Theology Of Adam/god Theory

[ERayR]

I see a problem here...

 

Of course there is a problem but whose problem is it?

[HappyJackWagon]

"In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

"The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. 'We will follow those who went before,' they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

"We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced."

The doctrine was disavowed as a heresy, not simply a teaching that went a little too far or as simply misguided. It was a heresy.

Some choose to accept it still which is certainly their perogative. What confuses me though is that some who accept it now, despite the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, also seem to be the ones that criticize the "apostates" for not following the prophet. This seems rather inconsistent and leads me to the conclusion that we are all cafeteria mormons in one way or another. If that's the case we should be slow to condemn one another for our various beliefs in the church.

[ERayR]

"In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

"The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. 'We will follow those who went before,' they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

"We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced."

The doctrine was disavowed as a heresy, not simply a teaching that went a little too far or as simply misguided. It was a heresy.

Some choose to accept it still which is certainly their perogative. What confuses me though is that some who accept it now, despite the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, also seem to be the ones that criticize the "apostates" for not following the prophet. This seems rather inconsistent and leads me to the conclusion that we are all cafeteria mormons in one way or another. If that's the case we should be slow to condemn one another for our various beliefs in the church.

 

Elder McConkie also had some of his pronouncements repudiated.  The Adam/God doctrine becomes a matter of competing authorities and as such each must answer it according to their personal choices or maybe even personal revelation.

[JLHPROF]

The doctrine was disavowed as a heresy, not simply a teaching that went a little too far or as simply misguided. It was a heresy.

Some choose to accept it still which is certainly their perogative. What confuses me though is that some who accept it now, despite the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, also seem to be the ones that criticize the "apostates" for not following the prophet. This seems rather inconsistent and leads me to the conclusion that we are all cafeteria mormons in one way or another. If that's the case we should be slow to condemn one another for our various beliefs in the church.

 

Very simply Elder McConkie wasn't teaching revelation, he was teaching scholarship.  Many others of his teachings have since been rethought.  President Young on the other hand claimed revelation on Adam-God.

 

Following the revelations of the prophets and scriptures is the safest course.  When Pres. Kimball and Elder McConkie called Brigham's teachings on which he claimed revelation a heresy it was done with no revelatory backing.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Elder McConkie also had some of his pronouncements repudiated.  The Adam/God doctrine becomes a matter of competing authorities and as such each must answer it according to their personal choices or maybe even personal revelation.

 

Yes, but there are often competing authorities and competing principles which leads each individual to privilege one over the other. Which is greater, Mercy or Judgement? Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball? Adam/God - Lectures on Faith - Current Temple endowment? Patriarchy- female ordination?

We all make judgements on what we think is most important and how we can authentically believe and support different ideas and leaders which again brings me to the concept that we should be slow to judge and condemn one another simply because our view of Adam God or gay marriage or female ordination, or whatever, is different. These are sometimes major differences yet I think God is patient with us as we try to do our best in understanding and putting our understanding into a compassionate practice.

[JLHPROF]

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.

 

Yes, we know.  And the way they came to this decision/conclusion was?

Because Brigham announced Adam-God as being revealed to him by revelation.

[JLHPROF]

I see a problem here... 

 

Well deserved rep point.

But there's a difference between disagreeing with something clearly taught/laid out in scripture and agreeing with a revelation claimed by one prophet over a label of heresy with no backing by another.

[tonie]

The doctrine was disavowed as a heresy, not simply a teaching that went a little too far or as simply misguided. It was a heresy.

 What confuses me though is that some who accept it now, despite the teachings of modern prophets and apostles, also seem to be the ones that criticize the "apostates" for not following the prophet. This seems rather inconsistent and leads me to the conclusion that we are all cafeteria mormons in one way or another.

 

Yes, we are. And many times apologist unwittingly reinforce the cafeteria approach.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Very simply Elder McConkie wasn't teaching revelation, he was teaching scholarship.  Many others of his teachings have since been rethought.  President Young on the other hand claimed revelation on Adam-God.

 

Following the revelations of the prophets and scriptures is the safest course.  When Pres. Kimball and Elder McConkie called Brigham's teachings on which he claimed revelation a heresy it was done with no revelatory backing.

 

Actually, BY was claiming that JS had a revelation and taught him. Is BY claiming that JS received revelation on this as authoritative as BY claiming he personally received revelation? BY waffled a little bit on this himself. At one conference he claimed proper understanding of Adam God was essential to salvation while at another he said it was of little consequence.

I'm not sure what help following the scriptures in this kind of case would be. Each side can cite scripture to support their cause, which leaves it to each individual to decide for themselves whether or not they will privilege the current prophet or a past prophet. We all do it, so I'm not criticizing, but it does seem to illustrate a lapse in LDS orthodoxy.

If you claim the right to be unorthodox in this teaching then how I would assume you would grant others the right to be unorthodox in some of their conclusions as well.

[JLHPROF]

I still fail to understand why the McConkies and Kimballs were so against Adam-God.  If positions were reversed and it was adopted today, if President Monson added D&C 139 (or OD3) officially following President Young's teachings where would be the harm to the Church or membership?

 

What I mean is, if polygamy, blood atonement or the priesthood ban were readopted there would be major social outcry and mass apostasy (most likely).  But Adam-God is hardly a damaging teaching nor is it the only doctrine on which we differ from traditional Christianity.  So damaging harm, membership retention, or worldly popularity aren't the reason.  Those like myself who believe it find it has scriptural backing, although there are those that don't. 

 

Is the only reason to label it an evil heresy that some people think it contradicts scripture and some don't and the Church today chooses the first group regardless of revelation claims?  Why does it get so much hatred as a doctrine?

[ERayR]

 

 

Yes, but there are often competing authorities and competing principles which leads each individual to privilege one over the other. Which is greater, Mercy or Judgement? Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball? Adam/God - Lectures on Faith - Current Temple endowment? Patriarchy- female ordination?

We all make judgements on what we think is most important and how we can authentically believe and support different ideas and leaders which again brings me to the concept that we should be slow to judge and condemn one another simply because our view of Adam God or gay marriage or female ordination, or whatever, is different. These are sometimes major differences yet I think God is patient with us as we try to do our best in understanding and putting our understanding into a compassionate practice.

 

All the issues you list are not created equal.  I notice you slipped ssm and female ordination in there.  I am unaware of competing authorities on these issues, rather all the authorities I can find on those issues pretty much agree on them.  Nice try though.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I still fail to understand why the McConkies and Kimballs were so against Adam-God.  If positions were reversed and it was adopted today, if President Monson added D&C 139 (or OD3) officially following President Young's teachings where would be the harm to the Church or membership?

 

What I mean is, if polygamy, blood atonement or the priesthood ban were readopted there would be major social outcry and mass apostasy (most likely).  But Adam-God is hardly a damaging teaching nor is it the only doctrine on which we differ from traditional Christianity.  So damaging harm, membership retention, or worldly popularity aren't the reason.  Those like myself who believe it find it has scriptural backing, although there are those that don't. 

 

Is the only reason to label it an evil heresy that some people think it contradicts scripture and some don't and the Church today chooses the first group regardless of revelation claims?  Why does it get so much hatred as a doctrine?

It wasn't just Kimball/McConkie. The church started distancing itself after BY's death and then openly opposed public teaching after the turn of the century. So that is 70-80 years of opposition prior to Kimball's denunciation of the teaching.

To me it seems rather important to know who we're worshipping. 

[JLHPROF]

If you claim the right to be unorthodox in this teaching then how I would assume you would grant others the right to be unorthodox in some of their conclusions as well.

 

11th AOF We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

 

People have the right to believe as they choose.  I am less allowing for those who believe "unorthodox" ideas that don't follow scripture or the prophets.  But if you believe something clearly found in the scriptures or the teachings of the prophets it really doesn't bother me one bit if it's not orthodox.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

All the issues you list are not created equal.  I notice you slipped ssm and female ordination in there.  I am unaware of competing authorities on these issues, rather all the authorities I can find on those issues pretty much agree on them.  Nice try though.

 

True. But in a world where we acknowledge major theological errors taught by prophets, then it seems like the traditions of patriarchy and gay propriety could easily fall into teachings that are the results of time and culture.

[JLHPROF]

 

It wasn't just Kimball/McConkie. The church started distancing itself after BY's death and then openly opposed public teaching after the turn of the century. So that is 70-80 years of opposition prior to Kimball's denunciation of the teaching.

To me it seems rather important to know who we're worshipping. 

 

Actually, like polygamy, the teaching kind of went underground.  It lasted well through John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith's presidency, just becoming less and less discussed.  Pres. Wooodruff all but banned discussion of the topic publicly but it is found in his journal.

 

As I said with the Jehovah/Christ discussion, it wasn't really until the days of Talmage and Jesus the Christ that the entire theology of the Godhead in the Church was changed across the board.  It was part of the endowment for over a quarter century.

[ERayR]

 

 

True. But in a world where we acknowledge major theological errors taught by prophets, then it seems like the traditions of patriarchy and gay propriety could easily fall into teachings that are the results of time and culture.

 

Another nice try.  Major theological errors are acknowledged by dissidents but not by authoritative sources.  I see some pronouncements that are wrested by said dissidents into agreement with their view.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Another nice try.  Major theological errors are acknowledged by dissidents but not by authoritative sources.  I see some pronouncements that are wrested by said dissidents into agreement with their view.

 

No- I can't give you that one.

Adam God Theory- Major theological issue. Either BY is in error or SK is? One of the prophets is wrong.

Race and Priesthood- Either current leadership is wrong or past leadership is.

Polygamy as ESSENTIAL for salvation- taught by many prophets but modern leaders don't make this claim. Which is right?

When you have major disagreements between prophets both can't be right. Both could actually be wrong, but both can't be right.

[ERayR]

 

 

No- I can't give you that one.

Adam God Theory- Major theological issue. Either BY is in error or SK is? One of the prophets is wrong.

Race and Priesthood- Either current leadership is wrong or past leadership is.

Polygamy as ESSENTIAL for salvation- taught by many prophets but modern leaders don't make this claim. Which is right?

When you have major disagreements between prophets both can't be right. Both could actually be wrong, but both can't be right.

 

1) OK on that one.

 

2) The jury is still out on that one but I won't argue either position.

 

3) Polygamy may have been essential at the time that was said but not now.  This is not an either/or.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, we are. And many times apologist unwittingly reinforce the cafeteria approach.

You have any examples, tonie, of those "apologists" who "unwittingly reinforce the cafeteria approach"?  I can't think of one right off hand.  Of course, it may depend on whom you identify as "apologists."

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Good points.  Why are some people so taken with the mysteries?  As though they are mature enough to consider such questions, and as though they have enough information to suss out the final, objective truth . . .

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Why are some people so taken with the mysteries?  As though they are mature enough to consider such questions, and as though they have enough information to suss out the final, objective truth . . .

 

Curiosity. Some people are really seeking. They want to know and aren't satisfied with the standard Sunday School answers that don't really say m uch of anything.

[JLHPROF]

Good points.  Why are some people so taken with the mysteries?  As though they are mature enough to consider such questions, and as though they have enough information to suss out the final, objective truth . . .

 

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

or

A man is saved no faster than he gets knowledge.

[bjw]

Has anyone ever tried to explain Adam/God in a historical light? For example, apologists have shown how polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament, how baptism for the dead was mentioned by Paul and Marcion, Cyril alluded to the Adam and Eve drama and clothing ceremony (cf Nibley's Joseph Smith Papyri), the three kingdoms of glory doctrine taught by some mystics in the middle ages, etc. I realize modern-day revelation by definition needs no historical precedent, except as supporting evidence, but have apologists ever seen a doctrine similar to this in ancient times?

The way I always reconciled this was to say that BY was misinterpreted, but I'm curious as to what findings there may have been on this issue from the past.

[JLHPROF]

Has anyone ever tried to explain Adam/God in a historical light? For example, apologists have shown how polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament, how baptism for the dead was mentioned by Paul and Marcion, Cyril alluded to the Adam and Eve drama and clothing ceremony (cf Nibley's Joseph Smith Papyri), the three kingdoms of glory doctrine taught by some mystics in the middle ages, etc. I realize modern-day revelation by definition needs no historical precedent, except as supporting evidence, but have apologists ever seen a doctrine similar to this in ancient times?

The way I always reconciled this was to say that BY was misinterpreted, but I'm curious as to what findings there may have been on this issue from the past.

 

I don't know much ancient history.

Oddly enough I'm watching a documentary on PBS right now called "Did God have a wife".  All about Asherah, the consort of Yaweh before monotheism became the focus around 200 BC.

They are currently connecting Yaweh with El.  They are discussing how Yaweh and El are the same, and was related to the god of the Canaanites.

The narrator is currently showing that Israelites were not monotheists, but polytheists.  That there was a council of the Gods believed in by the Israelites.

 

Interesting considering what I posted from Joseph Smith earlier - that Yaweh (Jehovah) was also El (an Elohoeim).

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

 

But I really am no expert on ancient cultures.  There are those here that are, and could probably provide much information on the polytheistic nature of the Israelites.

 

I would love a Bible in English where the original names of God (Yaweh/Jehovah, El/Eloheim, etc) are used instead of "Lord" "God" or "Lord God".  It would be interesting to see which name was used in each instance and what characterisics each had.

 

ETA: Found one.  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NOG

Edited May 12, 2015 by JLHPROF

[bjw]

I don't know much ancient history.

Oddly enough I'm watching a documentary on PBS right now called "Did God have a wife".  All about Asherah, the consort of Yaweh before monotheism became the focus around 200 BC.

They are currently connecting Yaweh with El.  They are discussing how Yaweh and El are the same, and was related to the god of the Canaanites.

The narrator is currently showing that Israelites were not monotheists, but polytheists.  That there was a council of the Gods believed in by the Israelites.

 

Interesting considering what I posted from Joseph Smith earlier - that Yaweh (Jehovah) was also El (an Elohoeim).

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

 

But I really am no expert on ancient cultures.  There are those here that are, and could probably provide much information on the polytheistic nature of the Israelites.

 

I would love a Bible in English where the original names of God (Yaweh/Jehovah, El/Eloheim, etc) are used instead of "Lord" "God" or "Lord God".  It would be interesting to see which name was used in each instance and what characterisics each had.

Interesting, this kinda brings to mind Nibley's Joseph Smith Papyri book where he shows how the Egyptian God is born into the world (Atum?) and has a wife. There could be some ancient precedence, as many cultures have remnants of truth.