Theology Of Adam/god Theory

[Hillel2]

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.

[Hillel2]

Hi. One of the things that interested me about the AG idea was that it would seem to have some antecedent in Jewish mysticism. In certain recensions Adam Kadmon or primal man Is G-d immanent. There is a pre-mortal "catastrophe", if you will, and Adam Kadmon assumes the form of Adam the incarnate man and father of the human race. I forget which early LDS leader mentions it... I think it was BY... But one them mentions the "old jewish belief" concerning Adam as a precedent for the notion in the LDS belief system at the time. Can't tell You where right now but the statement is referenced in Briney's AG book.

Given Joseph Smith's contact with a number of Educated jewish converts to LDS Christianity, it seems likely to me that they could have introduced him to the above notions. Then it would only have been a matter of him inquiring of G-d for clarification in the matter although we don't seem to have documentary proof that the idea BY espouses comes first from him.

[Buckeye]

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.

 

 

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).

 

JLHPROF,

 

I'm not well-versed enough to discuss the adam/god theory itself, but I find your conclusion intriguing consider the clear statement by a combined FP/Q12 on January 1, 2000 that the Christ of the NT is the same being as Jehovah in the OT (see below). Throughout the thread I've see you justify disagreeing with BRM or JFS (I do that too sometimes). But I'm curious as whether you believe the entire FP/Q12 are also in error, and if so, what that means for the confidence we should place in current leadership. If the entire FP/Q12 can be wrong on something as fundamental as the identity of Jehovah, surely they could also be wrong on SSM, no?

 

 

 

As we commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ two millennia ago, we offer our testimony of the reality of His matchless life and the infinite virtue of His great atoning sacrifice. None other has had so profound an influence upon all who have lived and will yet live upon the earth. He was the Great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New. Under the direction of His Father, He was the creator of the earth. ...

 

https://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/36035_000_25_livingchrist.pdf

 

 

PS - Please don't derail this into a thread about SSM. I'm just using that as a common example for a church teaching that members say cannot be wrong because it is taught by a combined FP/Q12.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

JLHPROF, I just had another question I'm hoping you can help me with.

If we assume Adam is God, and that he and Eve were exalted beings placed here on Earth to begin the entire human family, why would it be necessary for us to seal the entire posterity of Adam back to his day? As an exalted being wouldn't the entire human family essentially be born into the covenant?

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF, I just had another question I'm hoping you can help me with.

If we assume Adam is God, and that he and Eve were exalted beings placed here on Earth to begin the entire human family, why would it be necessary for us to seal the entire posterity of Adam back to his day? As an exalted being wouldn't the entire human family essentially be born into the covenant?

 

What is required for each stage of a family to be born in the covenant?  The parents of each level must be sealed.

 

I cannot be born in the covenant unless my parents are sealed when I am born.

So Adam and Eve being sealed only means that Cain, Abel, and Seth etc are born in the covenant.

 

There needs to be a sealing chain from Father Adam all the way down.  Any who refuse to be a part may be bypassed in the chain, but that practice was changed under Pres. Woodruff when he required all men to be sealed to their direct lines.

[JLHPROF]

JLHPROF,

 

I'm not well-versed enough to discuss the adam/god theory itself, but I find your conclusion intriguing consider the clear statement by a combined FP/Q12 on January 1, 2000 that the Christ of the NT is the same being as Jehovah in the OT (see below). Throughout the thread I've see you justify disagreeing with BRM or JFS (I do that too sometimes). But I'm curious as whether you believe the entire FP/Q12 are also in error, and if so, what that means for the confidence we should place in current leadership. If the entire FP/Q12 can be wrong on something as fundamental as the identity of Jehovah, surely they could also be wrong on SSM, no?

 

Do I believe the entire FP/Q12 are in error?

That's a loaded question.

 

As far as Jehovah and Adam-God are concerned here is what I believe.

President Young, the prophet of the Church and God's mouthpiece claimed revelation (whether through himself or Joseph Smith is up for debate) concerning those doctrines.

President Kimball and the current quote you provide have claimed no further light and knowledge or revelation on the subject.  They have simply rejected President Young's revelation.

 

I have studied President Young's teachings and I accept them.  The fit for me.  They make sense to me.

Until I am provided with a revelation to the contrary I see no reason to change that based on official but non-revelatory statements.

 

I have shown the reasoning why I believe the current Christ=Jehovah teaching to be in error.  As far as I know the only reason anyone thinks Christ IS Jehovah is the one scripture where Christ refers to himself as "I AM" with no context.  Based on all the other scriptures concerning Jehovah and the premortal Christ that's not much to go on.

[Buckeye]

Do I believe the entire FP/Q12 are in error?

That's a loaded question.

 

As far as Jehovah and Adam-God are concerned here is what I believe.

President Young, the prophet of the Church and God's mouthpiece claimed revelation (whether through himself or Joseph Smith is up for debate) concerning those doctrines.

President Kimball and the current quote you provide have claimed no further light and knowledge or revelation on the subject.  They have simply rejected President Young's revelation.

 

I have studied President Young's teachings and I accept them.  The fit for me.  They make sense to me.

Until I am provided with a revelation to the contrary I see no reason to change that based on official but non-revelatory statements.

 

I have shown the reasoning why I believe the current Christ=Jehovah teaching to be in error.  As far as I know the only reason anyone thinks Christ IS Jehovah is the one scripture where Christ refers to himself as "I AM" with no context.  Based on all the other scriptures concerning Jehovah and the premortal Christ that's not much to go on.

 

Thanks. It is a loaded question. I appreciate your explanations. I certainly can't debate the adam-god teaching on its merits; I barely understand it, much less its history.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Really appreciate the time and effort you are putting in here JLFPROF. I do have an extra question that I didn't see addressed. So how does Adam God mesh with a literal Fall. Did Adam / Michael die after eating the fruit? If he was already a celestial being how could this happen?

[ERayR]

Really appreciate the time and effort you are putting in here JLFPROF. I do have an extra question that I didn't see addressed. So how does Adam God mesh with a literal Fall. Did Adam / Michael die after eating the fruit? If he was already a celestial being how could this happen?

 

I can envision a couple of ways this could happen..1) being remove from the garden(which was a celestial interface on a telestial world)and began living in and consuming telestial nourishment or 2) Living on the earth as it was moved from a celestial neighborhood to a telestial one.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Really appreciate the time and effort you are putting in here JLFPROF. I do have an extra question that I didn't see addressed. So how does Adam God mesh with a literal Fall. Did Adam / Michael die after eating the fruit? If he was already a celestial being how could this happen?

BY explains that by eating the fruit of the ground (coarse materials) that a change took place making His immortal body mortal once again.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BY explains that by eating the fruit of the ground (coarse materials) that a change took place (blood began to coarse through his body) making His immortal body mortal once again.

  

^ Was meant to be an edit on the other.

Edited May 12, 2015 by BookofMormonLuvr

[JLHPROF]

Really appreciate the time and effort you are putting in here JLFPROF. I do have an extra question that I didn't see addressed. So how does Adam God mesh with a literal Fall. Did Adam / Michael die after eating the fruit? If he was already a celestial being how could this happen?

 

I can envision a couple of ways this could happen..1) being remove from the garden(which was a celestial interface on a telestial world)and began living in and consuming telestial nourishment or 2) Living on the earth as it was moved from a celestial neighborhood to a telestial one.

 

BY explains that by eating the fruit of the ground (coarse materials) that a change took place making His immortal body mortal once again.

 

Here's one of the Adam-God areas that can get into a little speculation.  I don't want to stray far from Pres. Young's teachings.

 

Brigham did teach that by "eating the fruit" or partaking of mortal elements Adam's resurrected body became corrupted and mortal again.  The question remains whether "eating the fruit" is merely symbolic.  After all, the resurrected Christ ate and drank and didn't become mortal again.

 

Personally I believe that "eating the fruit" probably symbolized something else yet to be revealed.  Christ said he did what he saw his father do, lay down his life and take it up again.  If Adam was his father that would make sense.  If Adam wasn't his father how could that be?  For when else could a premortal spirit child of Heavenly Father have seen his father change from mortal to immortal?  He wasn't created when God was on an earth unless it happened as part of this creation.

[bjw]

Here's one of the Adam-God areas that can get into a little speculation.  I don't want to stray far from Pres. Young's teachings.

 

Brigham did teach that by "eating the fruit" or partaking of mortal elements Adam's resurrected body became corrupted and mortal again.  The question remains whether "eating the fruit" is merely symbolic.  After all, the resurrected Christ ate and drank and didn't become mortal again.

 

Personally I believe that "eating the fruit" probably symbolized something else yet to be revealed.  Christ said he did what he saw his father do, lay down his life and take it up again.  If Adam was his father that would make sense.  If Adam wasn't his father how could that be?  For when else could a premortal spirit child of Heavenly Father have seen his father change from mortal to immortal?  He wasn't created when God was on an earth unless it happened as part of this creation.

I too have heard speculation that knowledge may be a reference to the sexual act, since the Bible uses "knew" in place of it. Maybe it has something to do with them going from spiritual to fleshly to be able to procreate, and opposition is necessary as with 2 Nephi. However, this opens up a whole new can of worms with the doctrine concerning Satan though. As far as Adam being an archangel, maybe that definition is an exalted being on assignment to fulfill another role?

[bjw]

Hi. One of the things that interested me about the AG idea was that it would seem to have some antecedent in Jewish mysticism. In certain recensions Adam Kadmon or primal man Is G-d immanent. There is a pre-mortal "catastrophe", if you will, and Adam Kadmon assumes the form of Adam the incarnate man and father of the human race. I forget which early LDS leader mentions it... I think it was BY... But one them mentions the "old jewish belief" concerning Adam as a precedent for the notion in the LDS belief system at the time. Can't tell You where right now but the statement is referenced in Briney's AG book.

Given Joseph Smith's contact with a number of Educated jewish converts to LDS Christianity, it seems likely to me that they could have introduced him to the above notions. Then it would only have been a matter of him inquiring of G-d for clarification in the matter although we don't seem to have documentary proof that the idea BY espouses comes first from him.

I also found this comment intriguing, as I have wondered how much exposure JS had to the Kabbalah, these concepts do seem to have some roots there, as well as other concepts in Mormonism. We do know some of this was studied in the school of the prophets and with the rabbi in Nauvoo, it would be interesting to know what all was studied.

[JLHPROF]

I too have heard speculation that knowledge may be a reference to the sexual act, since the Bible uses "knew" in place of it. Maybe it has something to do with them going from spiritual to fleshly to be able to procreate, and opposition is necessary as with 2 Nephi. However, this opens up a whole new can of worms with the doctrine concerning Satan though. As far as Adam being an archangel, maybe that definition is an exalted being on assignment to fulfill another role?

 

An archangel serves as a bridge, a connector.  Michael/Adam was an archangel because he bridged the gap between immortal and mortal and all mankind came through him.  Likewise Noah/Gabriel was an archangel, being the only being through which all spirits come to earth.

 

I also have heard the "fruit = sex" speculation.  I think that's all it is right now is speculation.  But it might be true.

[Bobbieaware]

An archangel serves as a bridge, a connector.  Michael/Adam was an archangel because he bridged the gap between immortal and mortal and all mankind came through him.  Likewise Noah/Gabriel was an archangel, being the only being through which all spirits come to earth.

 

I also have heard the "fruit = sex" speculation.  I think that's all it is right now is speculation.  But it might be true.

Since Adam and Eve were commanded of God to multiply and replenish the earth, it seems unlikely God would punish them by casting them out of his presence for doing what he commanded them to do.

[JLHPROF]

Since Adam and Eve were commanded of God to multiply and replenish the earth, it seems unlikely God would punish them by casting them out of his presence for doing what he commanded them to do.

 

Not if you think about it.

I have always maintained that the fall was planned long before the earth was made.  It was the only way for us to have physical bodies after all.

Adam and Eve transgressed a law and the punishment was the fall and absence from God's presence (although apparently Cain and Abel knew him face to face so the fallen first family couldn't have been that cast out).

 

The fall was the plan all along.  It is a mistake to think the fall wasn't done on purpose.  Why else would a Savior be chosen to redeem us from the fall long before it ever happened?

 

But the God who spoke to Adam was still required to apply the consequences of the eternal law.  The "ban" on "eating the fruit" can better be understood as a statement of the effects of transgressing that law (in the day you eat you shall surely die).

All God did was apply the consequences, not a punishment.

[Bobbieaware]

Not if you think about it.

I have always maintained that the fall was planned long before the earth was made.  It was the only way for us to have physical bodies after all.

Adam and Eve transgressed a law and the punishment was the fall and absence from God's presence (although apparently Cain and Abel knew him face to face so the fallen first family couldn't have been that cast out).

 

The fall was the plan all along.  It is a mistake to think the fall wasn't done on purpose.  Why else would a Savior be chosen to redeem us from the fall long before it ever happened?

 

But the God who spoke to Adam was still required to apply the consequences of the eternal law.  The "ban" on "eating the fruit" can better be understood as a statement of the effects of transgressing that law (in the day you eat you shall surely die).

All God did was apply the consequences, not a punishment.

I'm not sure your post addresses the reason why sexual relations would be considered a transgression of the will of God if God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth?

[JLHPROF]

I'm not sure your post addresses the reason why sexual relations would be considered a transgression of the will of God if God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth?

 

Which is why I consider the "fruit is sex" idea to be purely speculative.  Whatever "partaking of the fruit" was it caused immortal to become mortal, allowed for mortal children, and made Adam and Eve and their offspring so they would die. 

 

And as you say, God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish.

Gen 1:28 commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

Gen 2:24 commanded marriage/sex.

Both these happened BEFORE the fall.  Why would God command something impossible to do without violating the ban on eating the fruit?  The fall was planned.

 

I've never been sold on the idea of fruit=sex.  After all, Brigham also taught that sex by immortal beings is how spirit children are created.  If true, that kind of precludes the idea of sex causing the fall.

 

But we are definitely straying from "Adam-God theology" into "Adam-God speculation".

[Bobbieaware]

Which is why I consider the "fruit is sex" idea to be purely speculative. Whatever "partaking of the fruit" was it caused immortal to become mortal, allowed for mortal children, and made Adam and Eve and their offspring so they would die.

And as you say, God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish.

Gen 1:28 commanded to multiply and replenish the earth.

Gen 2:24 commanded marriage/sex.

Both these happened BEFORE the fall. Why would God command something impossible to do without violating the ban on eating the fruit? The fall was planned.

I've never been sold on the idea of fruit=sex. After all, Brigham also taught that sex by immortal beings is how spirit children are created. If true, that kind of precludes the idea of sex causing the fall.

But we are definitely straying from "Adam-God theology" into "Adam-God speculation".

I would say since it appears the keys to openly teach and "affirm" the Adam-God theology in this dispensation have been withdrawn and the "doctrine" is now, at best, considered to be one of "the mysteries" (the leaders of the church now publicly repudiate it as false doctrine), I would say the whole of "Adam-God theology" can now only be considered "Adam-God speculation." It seems that even if true - like the practice of plural marriage - there is now no place in the "official church" for Adam-God theology; and without official church sanction the teaching can now only be considered a speculative theology. Without the imprimature of today's church leaders, the only way one can know if the teaching is true is by personal revelation, and we know Alma testifies that such personal revelations of the mysteries of the kingdom are supposed to remain private.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Robert F. Smith]

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

But we are definitely straying from "Adam-God theology" into "Adam-God speculation".

This whole thread has definitely been "Adam-God speculation," but the mysteries are so much fun . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

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

................................Alma testifies that such personal revelations of the mysteries of the kingdom are supposed to remain private.

Yup.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 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.

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

. Both could actually be wrong, but both can't be right.

"Both could actually be wrong" -- do tell!!

 

Fallible prophets can be wrong, more than one of them.  One of the characteristics of biblical prophecy pointed out by the late David Noel Freedman was that the Bible contains their erroneous prophecies right along with the true ones.  The biblical account contains a "warts and all" no nonsense approach to the history of human encounters with God.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[PeterPear]

"Both could actually be wrong" -- do tell!!

 

Fallible prophets can be wrong, more than one of them.  One of the characteristics of biblical prophecy pointed out by the late David Noel Freedman was that the Bible contains their erroneous prophecies right along with the true ones.  The biblical account contains a "warts and all" no nonsense approach to the history of human encounters with God.

I really enjoy how LDS Apologists are always criticizing the Prophets. While LDS Apologists are always correct. Such faith-promoters they are with ridiculous assertions - made earlier in this discussion - that each Earth created by the Savior has its own Savior. Then they use some dead guy named David Noel Freedom to back their assertions of how wrong the Prophets are. Lol!

Adam and Eve were given a choice, their agency, to create the Fall, by partaking of the fruit. It was they who ushered in the human race and to whom we will be accountable, just as we will be accountable to all our leaders, to the Twelve, the Prophets, the Savior and our Father in Heaven, for each have a role in leading us to Salvation. This is what Brigham Young was driving at.

[Coreyb]

I really enjoy how LDS Apologists are always criticizing the Prophets. While LDS Apologists are always correct. Such faith-promoters they are with ridiculous assertions - made earlier in this discussion - that each Earth created by the Savior has its own Savior. Then they use some dead guy named David Noel Freedom to back their assertions of how wrong the Prophets are. Lol!

Adam and Eve were given a choice, their agency, to create the Fall, by partaking of the fruit. It was they who ushered in the human race and to whom we will be accountable, just as we will be accountable to all our leaders, to the Twelve, the Prophets, the Savior and our Father in Heaven, for each have a role in leading us to Salvation. This is what Brigham Young was driving at.

Well look at you waltzing in here, condescending guns a'blazing. No sorry that's not what Brigham was getting at