Theology Of Adam/god Theory

[DragonLancer]

I would say since it appears the keys to openly teach and "affirm" the Adam-God theology in this dispensation have been withdrawn and the "doctrine" is now, at best, considered to be one of "the mysteries" (the leaders of the church now publicly repudiate it as false doctrine), I would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.

 

Too often, however, people assume that doctrines like this are 100% true or 100% false.  The other option which is more likely, is that Brigham Young got a partial revelation, because revelation often comes line upon line.  And getting our own revelation means testing each element in this doctrine independently of every other piece.  In fact, the primary problem I think that the Church has with this doctrine is the confusion of roles of people in the Godhead and in the creation, as well as name-title problems.  It is clear that in early Mormonism, the identity of various individuals of the Godhead and the names applied to these people so forth were not entirely baked into doctrine.

 

For example, most LDS would agree that the Father of Jesus Christ was the Father of OUR spirits.  Now, even Brigham Young says the Father (i.e. the Father of OUR spirits) was in another mortality on another world before this.  So, on that point, he is agreed with current LDS doctrine.  Now, here comes the complex part.  If it turns out that God the Father, was a Savior of another world, as some theories suggest, based on one reading of the King Follet Discourse, then perhaps he had some names/titles in his mortality as "Jesus Christ" and "Jehovah."  What if God the Father was the Adam figure in a previous world, and ate the fruit in his mortality?  Then his name-titles in that world would have been Michael/Adam.  Or, what if our Father played the role of John the Baptist in that mortality?  Or what if he played the role of Elijah?  Or, what if he was just a regular everyday Joe in that mortality?

 

Do you see the point?  So...   The dilemma with Adam-God is not just the fact that there is a possibility of a Adam-Senior/Adam-Junior.  We literally do not know the role that our own Father played in his own mortality, and so, we do not know what names or titles he may have had.  We do not know what roles are proper to apply to him in those cases.

 

However, if we keep our doctrine straight on roles that are plainly revealed, and not get caught up so much on the speculative part of it, we can keep ourselves out of trouble.  It is plainly revealed that there is a Father of our Spirits and that he is NOT the same person that FELL in the Garden of Eden into a mortality.  Whatever the rest of the facts of the matter are, I believe that if we keep these two roles straight, that the rest of the doctrines Brigham Young taught are not so objectionable.

 

For example, let's examine the scenario suggested by the Bruce R. McConkie Adam-God statement, while mixing in a little Brigham Young stuff here and there, we will see that it is not so objectionable as the regular Adam-God theology that has been proclaimed false doctrine from the regular LDS point of view.  If the Father came into the Garden with one of his wives, and they planted the garden, that is not really objectionable.  Some people would squirm at the suggestion that God the Father is a polygamist, but that is a different issue.  If the Father and Mother in heaven planted the Garden, that is not so objectionable.  If the Father and Mother in heaven partook of fruit in the garden that they planted to charge their bodies with earthly element to be able to provide bodies for their children made of that element, it is doubtful that most LDS would object to that.  What would be objectionable to most LDS I think, is to say that upon partaking of this fruit, the Father and Mother in heaven fell into a mortality.  So, if we say that the purpose of this was to simply make their bodies have earthly element in them to be able to produce children of earthly element, that is not a big deal, if we say that the Father and Mother were still immortal and never fell into another mortality.  Metaphorically, however, them living there and having children there is "after the image" of a mortality of sorts.  In other words, it is not a literal mortality.  But they are still living as regular people on an earth for a time, having a new family there.

 

If they stayed in the garden themselves for a time and had two children there naturally, as any parents in mortality would, by birth, I would say that that is not very objectionable.  If those two children were married to each other, and they were brother and sister, some people would squirm a little, but it is still not that big of a deal, because it was the first generation of humans.  Now, at the point where the Father and Mother feel that their children are able to "fend for themselves," and they leave the earth, because they are done raising their children, then that doesn't seem too objectionable.  And so, at this point, regular LDS doctrine can kick in, where the children are tempted, and partake of the fruit.

 

The interesting Adam-God twist here that is not so objectionable to the regular LDS, I think, is the tempter tempts them to eat the fruit, to follow in the footsteps of their parents, to have children.  In other words, the fruit becomes the catalyst to have children in both cases, both for the Heavenly Parents and for the children.  In the case of the Heavenly Parents, prior to being on the earth, the only element bodies could be made of in Heaven is heavenly element, or "Spirit".  Which is why they produce spirit children there.  Now that they are on the earth to have children, the only effect of the fruit on their bodies is to enable those bodies to now produce physical children with bodies of earthly element.  Since the Heavenly Parents are resurrected beings, the fruit does not have the effect on them of making them mortal.

 

Now, on the other hand, while the children's bodies are technically "immortal" before the children partake of the fruit, because those bodies are not yet resurrected, the effect of the fruit is different on those bodies.  It not only enables them to have children with bodies made of earthly element, like in the case of their parents.  However now, there is a side-effect that their bodies now become mortal.  And at this point, because of the same catalyst, they have children, but they are mortal like the rest of the life forms on the earth.

 

So, I would say that if we examine most of the claims in Adam-God, they are not all that big of a deal, and I think that most LDS people would not reject them.  It is the confusion of identities and roles between the Father in Heaven and his mortal child that partook of the fruit that is the real problem here.  If we keep those identities and roles straight the way they are in regular LDS doctrine, and let the rest of the elements of Adam-God remain in place, an interesting thing emerges that is not really all that objectionable to LDS people.  As you can see above, I think most LDS people would not object to the implications of this, if we keep the roles and identities straight.  This is essentially the Adam-Jr.-Adam-Senior thing above, and I think that is the natural and obvious interpretation.  I think it is possible or even probable that Brigham Young had a partial revelation that he didn't entirely have sorted out, even if he didn't have the Adam-Jr.-Adam-Senior thing in mind.  So, whatever the case, as intelligent people, I think that most LDS people can discern which parts of it are ok to keep, and that the roles and identity problem between these two people is the only real problem.  If it is properly parsed out, and the roles and identities are properly segregated, regardless of what Brigham Young had in mind, I think that the truth actually manifests itself.  So, I think that people should stop trying so hard to figure out what Brigham Young meant or what he really knew, and just come to their own conclusion of what the truth actually is here, rather than relying entirely on Brigham Young, or rather than rejecting everything Brigham Young had to say.  Good logic and discernment from the Spirit can tease out the correct interpretation, in spite of and regardless of anything that Brigham Young might have said or might have meant.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

 

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.

Of course, but that is not adequate justification.  This has also been a problem within Judaism, the rabbis advising the less well prepared to stay away from the mysteries (including merkabah mysticism).

Edited May 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

"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.

One of the reasons why the Bible is dependable is because it tells it like it is.  The authors and editors were not reporting to a department of correlation or trying to write faith-promoting stuff, but rather trying to honestly transmit an account of the mighty acts of God and his people over a very long period of time.  The Book of Mormon authors and editors the same.  Brother Brigham was trying to do the same, and would be deeply disappointed in Saints who had made him into some sort of infallible, latter-day icon.

 

Some seek to make their ignorance the measure of all truth, and revel in throwing religious gang signs at anyone who honestly cites an authentic source.  I can still recall the time when I met my first Hugh Nibley hater -- I am still mystified as to why someone would nearly froth at the mouth at the mention of Hugh Nibley's name.  I guess there is no accounting for taste, but is that a justification for hate-mongering?  Is that what Latter-day Saints are all about?  Is that pure religion and undefiled?

Edited May 13, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[bjw]

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

I think calling it a "mystery" is an interesting choice of words. I think the reason the Adam and Eve story is told 5 times and alluded to much more in the quadruple combination alone, as well as being a major part of temple teachings, should show that maybe we are meant to spend many hours contemplating this before coming to definite conclusions about it. Maybe through personal revelation the story is designed to guide everyone to the truth little by little. After all, the BY lecture was given in a temple. Maybe the supposed contradiction is intentional as a fuel for meditation.

[Robert F. Smith]

I think calling it a "mystery" is an interesting choice of words. I think the reason the Adam and Eve story is told 5 times and alluded to much more in the quadruple combination alone, as well as being a major part of temple teachings, should show that maybe we are meant to spend many hours contemplating this before coming to definite conclusions about it. Maybe through personal revelation the story is designed to guide everyone to the truth little by little. After all, the BY lecture was given in a temple. Maybe the supposed contradiction is intentional as a fuel for meditation.

Perhaps.  But be careful what you wish for . . .

[Senator]

 

Some seek to make their ignorance the measure of all truth, and revel in throwing religious gang signs at anyone who honestly cites an authentic source.

 

Heh.....I like that visual.

 

I wonder what the Mormon gang sign would be?

[telnetd]

See chapter 6 of Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1. Former President Joseph

Fielding Smith does a good job of clearing up the misconceptions of the

Adam/god theory.

 

Gail

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Heh.....I like that visual.

 

I wonder what the Mormon gang sign would be?

You have to have a temple recommend to find out.  

[Coreyb]

See chapter 6 of Doctrines of Salvation, volume 1. Former President Joseph

Fielding Smith does a good job of clearing up the misconceptions of the

Adam/god theory.

 

Gail

I disagree. He addresses one isolated quote among hundreds. Hundreds he almost certainly knew about.

[JLHPROF]

I disagree. He addresses one isolated quote among hundreds. Hundreds he almost certainly knew about.

 

I agree.  Adam-God is there.  It's easy enough to understand.  There are no "misconceptions" within the basic teaching that need manipulating.  We either believe it or don't.  The Church today doesn't.  Some individuals do.  Pretty straightforward.

[Senator]

You have to have a temple recommend to find out.  

 

Yeah, but what would be the use? We couldn't "flash" it anywhere but in the temple.

[Buckeye]

Yeah, but what would be the use? We couldn't "flash" it anywhere but in the temple.

 

I've seen recommends used in other places. As an example, my ward helped with sandbagging during the 1993 mississippi flooding. Because church units were well organized, the army basically left us alone to do our thing. But to get into a church-operated sandbagging site they sometimes asked for ID to confirm we were members (looting was a concern). Recommends proved handed there.