Great Adam-God Discussion

[VideoGameJunkie]

55 minutes ago, rockpond said:

According to a BY quote that Volluz cites in the podcast, BY believed that Elohim was the father of our Heavenly Father, Adam. 

But Brigham Young's been wrong about a lot of stuff and this is probably one of those things.

[CMZ]

I believe he also said he would explain it more later and then never did?

[VideoGameJunkie]

The Adam God theory was denounced by Spencer W Kimball so which prophet do you believe?

[Rivers]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The Adam God theory was denounced by Spencer W Kimball so which prophet do you believe?

I throw in my lot with the prophets and apostles which have unanimously have agreed upon doctrine that coincides with the Standard Works.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, CMZ said:

Okay, so the Church died with Wilford Woodruff.

Joseph F. Smith, but sure. 

No, not really.  But after Joseph F. Smith died was when everything really started to change.  It's still God's Church and always will be.
But there are some things that Joseph restored that we will have to put back before the Millennium.  (And no, polygamy doesn't even crack the top 5).

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But Brigham Young's been wrong about a lot of stuff and this is probably one of those things.

Based on what?  What evidence do you have that he was wrong on this?

2 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

The Adam God theory was denounced by Spencer W Kimball so which prophet do you believe?

The prophet that received revelation on the subject.  That is their job - to receive revelation for the Church.
Did President Kimball claim a revelation on Adam God after studying and praying about the doctrine as he did with the priesthood ban?
Did President Young claim a revelation on Adam God?

Revelation trumps opinion.

[VideoGameJunkie]

3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph F. Smith, but sure. 

No, not really.  But after Joseph F. Smith died was when everything really started to change.  It's still God's Church and always will be.
But there are some things that Joseph restored that we will have to put back before the Millennium.  (And no, polygamy doesn't even crack the top 5).

Can you explain what,some of these things are? I'm really curious and interested to learn.

[Rivers]

For me, the most interesting part of the Adam-God doctrine is the idea that resurrected beings can come to an earth, eat of the fruit, become mortal again, and given birth to mortal children.  I remember one of my seminary teachers teaching this.  At the time I didn't realize he was teaching a vestige of the Adam-God theory. 

This idea opens the door for belief in multiple mortal probations (similar to reincarnation but not exactly the same).  It changes the way we understand eternal progression.   Pretty mind boggling stuff to think about. 

Maybe Brigham Young really was on to something.  Who knows?

Edited September 30, 2016 by Rivers

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

But Brigham Young's been wrong about a lot of stuff and this is probably one of those things.

I wasn't commenting on him being right or wrong... just answering your question. 

[halconero]

2 hours ago, Rivers said:

For me, the most interesting part of the Adam-God doctrine is the idea that resurrected beings can come to an earth, eat of the fruit, become mortal again, and given birth to mortal children.  I remember one of my seminary teachers teaching this.  At the time I didn't realize he was teaching a vestige of the Adam-God theory. 

This idea opens the door for belief in multiple mortal probations (similar to reincarnation but not exactly the same).  It changes the way we understand eternal progression.   Pretty mind boggling stuff to think about. 

Maybe Brigham Young really was on to something.  Who knows?

Personally the theology of Brigham Young and Adam-God fills in more gaps to me than it raises questions. Polygamy, Exaltation, the Eternal Family of Gods, Creation, and many others are simply answered within the framework. Other explanations become too convuluted to me.

And Julie, I'll answer your question sometime today! Yesterday was insane with work, missionary coordination, home teaching, and then packing for conference.

[CV75]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Not the keys alone, but the earth and us.
They are his inheritance.  That is how Christ the Son becomes the Father (as in the Book of Mormon).  By inheriting this earth and us from the father.
That is why Adam is considered the firstborn in the Book of Abraham, and later when we are given to Christ we are to be called the Church of the Firstborn.

Jehovah is Adam's head, Elohim is the "head God" of all the Elohim (Elohim is plural).
No, that doesn't lessen Christ's importance at all.
He will be the next Jehovah, standing as the head of all of us who "consider ourselves" as Adams and Eves.  And working with us to create worlds.
He will always be our head for all eternity.  The fact that he also has a head doesn't take anything away from him.

Putting the names aside, because they are appropriated by both teachings, we can say that there is a head of all gods (God¹), including gods (God²) who are heads of other gods (God³).

God² instructs God³ to organize spirit children, assign one of them to be the savior with all pertinent priesthood keys, organize a world, assume a paradisiacal estate and then fall to a mortal estate, obtain the keys in the flesh from the pre-mortal savior, organize and bless his mortal posterity and head them up forever, die, resume his life of exaltation, reveal his will to mortal prophets, sire a savior in the flesh, fulfill his work and glory through that savior, and visit his progeny at Spring Hill to receive the keys from all the prophets and then turn them over to his only-begotten savior.

God³ may either continue in his role as God³ and perform the sequence again, or advance to a God² while his only-begotten, the savior, also becomes a God² for any posterity who have become God³. And I suppose nothing keeps a God² from acting as a God³ again, depending on what God¹ wants him to do.

But whether God³ becomes a God² (with the savior now our God²) or remains a God³, he is no longer the only god with whom we have to do. There seems to be a contradiction in that he was made a prince over his prosperity forever, yet turned us over to the savior as our God² (king). God³ and the savior / God² are “One God,” but so much emphasis has been placed on the personage God-Michael-Adam and the order of progression that this doesn’t seem to be the case.

[JLHPROF]

11 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Quote

there are some things that Joseph restored that we will have to put back before the Millennium.  (And no, polygamy doesn't even crack the top 5)

Can you explain what,some of these things are? I'm really curious and interested to learn.

Just of the top of my head and with no immediate references to back me up -

• Consecration of property (and possibly some form of United Order)
• Certain items removed from the temple endowment that provide the actual power
• The original garment and ordinance connected with it
• The actual usage of prayer as taught in the temple
• The original sacrament
• Possibly some priesthood offices that were changed
• The second anointing (still probably practiced, but never taught about or acknowledged)
• The gathering to Zion (still a part of last days prophecy)
• And yes, possibly plural marriage.

Any/all of these were changed, put on hold, withdrawn, etc.  Some we are told to anticipate the return of.  Some we are told the changes didn't matter.  Some people hope never to return.
Why do we need to return to these things? 
D&C 130:20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

D&C 58:32 I command and men obey not; I revoke and they receive not the blessing.

Unfortunately we are currently in this position:
D&C 56;4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.
Isaiah 24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.

But God will correct his people.  This is the final dispensation, the final restoration.
The keys are here and God's people will follow his laws eventually so that Christ can rule and reign and the earth can be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
I am content to allow God to guide his own Church while believing the doctrines as they were restored to earth.

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[JLHPROF]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Putting the names aside, because they are appropriated by both teachings, we can say that there is a head of all gods (God¹), including gods (God²) who are heads of other gods (God³).

 

God² instructs God³ to organize spirit children, assign one of them to be the savior with all pertinent priesthood keys, organize a world, assume a paradisiacal estate and then fall to a mortal estate, obtain the keys in the flesh from the pre-mortal savior, organize and bless his mortal posterity and head them up forever, die, resume his life of exaltation, reveal his will to mortal prophets, sire a savior in the flesh, fulfill his work and glory through that savior, and visit his progeny at Spring Hill to receive the keys from all the prophets and then turn them over to his only-begotten savior.

 

God³ may either continue in his role as God³ and perform the sequence again, or advance to a God² while his only-begotten, the savior, also becomes a God² for any posterity who have become God³. And I suppose nothing keeps a God² from acting as a God³ again, depending on what God¹ wants him to do.

 

But whether God³ becomes a God² (with the savior now our God²) or remains a God³, he is no longer the only god with whom we have to do. There seems to be a contradiction in that he was made a prince over his prosperity forever, yet turned us over to the savior as our God² (king). God³ and the savior / God² are “One God,” but so much emphasis has been placed on the personage God-Michael-Adam and the order of progression that this doesn’t seem to be the case.

 

Rep point for putting that together.
Not sure which bits I agree with but I love the effort and the principle of progression contained in it.

EDIT - actually, I agree with almost all of this.  What a clever way of describing the Adam-God teaching.
But you know Elder McConkie would disagree with just about all of it.

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

51 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Rep point for putting that together.
Not sure which bits I agree with but I love the effort and the principle of progression contained in it.

EDIT - actually, I agree with almost all of this.  What a clever way of describing the Adam-God teaching.
But you know Elder McConkie would disagree with just about all of it.

I'm trying to understand it with as open a mind as possible. Of course every time I do this I find what I consider to be internal contradictions but am open to their correction/explanation/resolution. Aside from that, which parts do you not agree with on a technical basis -- I'm trying to make sure I've got the premise right. Thank you!

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm trying to understand it with as open a mind as possible. Of course every time I do this I find what I consider to be internal contradictions but am open to their correction/explanation/resolution. Aside from that, which parts do you not agree with on a technical basis -- I'm trying to make sure I've got the premise right. Thank you!

Well, I'm not convinced Adam actually "died" despite the scriptures. 
After all, Deuteronomy says Moses died and was buried, but Alma tells us he was translated not buried.

Actually, after reading what you wrote carefully, this might be the only thing I disagreed with.

[Glenn101]

6 hours ago, Rivers said:

For me, the most interesting part of the Adam-God doctrine is the idea that resurrected beings can come to an earth, eat of the fruit, become mortal again, and given birth to mortal children.  I remember one of my seminary teachers teaching this.  At the time I didn't realize he was teaching a vestige of the Adam-God theory. 

This idea opens the door for belief in multiple mortal probations (similar to reincarnation but not exactly the same).  It changes the way we understand eternal progression.   Pretty mind boggling stuff to think about. 

Maybe Brigham Young really was on to something.  Who knows?

Actually I do not believe that is part of the Adam-God theory that Brigham Young taught (although what he did teach may sound sacrilegious to some). I believe that Brigham taught that God the Father and one of His wives physically produced Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That is why they were not mortal beings.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and
lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been
created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth,
until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the
coarse materials of this earth. JD 4:218, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857

This is corroborated by an entry in Willford Woodruff's Journal Volumne 4:129-130 "When our Father
came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him and eat of the fruit of
the garden until he could beget a tabernacle, and Adam is Michael our God and all the god that we have anything to do with

This entry in Woodruff's journal was concerning the same talk in April of 1952 from which the Adam-God theory first sprang.

As I have pointed in an earlier post, George Watt did a lot of editing of the talks he transcibed. He added things and left out things. In this case, it would seem that Watt left out something.

The fact that Watt edited his transcriptions, sometimes very heavily, has been documented by Lajean Carruth, a librarian in the Church History Department who has compared many of Watt's shorthand transcripts with the long hand transcripts and what was published in the Journal of Discourses. The Journal of Discourses is some that should be read warily because one cannot be sure if they are reading the actual words of the speaker in question or the words that were inserted by George Watt. So, the quote that I rendered could have been modified by George Watt. But, there is some corroboration.

Glenn

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Actually I do not believe that is part of the Adam-God theory that Brigham Young taught (although what he did teach may sound sacrilegious to some). I believe that Brigham taught that God the Father and one of His wives physically produced Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. That is why they were not mortal beings.

Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits, and they were brought forth and
lived with Him. Then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been
created in this flesh himself, by partaking of the course material that was organized and composed this earth,
until His system was charged with it, consequently the tabernacles of His children were organized from the
coarse materials of this earth. JD 4:218, Brigham Young, February 8, 1857

This is corroborated by an entry in Willford Woodruff's Journal Volumne 4:129-130 "When our Father
came into the garden he came with his celestial body &brought one of his wives with him and eat of the fruit of
the garden until he could beget a tabernacle, and Adam is Michael our God and all the god that we have anything to do with

Brigham taught no such thing.  This theory (underlined) ignores all the other quotes on the subject by a bit of prooftexting of two single quotes.

• When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken--HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.  Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 1:50-51
• Hosea Stout Journal, vol. 2, p. 436, 9 April 1852 - President Brigham Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurrected body and etc. more hereafter.
•  Adam helped to make the Earth, that he had a Celestial body when he came to the Earth and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eve was also a Celestial being, that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten of the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ, was our elder brother." 4/16/1852, Journal of Samuel Holister Rogers 1:179
• How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children. Journal of Discourses, volume 6, p. 275
• When this earth was organized by Elohim. Jehovah & Michael, who is Adam our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assited him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child. It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve — this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses’ dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life.
• When he (Adam) planted the garden, he planted it with seeds he brought with him; and he also brought the animals from the earth he lived upon, where his Father dwelt. Heber C. Kimball Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, pp. 243-24

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, I'm not convinced Adam actually "died" despite the scriptures. 
After all, Deuteronomy says Moses died and was buried, but Alma tells us he was translated not buried.

Actually, after reading what you wrote carefully, this might be the only thing I disagreed with.

Let's go with his being translated and then resuming his exalted state in the year 930.

How do you address the seeming contradiction that God³ is no longer the only god with whom we have to do? He was made a prince over his prosperity forever, yet turned us over to the savior, our God² and king.

While studying this, God³ was yet mortal* when Enoch received his revelation in Moses 6 (D&C 107:48-49). Who is speaking to Enoch in verses 26-28, calling him “my son” and explaining his history and relationship with his forefather Adam (as also detailed in verses 50-68)? -- Thank you,

* Adam was 622 years old when Enoch was born, 647 when he ordained Enoch (at age 25), and 687 when he blessed Enoch (at age 65); Adam lived another 243 years, and with Enoch walking with God for 365 years until he was taken up at 430 years old (year 1052), Enoch had to have had his vision before Adam dies / was taken up.

Edited September 30, 2016 by CV75

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Let's go with his being translated and then resuming his exalted state in the year 930.

How do you address the seeming contradiction that God³ is no longer the only god with whom we have to do? He was made a prince over his prosperity forever, yet turned us over to the savior, our God² and king.

While studying this, God³ was yet mortal* when Enoch received his revelation in Moses 6 (D&C 107:48-49). Who is speaking to Enoch in verses 26-28, calling him “my son” and explaining his history and relationship with his forefather Adam (as also detailed in verses 50-68)? -- Thank you,

* Adam was 622 years old when Enoch was born, 647 when he ordained Enoch (at age 25), and 687 when he blessed Enoch (at age 65); Adam lived another 243 years, and with Enoch walking with God for 365 years until he was taken up at 430 years old (year 1052), Enoch had to have had his vision before Adam dies / was taken up.

1. I see no contradiction concerning Brigham's turn of phrase "the only God with whom we have to do".  Even ignoring Adam-God, is that not an accurate description of the relationship between Heavenly Father and Christ?  Heavenly Father is our God, the only one we pray to.  And scriptures are clear about Christ inheriting and presiding in the eternities.

2. While Adam (I mean God³ ) was mortal the Lord who presided in the early OT can easily be identified as Jehovah (Yaweh), or as you called him God².
Also very scripturally clear.  And in the temple too.  Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael - the creation godhead.  While Michael/Adam was mortal, Jehovah was called "the Lord" (and he was clearly a resurrected being, not a premortal spirit).

I willingly concede that I have no explanation for Moses 6:51-52.  But then neither did Brigham or the other prophets that taught Adam-God that I know of.  So any response I gave would be pure speculation.
I do believe in Adam-God as Brigham taught.  I am not naïve enough to think all the questions have been answered.
There are things in Adam-God that don't make sense just as there are things in the current Church teachings on the Godhead that don't make sense (naming pre-mortal Christ as Jehovah being the most difficult to explain) just as there are things in the traditional Christian trinity that don't make sense (yet people believe).

 

Edited September 30, 2016 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

1. I see no contradiction concerning Brigham's turn of phrase "the only God with whom we have to do".  Even ignoring Adam-God, is that not an accurate description of the relationship between Heavenly Father and Christ?  Heavenly Father is our God, the only one we pray to.  And scriptures are clear about Christ inheriting and presiding in the eternities.

2. While Adam (I mean God³ ) was mortal the Lord who presided in the early OT can easily be identified as Jehovah (Yaweh), or as you called him God².
Also very scripturally clear.  And in the temple too.  Eloheim, Jehovah, and Michael - the creation godhead.  While Michael/Adam was mortal, Jehovah was called "the Lord" (and he was clearly a resurrected being, not a premortal spirit).

I willingly concede that I have no explanation for Moses 6:51-52.  But then neither did Brigham or the other prophets that taught Adam-God that I know of.  So any response I gave would be pure speculation.
I do believe in Adam-God as Brigham taught.  I am not naïve enough to think all the questions have been answered.
There are things in Adam-God that don't make sense just as there are things in the current Church teachings on the Godhead that don't make sense (naming pre-mortal Christ as Jehovah being the most difficult to explain) just as there are things in the traditional Christian trinity that don't make sense (yet people believe).

Yes, except that God³ a prince, turning us over to God² as our new king seems like me telling some of my children their brother is their new father so that, in the spirit of progression, I can move on and develop other family relationships.

I don’t think the depictions in the temple were ever meant to replicate the physical realities of the Father as glorified spirit and element and the Son as glorified spirit. The physical description of the premortal Jesus is found in Ether (“like unto flesh and blood” and “even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh”).

I think it’s OK to have unanswered questions. But regarding our current teachings, why is identifying Jehovah as the pre-mortal Christ the most difficult to explain?

[CV75]

On 9/27/2016 at 0:30 PM, halconero said:

1) What IS the Adam-God theory/doctrine/truth (pick your word), and what are its implications?

2) Why to the prophets and apostles differ on this topic?

3) What does it mean for the average member when they find out about the changes related to the discussion and preaching related to Adam-God?

Just noticed this!

1) I'm trying to understand it better -- would anything from your laptop clear up my portrayal here: Posted 4 hours ago

2) I think they must differ in priorities, understanding, semantics, teaching methods and styles -- the same thing we see in this thread! In the long run, I think their common objective is that we think of ourselves as children of God. God called Enoch, Moses and Abraham -- all who had visions with Him -- "sons." We learn this in figurative terms and by figurative means as well as literal, in temple, scripture and conversation.

3) I don't think there is any such thing as an average member, hence the varied reactions and responses. It doesn't seem to affect the Church as a whole, in the gestalt, one way or another. We'll hopefully all learn how to act like gods incarnate in a fallen state.

Edited September 30, 2016 by CV75

[VideoGameJunkie]

I can't think of anything more horrifying after going through a mortal life and being exalted than having to become mortal again without knowledge and deal with mortal pains for 930 years. That's hell to me not exaltation and peace and rest. 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I can't think of anything more horrifying after going through a mortal life and being exalted than having to become mortal again without knowledge and deal with mortal pains for 930 years. That's hell to me not exaltation and peace and rest. 

Maybe it's worth it for the ability to have 100+ billion children.

[VideoGameJunkie]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Maybe it's worth it for the ability to have 100+ billion children.

I believe you can have those children without having to become mortal again and forgetting everything again. What kind of reward is that?

[Jeanne]

22 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I can't think of anything more horrifying after going through a mortal life and being exalted than having to become mortal again without knowledge and deal with mortal pains for 930 years. That's hell to me not exaltation and peace and rest. 

I am with you on this VGJ.  I sure don't want a do over.