosses those lessons all together and starts with a fresh narative using some of the same characters. What are your thoughts on this?

[JLHPROF]

To me it doesn't seem that Adam/God theory fits either a literal or allegorical interpretation of the Adam/Eve creation/Fall narrative. It seems like it tosses those lessons all together and starts with a fresh narative using some of the same characters. What are your thoughts on this?

 

I could agree with this.  The Genesis events aren't literal, even Brigham Young called them fairytale, Adam wasn't made out of dirt, Eve wasn't actually made of Adam's rib bone, Satan wasn't actually a snake/serpent etc.

At the same time they aren't allegorical either.  Adam and Eve and the garden and the fall are all historical (in the Adam-God doctrine).  Some of the story has been told with symbolism but the story is valid.

 

And the Adam-God doctrine is really very simple at the most basic.  Even if we agree/disagree with it.

 

[carbon dioxide]

I could agree with this.  The Genesis events aren't literal, even Brigham Young called them fairytale, Adam wasn't made out of dirt, Eve wasn't actually made of Adam's rib bone, Satan wasn't actually a snake/serpent etc.

At the same time they aren't allegorical either.  Adam and Eve and the garden and the fall are all historical (in the Adam-God doctrine).  Some of the story has been told with symbolism but the story is valid.

 

And the Adam-God doctrine is really very simple at the most basic.  Even if we agree/disagree with it.

 

This is what I believe.  Adam was born from the dust of the earth just as we are born from the dust of the earth.  The literal father of Adam's body is God the Father and he had a mother who gave birth to him who is our heavenly mother.  Celestial beings don't procreate mortal beings.  (I don't believe they procreate spirits either.  Like all things, the procreate beings after their own kind.)  I believe Satan is called a serpent because the symbol for the Messiah is a serpent.  Satan came as a counterfeit messiah and thus he took upon himself that role.  I can accept that the garden story contains a lot of symbolism but the fall was literal.  There was a literal Adam and Eve else there is no reason for Christ to atone for something that did not exist and if they did not exist, their descendants would not exist either.

 

[i believe the account as told in the garden.  God the Father made Adam (Michael or the Ancient of Days) as Lord over all the earth.  From that day until Adam-ondi-Ahman, Adam will remain Lord over all the earth.  All angels sent to man come through Adam.  Most of our prayers are answered by Adam directly on behalf of the Father and Son.  Adam rules over the earth in the day to day operations that goes on here.  One day God the Father will send Christ to Adam and have those keys that are held by Adam to be given to him as told in Daniel.  Adam plays a important role in the history of the earth.  We was present when the earth began. He will be present at the end of the earth.  I believe he was the angel present at Gethsemane.  Who would have more at stake to ensure the Atonement was to occur than Adam?  Adam is a very important but misunderstood person and the world will one day realize how important he was over everything.]

Edited May 9, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[ALarson]

I think this is a fascinating topic.  I don't know much about it (other than the quotes I've read from Brigham Young regarding it) so thanks for the diagram, JLHPROF.

 

A couple of questions:

 

Do you believe there is an "Earthly Godhead" that is separate from the "Heavenly Godhead"?

 

And, you believe that the Adam-God beliefs do not teach that Adam is Eloheim, is that correct?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I think this is a fascinating topic.  I don't know much about it (other than the quotes I've read from Brigham Young regarding it) so thanks for the diagram, JLHPROF.

 

A couple of questions:

 

Do you believe there is an "Earthly Godhead" that is separate from the "Heavenly Godhead"?

 

And, you believe that the Adam-God beliefs do not teach that Adam is Eloheim, is that correct?

If there is order in all things, and if we believe in eternal progression and eternal Priesthood, it stands to reason that there is some file leader type system in place.

[JLHPROF]

I think this is a fascinating topic.  I don't know much about it (other than the quotes I've read from Brigham Young regarding it) so thanks for the diagram, JLHPROF.

 

A couple of questions:

 

Do you believe there is an "Earthly Godhead" that is separate from the "Heavenly Godhead"?

 

And, you believe that the Adam-God beliefs do not teach that Adam is Eloheim, is that correct?

 

1. Yes and no.  Our godhead is definitely "heavenly" too.  As Joseph taught "Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

Eloheim/Jehovah/Michael oversaw the creation.  Adam/Christ/Holy Ghost are the godhead that preside over us.  They answer to Eloheim and Jehovah.

 

2. No.  The Eloheim is the council of the Gods.  The term is also used for the head of that council.  And Adam is a member.  And hopefully so will we be one day.

[JulieM]

Didn't Brigham Young teach that Adam was Eloheim or is that just assumed by some when they read what he taught about this?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Didn't Brigham Young teach that Adam was Eloheim or is that just assumed by some when they read what he taught about this?

Michael (Adam) is an Elohim in the Eloheim.

[Robert F. Smith]

..................................................  

You're right that I view the story of Adam and Eve as allegorical. Of course Elder Hollands insistence that it is literal, and that there was a literal fall from the Garden does create some problems for those inclined to literal belief.

Since the Brethren claim both figurative and literal aspects of the Fall, it depends on which aspects of such mysteries we are considering.  The Creation and Garden accounts we have in Genesis, Abraham, and Moses were not written as history or science, but instead as ritual and theology.  We need to take them as they are intended.

 

So did God tell Jehovah to go down with Michael (God himself) to create the world and everything on it?

Did Adam, the mortal God physically die but become ressurrected? If that's true, why the need for Christ's resurrection?......................

Not sure what you are asking here, but each world (earth) requires its own atoning messiah.

 

JLHPROF said:

Jehovah as Christ is incompatible with Adam-God in my opinion.

BY said that Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael were all resurrected Grandfather, Father, Son. And as in the temple, Eloheim sends Jehovah and Michael/Adam to create.

My personal belief is that Christ claimed the title of Jehovah (as in D&C 110) AFTER performing his atoning sacrifice and resurrection. He earned it. The Jehovah of the OT was a person who had done the same work previously."

.......................................................................................................

 

JLHPROF has hit on the key word here, "title," since the theophoric names spoken of in these stories are not actually names so much as epithets or titles, and each has a particular meaning, and are more like roles or ritual functions than specific persons:

ADAM -- "man; mankind"

ELOHIM -- "gods; God"

JEHOVAH -- "He who creates that which comes into existence"

MICHAEL -- "Who is like God"

CHRIST/MESSIAH -- "the anointed one"

SATAN -- "the opposer" 

The way in which they are used belies stasis, and they must be analyzed within a diachronic scale.  As Hugh Nibley said:

 

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).   Nibley, "Apocryphal Writings," p. 13 (FARMS Preiminary Report N-APO).

[BCSpace]

The only theory that makes the most sense and accounts for all the evidence (such as extant doctrine and scripture) is Adam Sr Adam Jr.

 

See Approach #3

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

 

And:

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

 

Neither Adam-God or Adam Sr/Jr is the doctrine of the Church so let no one's testimony stumble on these trivialities.

[bjw]

I think the multiple Adams theory only makes sense in light of the many inhabited planets theory asserted in Moses and Abraham. Also, while I believe Adam is real, the stories surrounding him are probably mostly allegorical, such as masonic degrees that mention Hiram Abiff, Christian Rosencreuz, etc. Stories can sometimes be amplified as parables to teach a lesson. When you consider there being many worlds, the BY remarks aren't as problematic.

[halconero]

How would you account for Christ's claiming of first person form of the Tetragrammaton "Jehovah" in the New Testament before his atonement?

[JLHPROF]

How would you account for Christ's claiming of first person form of the Tetragrammaton "Jehovah" in the New Testament before his atonement?

 

One possibility is that it is a reference to his premortal calling to become Jehovah after the atonement.  Not a reference to the OT times.

It was established that he would become Jehovah before Abraham's day.

Another is that "I AM" was not referencing Jehovah at all (but I'll let the linguists determine that).

 

Jehovah in the OT was referred to as the Lord/Lord God.  The being known as the Lord/Lord God has characteristics not in keeping with a premortal spirit.  The usual excuse is that whenever the Lord/Lord God in scripture simply can't refer to Christ it must refer to the Father.  That is making excuse, and not a good one.  As you said, the Lord God in the OT was Jehovah as evidenced by the "Tetragrammaton", not the Father, and because of the things he did he cannot be Christ in a premortal condition.

One of the primary ways we know that is that Christ said he had never revealed himself to anyone before the Brother of Jared. (Ether 3:15) Yet there are several OT people who saw "the Lord/Lord God" or Jehovah face to face.

 

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. (Genesis 3:8 )

 

And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering. (Genesis 4:3-4)

 

And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations. (Moses 7:4)

 

This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9)

 

 

Jehovah

- had a physical body (Exodus 24:11, Exodus 33:11, Deut 9:10)

- was prayed to (Zechariah 8:22, JST Exodus 34:14)

- was the head God (Joshua 22:22)

- formed/created our spirits (Zechariah 12:1, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Isaiah 42:5)

 

Premortal Christ

- did NOT have a physical body (but a spirit body Ether 3:15)

- Christ should not be prayed to (Matthew 6:9, Exodus 34:14)

- was not the head God (Isaiah 42:1 the Lord God Jehovah speaking of his servant Christ)

- was not the father/creator of our spirits (being that he was a spirit child as we were D&C 93:21)

 

Joseph also taught that Christ was not Jehovah.

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah" (Times and Seasons 15 Nov, 1841)

"Jehovah, God, Thou Eloheim, Thy Son Jesus Christ" (History of the Church 5:127)

 

Christ and Jehovah were not the same being, and didn't become so in LDS theology until after Talmage published Jesus the Christ (although Franklin D. Richards did suggest the idea in the 1880s).

Edited May 10, 2015 by JLHPROF

[canard78]

1. Yes and no. Our godhead is definitely "heavenly" too. As Joseph taught "Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council."

Eloheim/Jehovah/Michael oversaw the creation. Adam/Christ/Holy Ghost are the godhead that preside over us. They answer to Eloheim and Jehovah.

2. No. The Eloheim is the council of the Gods. The term is also used for the head of that council. And Adam is a member. And hopefully so will we be one day.

So when you start your prayer, "Dear Heavenly Father..." whom are you addressing?

[Senator]

So when you start your prayer, "Dear Heavenly Father..." whom are you addressing?

God

[JLHPROF]

So when you start your prayer, "Dear Heavenly Father..." whom are you addressing?

 

I agree with Senator.  God.

 

But to be clear - "He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do."  - Brigham Young.

[cinepro]

I could agree with this.  The Genesis events aren't literal, even Brigham Young called them fairytale, Adam wasn't made out of dirt, Eve wasn't actually made of Adam's rib bone, Satan wasn't actually a snake/serpent etc.

 

Do you have the reference for the Brigham Young statement?  I know President Kimball conceded that the "rib" story was figurative, but I haven't been able to find where Brigham Young said anything about "fairy tales".

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Do you have the reference for the Brigham Young statement?  I know President Kimball conceded that the "rib" story was figurative, but I haven't been able to find where Brigham Young said anything about "fairy tales".

 

I believe he said "like a children's story". I will find it, unless JHL beats me to it.

[JLHPROF]

Do you have the reference for the Brigham Young statement?  I know President Kimball conceded that the "rib" story was figurative, but I haven't been able to find where Brigham Young said anything about "fairy tales".

 

"You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please – that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child."

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 2, p. 6

 

"Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell.... Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh, and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits."

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 7, pp. 285, 290

[drums12]

Since the Brethren claim both figurative and literal aspects of the Fall, it depends on which aspects of such mysteries we are considering.  The Creation and Garden accounts we have in Genesis, Abraham, and Moses were not written as history or science, but instead as ritual and theology.  We need to take them as they are intended.

 

Not sure what you are asking here, but each world (earth) requires its own atoning messiah.

 

 

JLHPROF has hit on the key word here, "title," since the theophoric names spoken of in these stories are not actually names so much as epithets or titles, and each has a particular meaning, and are more like roles or ritual functions than specific persons:

ADAM -- "man; mankind"

ELOHIM -- "gods; God"

JEHOVAH -- "He who creates that which comes into existence"

MICHAEL -- "Who is like God"

CHRIST/MESSIAH -- "the anointed one"

SATAN -- "the opposer" 

The way in which they are used belies stasis, and they must be analyzed within a diachronic scale.  As Hugh Nibley said:

 

All the worlds are organized in a common pattern, . . in all the worlds you will find God alone rules but with a presidency of three and a council of twelve.  This is the rule of all worlds.  The repetitions are infinite in number and scope . . . .  As a Yeu becomes a Father, the Father then appoints new Yeus (Jehovahs) for new worlds who in turn become Fathers, etc. (cf. First Jeu 48:8; 50:1-3; 97:25-28; Pistis Sophia I, 91, 94; III, 285, 319, 329-330; IV, 355:15,23, 370:10,19,24).   Nibley, "Apocryphal Writings," p. 13 (FARMS Preiminary Report N-APO).

 

I am not sure that each earth has its own Savior.  Joseph Smith is quoted as saying that there are other earths "whose inhabitants too from the first to the last are saved by the very same Savior of ours."  Times and Seasons, Feb. 1 1843

[JLHPROF]

What this subject always says to me is that there are two sides to the Adam-God doctrine.

 

The basic standards, easy to understand and follow side clearly taught (whether we believe it like Pres. Young or have disavowed it like Pres. Kimball).

And then there's the other side that gets into a LOT of speculation not found in the actual doctrine.

 

I try to not speculate too much beyond the basic Adam-God teachings contained in the sermons of the prophets and apostles and the current & former temple endowment. 

The other ideas out there don't have any source that I feel I can depend on.  I know there's some irony in there somewhere but that's how I feel on Adam-God.  I have read some pretty crazy wild theories connected with Adam-God.  But the standard Adam-God doctrine makes perfect sense to me, even if Pres. Kimball & Elder McConkie considered it a heresy.

[HappyJackWagon]

"From that day until Adam-ondi-Ahman, Adam will remain Lord over all the earth. All angels sent to man come through Adam. Most of our prayers are answered by Adam directly on behalf of the Father and Son. Adam rules over the earth in the day to day operations that goes on here."

So, as an Elohim in the council of Eloheim, Adam is the [G]god we pray to, or is he merely given assignments from God the Father to answer the prayers?

How large is this council? Is it small or does it include every other Eternal being? Is the council all male or would it include heavenly mother(s)?

What this subject always says to me is that there are two sides to the Adam-God doctrine.

 

The basic standards, easy to understand and follow side clearly taught (whether we believe it like Pres. Young or have disavowed it like Pres. Kimball).

And then there's the other side that gets into a LOT of speculation not found in the actual doctrine.

 

I try to not speculate too much beyond the basic Adam-God teachings contained in the sermons of the prophets and apostles and the current & former temple endowment. 

The other ideas out there don't have any source that I feel I can depend on.  I know there's some irony in there somewhere but that's how I feel on Adam-God.  I have read some pretty crazy wild theories connected with Adam-God.  But the standard Adam-God doctrine makes perfect sense to me, even if Pres. Kimball & Elder McConkie considered it a heresy.

 

This is really interesting to me. Thanks for sharing. What are the best sources for a concise treatment of Adam/God?

[JLHPROF]

This is really interesting to me. Thanks for sharing. What are the best sources for a concise treatment of Adam/God?

 

In my opinion "The Adam God Maze" is very good.

[tonie]

From a previous thread.

"HappyJackWagon, on 09 May 2015 - 11:32 AM, said:

This is fascinating. I think we need to start a new thread.

You're right that I view the story of Adam and Eve as allegorical. Of course Elder Hollands insistence that it is literal, and that there was a literal fall from the Garden does create some problems for those inclined to literal belief.

So did God tell Jehovah to go down with Michael (God himself) to create the world and everything on it?

Did Adam, the mortal God physically die but become ressurrected? If that's true, why the need for Christ's resurrection? So many questions.

JLHPROF said:

Jehovah as Christ is incompatible with Adam-God in my opinion.

BY said that Eloheim, Jehovah and Michael were all resurrected Grandfather, Father, Son. And as in the temple, Eloheim sends Jehovah and Michael/Adam to create.

My personal belief is that Christ claimed the title of Jehovah (as in D&C 110) AFTER performing his atoning sacrifice and resurrection. He earned it. The Jehovah of the OT was a person who had done the same work previously."

To me it doesn't seem that Adam/God theory fits either a literal or allegorical interpretation of the Adam/Eve creation/Fall narrative. It seems like it tosses those lessons all together and starts with a fresh narative using some of the same characters. What are your thoughts on this?

 

 

October 1976, President Spencer W. Kimball:

 

[T]he Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

[Nevo]

But the standard Adam-God doctrine makes perfect sense to me, even if Pres. Kimball & Elder McConkie considered it a heresy.

 

I see a problem here...