Adam-God Makes Sense To Occultists

[ALarson]

It was accepted and taught by the prophet. It was also part of the temple endowment (lecture at the veil for many years). So while it is currently disavowed it once was held up as a church teaching in that it was an institutionalized teaching in the endowment. I can't answer a CFR on this due to board guidelines. However, I believe it can be found Devry Anderson's book The Development of LDS Temple Worship

Well, at least Brigham Young considered it to be doctrine.  From what I've read, many (most?) members had a difficult time believing in it or accepting it. Brigham seemed to feel strongly about it though.  One only needs to study the debates and contention between him and Orson Pratt to see this.  I'd imagine other leaders were possibly afraid to disagree with him.

Edited October 13, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I won't address the Endowment directly either, except to say that as of June 1972 there was no Adam is our God claim in the Endowment. If someone wants to believe it that's fine with me, but I don't and see no reason to believe it.

Are you saying that you don't believe that Brigham Young attempted to add his Adam/God teachings to the endowment?  I didn't think that was even in question.

 

Do a search for "lecture at the veil" and read the information on it.  I won't post any links because of board rules here.

 

Here's this quote from FairMormon:

The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it.

[Calm]

"  I'd imagine other leaders were possibly afraid to disagree with him."

Or refrained from doing so out of respect or love.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Calm

[ALarson]

"  I'd imagine other leaders were possibly afraid to disagree with him."

Or refrained from doing so out of respect or love.

Yes, I'd think maybe a combination of all of those.  

[Ahab]

We're not making another Adam/God thread here, now, are we?

I hope we'll do better if we are, now, or the next time whenever we do.

Line by line and precept by precept is the best way to go about it while realizing we may not be thinking about the same things.

Every person is the same kind of being as God our Father and as that kind of being can be referred to as God whether a son or a father to another person.

[HappyJackWagon]

I won't address the Endowment directly either, except to say that as of June 1972 there was no Adam is our God claim in the Endowment. If someone wants to believe it that's fine with me, but I don't and see no reason to believe it.

Even today, not everything that we are taught in the temple can be backed up with canonized scripture. Yet we accept the temple teaching. Is this wrong? Would we expect members living during Brigham's time to discard the lecture at the veil because it isn't in scripture? The Adam/God theory is a mess. There are many who still believe it and there is decent reason to when they consider the source of past teachings.

[HappyJackWagon]

We're not making another Adam/God thread here, now, are we?

 

It's kind of the subject of the OP so...yes.

[ALarson]

There are many who still believe it and there is decent reason to when they consider the source of past teachings.

I know of at least one older man in our ward who still firmly believes it.  He even used to bring it up at times in our High Priest group lessons.  I always just kind of smiled and watched. 

 

I also remember some on here who believe in it as Brigham taught it.

 

What's silly is to pretend that Brigham never taught it or that he must have meant some other convoluted teaching.  I think he was pretty straight forward and clear. Such was his style and manner (which I like). 

Edited October 13, 2015 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

Are you saying that you don't believe that Brigham Young attempted to add his Adam/God teachings to the endowment?  I didn't think that was even in question.

 

Do a search for "lecture at the veil" and read the information on it.  I won't post any links because of board rules here.

 

Here's this quote from FairMormon:

 

He may well have attempted it. He was rather the authoritarian type. My main problem with the theory is that BY statements about Adam/God are self contradictory He obviously understood the Bible account, and there is no indications he misunderstood the Godhead. So I'm at a loss to explain it other than we have denied it for well over a century now.

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

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching in public, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–18) there were active moves to censure small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.^[7]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

[ALarson]

Well, Brigham Young stated that God revealed the doctrine to him:

 “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.

 

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

[thesometimesaint]

Well, Brigham Young stated that God revealed the doctrine to him:

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

 

That doesn't even make sense in LDS Theology. Adam holds the key to his dispensation on earth. Which is all of us. At Adam-ondi-Ahman he will turn over his keys to Christ. It is Christ alone who holds the keys to Everlasting Life and Salvation .

 

For it to be doctrine in the Church it must be accepted by the unanimous agreement of the Church. The Adam God theory never met that test. Everything done in the Endowment is at least alluded to in our Scriptures especially the promises we make. I see nothing in it that even alludes to Adam is our God.

[ALarson]

That doesn't even make sense in LDS Theology.

Oh, I agree.  But your gripe is really with Brigham Young who stated this doctrine was revealed to him by God, then taught it as doctrine and also added the "lecture at the veil" to the temple endowment that contains the Adam/God teachings.

 

Most just seem to agree that Brigham Young was wrong.  But that leaves members who learn about this to wonder why was it wrong if he was the Prophet of God on earth at that time and this was revealed to him by God?

 

That's most likely why some still believe these teachings are true.

Edited October 13, 2015 by ALarson

[VideoGameJunkie]

Well ALarson, we found out Brigham Young was wrong about denying blacks the priesthood as seen in 1978, and that only polygamists will become Gods in the Celestial Kingdom, so we can also assume he was wrong about the Adam God theory. He seemed to get a lot wrong for a prophet.

[HappyJackWagon]

That doesn't even make sense in LDS Theology. Adam holds the key to his dispensation on earth. Which is all of us. At Adam-ondi-Ahman he will turn over his keys to Christ. It is Christ alone who holds the keys to Everlasting Life and Salvation .

 

For it to be doctrine in the Church it must be accepted by the unanimous agreement of the Church. The Adam God theory never met that test. Everything done in the Endowment is at least alluded to in our Scriptures especially the promises we make. I see nothing in it that even alludes to Adam is our God.

That may be true now, but it wasn't always.

 

 

So I'm at a loss to explain it other than we have denied it for well over a century now.

ALarson- Do you recall when the lecture at the veil was changed, removing Adam/God? I don't recall a date.

[ksfisher]

 so we can also assume

 

And you know what that will get you.

[ALarson]

ALarson- Do you recall when the lecture at the veil was changed, removing Adam/God? I don't recall a date.

IIRC, I'd read that it was between 1902 - 1905.  I'll try to look that up.

[ksfisher]

Oh, I agree.  But your gripe is really with Brigham Young who stated this doctrine was revealed to him by God, then taught it as doctrine and also added the "lecture at the veil" to the temple endowment that contains the Adam/God teachings.

 

 

It may be a minor point, but I don't believe that the lecture at the veil was part of the endowment.  It was presented as part of the endowment ceremony, but not part of the endowment itself. 

[ALarson]

It may be a minor point, but I don't believe that the lecture at the veil was part of the endowment.  It was presented as part of the endowment ceremony, but not part of the endowment itself. 

I guess to be completely accurate, I believe that the lecture was given to L. John Nuttall (Brigham Young's secretary) by Brigham after he composed it, so the lecture would be included in the first official script of the endowment.  Nuttall recorded it in his journal on February 7, 1877.

Edited October 13, 2015 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

I guess to be completely accurate, I believe that the lecture was given to L. John Nuttall (Brigham Young's secretary) by Brigham after he composed it, so the lecture would be included it in the first official script of the endowment.  Nuttall recorded it in his journal on February 7, 1877.

 

What I mean is that the lecture was more in the line of additional instruction and not part of the actual endowment. 

[JLHPROF]

 

I also remember some on here who believe in it as Brigham taught it.

 

 

 

My ears are burning...

[Teancum]

My ears are burning...

 

 

As they should be.  If you believe it you are as much of an apostate as I am, just in a different direction.

[ALarson]

My ears are burning...

Alright!  I was waiting for and hoping you'd show up

Edited October 13, 2015 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

That doesn't even make sense in LDS Theology. Adam holds the key to his dispensation on earth. Which is all of us. At Adam-ondi-Ahman he will turn over his keys to Christ. It is Christ alone who holds the keys to Everlasting Life and Salvation .

 

How else do you think the Son inherits all the Father possesses?  You just described Christ becoming his Father's heir, inheriting his father Adam's family at the grand council, receiving all of us as his children (no longer his brothers/sisters - See Alma) and becoming an eternal Father.\

 

All dispensations of the earth are given and sealed back to Adam - the Father.  The Father then turns this kingdom over to the Son.  Basic doctrine that fits perfectly in LDS theology.  The grand council of Adam-Ondi-Ahman describes the relationship between Adam & Christ perfectly.

[JLHPROF]

Alright!  I was waiting for and hoping you'd show up

 

Oh, you know me.  I can never resist a good Adam-God debate. 

I really don't know what the problem is with believing this doctrine.  It's hardly a scary one like Blood Atonement.  Brigham explained it clearly.  It fits with the teachings of Joseph and the temple ordinances.  I see no reason for it to generate such distaste in people's mouths.

 

(Just out of curiosity, how did Tsuzuki start this thread 7 hours ago when he's on limited status?   )

Edited October 13, 2015 by JLHPROF

[HappyJackWagon]

It may be a minor point, but I don't believe that the lecture at the veil was part of the endowment.  It was presented as part of the endowment ceremony, but not part of the endowment itself. 

I don't understand what this means.

 

Can parts of the presentation be separated from the endowment? How does that work?

Are parts of our current endowment presentation not really part of the endowment?