Adam-God Makes Sense To Occultists

[JLHPROF]

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?

 

Oh, don't get me started on that one...anything that gets changed in the endowment people will always claim "is just presentation".

The endowment could be reduced to a 5 minute powerpoint given in the Bishops office and people would still claim nothing was lost.

The endowment has lost a great deal of elements that directly correspond with the "power" supposed to come with the ordinance over the years.

And with the majority of members being endowed after 1990 most don't even realize it.

[ksfisher]

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?

 

For example: the beginning where the worker asks you to be quiet during the endowment, asks if anyone want to withdraw or has forgotten anything, and then explains what and who you are about to hear.  This isn't part of the endowment, but instructions that pertain to receiving it.

[halconero]

It might be useful to describe some characteristics of the Heavenly Adam as they were understood by the Jews and Jesus followers of antiquity:

- Created by Elohim, NOT Yahweh (who creates the earthly Adam)

- Is the Image of God, humanity is created after this Image. The Image itself is self-aware and self-constituting

- The Heavenly Adam is the Logos ton Theou (the Word of God). As such he is responsible for the creation of the universe. The upholding of it, and is the mediator between the Supreme God and humanity.

- What makes the Heavenly Adam divine is his sharing with God the virtues of reason and intelligence. The Heavenly Adam was the mirror of God's mind

- Is dualistic in nature. Philo and others suggested this meant the Heavenly Adam was androgynous. It should be noted that even in androgyny it was still male-specific. Females were the deviation and to be gender/sex neutral meant to be masculine...but more masculine than mortal men

- Sethians didn't actually believe in the androgyny aspect as much. Instead they posited a Cosmic Father and a Cosmic Mother which comprised the Heavenly Adam. This is reflected in the notion that Adam and Adamah (the feminine earth) are connected in creation.

Now, certain Jesus groups, such as the Thomasine Christians or even some of the Pauline ones identified this Heavenly Adam with Jesus, in contrast with the earthly Adam.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I thought that teaching that someone other than God is God is sacrilegious. I thought we prayed to Heavenly Father who is Elohim, not Michael/Adam. If Adam were God then who the heck are Jehovah and Elohim?

[JLHPROF]

I thought that teaching that someone other than God is God is sacrilegious. I thought we prayed to Heavenly Father who is Elohim, not Michael/Adam. If Adam were God then who the heck are Jehovah and Elohim?

 

What if I told you Adam was a member of the Elohim (council of the Gods)?

 

As for Jehovah...yeah, that one makes me a real apostate, at least since the early 1900s.

[ALarson]

For example: the beginning where the worker asks you to be quiet during the endowment, asks if anyone want to withdraw or has forgotten anything, and then explains what and who you are about to hear.  This isn't part of the endowment, but instructions that pertain to receiving it.

That not really what the Lecture at the Veil was, so this is not a good comparison IMO.  I believe that Brigham Young fully intended to include this lecture as part of the endowment.

[mfbukowski]

I think you may have something Tsuzuki. Elden Watson received a lot of criticism for his proposal of the two Adam hypothesis, and that is what Brigham Young was meaning. Clark Goble, like you, argues that the Adam Kadmon thinking may have influenced Brigham's language and lends credence to Watson's perspective.

http://www.ldsgospeldoctrine.net/kn/random/cg-ag2.txt

Considering just this board- can you imagine someone explaining any one individual's position on ANYTHING?

 

"Let me give you a summary of Nofear's opinions on xyz...."

 

Recipe for disaster.   All those poor scribes following Brigham around trying to get it right- Brigham himself trying to get right what Joseph taught after filtering it through his own mind- no wonder it got fouled up.

 

But yet there is enough there to convince me that indeed Joseph at least taught what can be seen as a very orthodox ancient Jewish view of the relationship between He who we call God and the person Adam.

 

To me it is a "bullseye" for the restoration and feel that it is evidence of Joseph's prophet hood even if the message got garbled in the way it was finally written down by those writing what they thought Brigham meant and said.

[mfbukowski]

I thought that teaching that someone other than God is God is sacrilegious. I thought we prayed to Heavenly Father who is Elohim, not Michael/Adam. If Adam were God then who the heck are Jehovah and Elohim?

Paul himself referred to Christ as the "second Adam" as a role- not a name.  So it gets confusing.   In a sense Jesus is the Father of our Salvation- so is he also the Father?  Sometimes he speaks as if he is- that is called "divine investiture"

 

Who did Jacob wrestle with?  An angel, a man, or the Lord himself?  It is not at all clear in Genesis 32.  Whoever it was gave him a new name- "Israel", and aJacob called him "Lord".   Did disembodied Jesus actually wrestle physically with him?   Clearly it is unclear. 

 

So don't get worked up about it.   These are all theories to explain lose ends, and we must take them all with a grain of salt, aware that the authors are simply trying to come up with a description which resolves all that is unclear, with no evil intent.

Edited October 13, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

I thought that teaching that someone other than God is God is sacrilegious. I thought we prayed to Heavenly Father who is Elohim, not Michael/Adam. If Adam were God then who the heck are Jehovah and Elohim?

This is one of those topics where it can help to refer to each person by a name other than God, considering how the word God can be at least a little ambiguous when more than one person can be referred to as God... like our Father and/or his son Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit/Ghost.

So consider how it can help to refer to our Father as our Father rather than referring to him as God (our Father).

But then you also should consider how more than one person is or can be referred to as our Father, including even our grand and great fathers. So the word Father can be at least a little ambiguous too.

So try to use a name other than God or Father to try to distinguish which person you are talking about.

[Tsuzuki]

That doesn't even make sense in LDS Theology.

It makes sense if you take the Adam Kadmon interpretation, which is the point of this thread.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I have plenty of gripes with Brother Brigham. This is definitely one of many questions I have concerning things he said. But he is not here to defend himself, and I'm not in a big hurry to go meet him. Though I imagine someday I will. I still accept him as a Prophet of God.

 

God doesn't make sock puppets. So for a revelation to be accepted by the Church it has to be presented to the Church. Adam God never was. Plus we believe in continuing revelation. Without which we're just another Protestant church. As no successor President has continued the theory and all have rejected it. I think we can safely say that BY spoke presumptuously on this issue.

 

I don't have a problem with people believing it. I don't believe it and find little to no reason I should believe it. 

Edited October 14, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, don't get me started on that one...anything that gets changed in the endowment people will always claim "is just presentation".

The endowment could be reduced to a 5 minute powerpoint given in the Bishops office and people would still claim nothing was lost.

The endowment has lost a great deal of elements that directly correspond with the "power" supposed to come with the ordinance over the years.

And with the majority of members being endowed after 1990 most don't even realize it.

 

I've attended regularly since 1972. I'm not seeing your claim.

[RevTestament]

I have plenty of gripes with Brother Brigham. This is definitely one of many questions I have concerning things he said. But he is not here to defend himself, and I'm not in a big hurry to go meet him. Though I imagine someday I will. I still accept him as a Prophet of God.

 

God doesn't make sock puppets. So for a revelation to be accepted by the Church it has to be presented to the Church. Adam God never was. Plus we believe in continuing revelation. Without which we're just another Protestant church. As no successor President has continued the theory and all have rejected it. I think we can safely say that BY spoke presumptuously on this issue.

 

I don't have a problem with people believing it. I don't believe it and find little to no reason I should believe it. 

I'm not sure if Brigham was speaking from a Kaballahist perspective or not, but like you I believe it important to understand that he is not here to explain or defend what he said.

I actually believe the theory in the sense of OT allegory. In his priesthood Adam was first. Like Moses can stand in stead for Christ under the New Testament, Moses stood for the first in spiritual priesthood, the Spiritual Father of us all. When I saw it, it kind of blew me away. Next time you attend an endowment pay close attention to what is said.

But temporally, no Adam was not the Most High, just like Moses wasn't Jesus.

[RevTestament]

Oh, don't get me started on that one...anything that gets changed in the endowment people will always claim "is just presentation".

The endowment could be reduced to a 5 minute powerpoint given in the Bishops office and people would still claim nothing was lost.

The endowment has lost a great deal of elements that directly correspond with the "power" supposed to come with the ordinance over the years.

And with the majority of members being endowed after 1990 most don't even realize it.

While I personally did not go through a prior endowment, I like the present one, and I know I prefer it actually. It is more scriptural, and actually more relevant to the 7th seal imho.

[Maedros]

Thanks! It's easy to stand your ground when the evidence is in your favor.

 

Which Book of Thoth? The one on the tarot by Crowley or the "Book of Thoth" that is a metaphor for revealed knowledge in general?

The Book of Thoth (Egyptian Tarot) by Aleister Crowley - I'll have some questions for you when I'm done if that's okay.

[Nofear]

Considering just this board- can you imagine someone explaining any one individual's position on ANYTHING?

 

Indeed. I note how so very few of the comments actually deal with the Adam Kadmon interpretation. Heck, I doubt many even looked into it, but were more intent on pronouncing their own opinions on the matter, relevant or not. Ah well.

[Tsuzuki]

The Book of Thoth (Egyptian Tarot) by Aleister Crowley - I'll have some questions for you when I'm done if that's okay.

Sure. I guess this means I actually have to go and read it myself.

[HappyJackWagon]

It makes sense if you take the Adam Kadmon interpretation, which is the point of this thread.

I don't understand what you're trying to say with this. Are you suggesting Adam Kadmon (original man) is the same as Elohim (or a member of the Elohim) or ...

 

Could you explain it a little more for me. I don't see how the standard Adam-God doctrine is any different than Adam (kadmon)- God doctrine. I'm trying to understand but not following.

[Nofear]

The Adam of the Garden of Eden, spouse of Eve, was referred to as Adam Ha-Rishon in these early Jewish and Kabbalistic discourses. Adam Kadmon was a separate and distinct individual and the repository of the spirits of all humans.
 

The hypothesis is that despite "traditional" Mormon explanations of Adam-God concept, Brigham Young did not intentionally conflate Elohim with Adam Ha-Rishon but he did conflate Elohim with Adam Kadmon. Scribes conveyed this with varying levels of success.

The hypothesis is not that all the Adam Kadmon mythology is fully accurate or correct or that Brigham believed them so. Only that the idea held some appeal and attraction and perhaps viewed as being a bit closer to the truth than traditional Christianity's understanding and so he, Brigham, adopted some of the language of it.

But we can't really fault the scribes. If Brigham Young was indeed thinking of Adam Kadmon terms, he wasn't careful in his language and the audiences of his discourses were certainly not familiar with the distinction between Adam Kadmon and Adam Ha-Rishon*. Brigham Young may even have occasionally slipped himself.

 

 

* Exhibit A of why the audience may have not understood Brigham's language is this very thread.

[stemelbow]

The Adam of the Garden of Eden, spouse of Eve, was referred to as Adam Ha-Rishon in these early Jewish and Kabbalistic discourses. Adam Kadmon was a separate and distinct individual and the repository of the spirits of all humans.

 

The hypothesis is that despite "traditional" Mormon explanations of Adam-God concept, Brigham Young did not intentionally conflate Elohim with Adam Ha-Rishon but he did conflate Elohim with Adam Kadmon. Scribes conveyed this with varying levels of success.

The hypothesis is not that all the Adam Kadmon mythology is fully accurate or correct or that Brigham believed them so. Only that the idea held some appeal and attraction and perhaps viewed as being a bit closer to the truth than traditional Christianity's understanding and so he, Brigham, adopted some of the language of it.

But we can't really fault the scribes. If Brigham Young was indeed thinking of Adam Kadmon terms, he wasn't careful in his language and the audiences of his discourses were certainly not familiar with the distinction between Adam Kadmon and Adam Ha-Rishon*. Brigham Young may even have occasionally slipped himself.

 

 

* Exhibit A of why the audience may have not understood Brigham's language is this very thread.

So when Brigham purportedly said he took Eve, on of his wives, into the garden and then labeled that Adam God and the only God with which we have to do. He was being careless with is language, so much so he conflated the wrong Adam?

I seem to recall 1 Cor 15:45 being included in this exaplanation, suggesting the first man Adam was Adam of Adam and Eve fame, and the second Adam was Christ, or something. in this it was explained the "Adam" was a title used. Is 1 Cor 15 a result of some carry over from what you are describing?

[JLHPROF]

The Adam of the Garden of Eden, spouse of Eve, was referred to as Adam Ha-Rishon in these early Jewish and Kabbalistic discourses. Adam Kadmon was a separate and distinct individual and the repository of the spirits of all humans.

 

The hypothesis is that despite "traditional" Mormon explanations of Adam-God concept, Brigham Young did not intentionally conflate Elohim with Adam Ha-Rishon but he did conflate Elohim with Adam Kadmon. Scribes conveyed this with varying levels of success.

The hypothesis is not that all the Adam Kadmon mythology is fully accurate or correct or that Brigham believed them so. Only that the idea held some appeal and attraction and perhaps viewed as being a bit closer to the truth than traditional Christianity's understanding and so he, Brigham, adopted some of the language of it.

But we can't really fault the scribes. If Brigham Young was indeed thinking of Adam Kadmon terms, he wasn't careful in his language and the audiences of his discourses were certainly not familiar with the distinction between Adam Kadmon and Adam Ha-Rishon*. Brigham Young may even have occasionally slipped himself.

 

 

* Exhibit A of why the audience may have not understood Brigham's language is this very thread.

 

So when Brigham purportedly said he took Eve, on of his wives, into the garden and then labeled that Adam God and the only God with which we have to do. He was being careless with is language, so much so he conflated the wrong Adam?

 

The "Brigham was misunderstood/misquoted" argument doesn't hold any water.  It's as valid a claim as "we only lived polygamy due to a shortage of men".

 

Brigham taught the same Adam-God doctrine repeatedly, in dozens of discourses.  It was reiterated by Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith in historical records (although not publicly).  And the Lecture at the Veil as taught in the temple matched perfectly with the recorded teachings of Brigham on the subject.

Brigham certainly had every opportunity over the 20+ years he taught this doctrine to make any corrections.

 

No, Brigham was very consistent in his teachings on the subject.  This was not a case of misquoted or misunderstood.  There are no alternate versions of Brigham's teachings to support the misquoted/misunderstood claim.  And it's also wrong to suggest that he was the only prophet that taught it.

[ALarson]

The "Brigham was misunderstood/misquoted" argument doesn't hold any water.  It's as valid a claim as "we only lived polygamy due to a shortage of men".

 

Brigham taught the same Adam-God doctrine repeatedly, in dozens of discourses.  It was reiterated by Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith in historical records (although not publicly).  And the Lecture at the Veil as taught in the temple matched perfectly with the recorded teachings of Brigham on the subject.

Brigham certainly had every opportunity over the 20+ years he taught this doctrine to make any corrections.

 

No, Brigham was very consistent in his teachings on the subject.  This was not a case of misquoted or misunderstood.  There are no alternate versions of Brigham's teachings to support the misquoted/misunderstood claim.  And it's also wrong to suggest that he was the only prophet that taught it.

This.

 

Also, blaming Brigham's scribes for not recording his statements accurately is a ridiculous claim too, IMO.  

Edited October 14, 2015 by ALarson

[stemelbow]

The "Brigham was misunderstood/misquoted" argument doesn't hold any water.  It's as valid a claim as "we only lived polygamy due to a shortage of men".

 

Brigham taught the same Adam-God doctrine repeatedly, in dozens of discourses.  It was reiterated by Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith in historical records (although not publicly).  And the Lecture at the Veil as taught in the temple matched perfectly with the recorded teachings of Brigham on the subject.

Brigham certainly had every opportunity over the 20+ years he taught this doctrine to make any corrections.

 

No, Brigham was very consistent in his teachings on the subject.  This was not a case of misquoted or misunderstood.  There are no alternate versions of Brigham's teachings to support the misquoted/misunderstood claim.  And it's also wrong to suggest that he was the only prophet that taught it.

Yeah well, I'm curious to hear more of No Fear's explanation. It doesn't seem to fit well with what Brigham said. But if so is it reasonable to just say Brigham just wasn't being accurate with his language?

[thesometimesaint]

The "Brigham was misunderstood/misquoted" argument doesn't hold any water.  It's as valid a claim as "we only lived polygamy due to a shortage of men".

 

Brigham taught the same Adam-God doctrine repeatedly, in dozens of discourses.  It was reiterated by Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith in historical records (although not publicly).  And the Lecture at the Veil as taught in the temple matched perfectly with the recorded teachings of Brigham on the subject.

Brigham certainly had every opportunity over the 20+ years he taught this doctrine to make any corrections.

 

No, Brigham was very consistent in his teachings on the subject.  This was not a case of misquoted or misunderstood.  There are no alternate versions of Brigham's teachings to support the misquoted/misunderstood claim.  And it's also wrong to suggest that he was the only prophet that taught it.

 

So either BY didn't understand the Biblical and LDS concept of the Godhead, or he was lying. Take your pick.

[JLHPROF]

So either BY didn't understand the Biblical and LDS concept of the Godhead, or he was lying. Take your pick.

 

Neither.

 

The current "LDS concept" wasn't even established until after Brigham died.  Christ as OT Jehovah wasn't even official Church doctrine until after 1900.  Prior to that, and all through Brigham's presidency, they were two separate beings.  Talmage changed that when he published "Jesus The Christ" and it was accepted by most.

 

Personally, I think Brigham understood perfectly.  It is wrong to say that Brigham's doctrines go against scripture.  And it is also wrong to claim that our concept today has always been the LDS concept.