Understanding Adam-God

[co-eternal]

30 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I've been staying out of this as there hasn't really been a lot of argument tied to source and grappling with sources that don't fit ones model. When that goes on discussion tends to be pointless. I did keep meaning to address the above though. I've no idea where Elden Watson came up with his ideas, so I'll not address that. However the broader idea of two Adams is fairly natural given the two creation accounts.

You have man created in Genesis 1:27 then you have a creation of man in Genesis 2:7. So that's two Adams and was frequently interpreted as that in antiquity. I'm not saying Brigham didn't have his own view of that. Just that it was hardly the only view. Many have noted that the JST creates a transition between the two creation accounts that parallels Philo with Moses 3:4-5. Philo says that the Adam of Genesis 1 was God's logos and the "eldest born image of God" (De confusion Linguarum 62-63) The parallels to Christ are obvious of course, especially from a Mormon perspective. The Adam of Genesis 1 is the true man (although Philo means this platonically) Philo here has some parallels to the Metatron tradition as well (where Enoch ascends to heaven and becomes the lesser YHWH). 2 Enoch in particular has this as the heavenly Adam who is almost like a platonic demiurge and is above the angels. By the time of Jewish Kabbalism this becomes the heavenly Adam or Adam Kadmon. All the traditions then separate the heavenly adam from the earthly Adam who, unlike the heavenly Adam, was made of dust.

It's worth noting that the Enochian literature and Merkabah/Hekhalot literature is also closest to the Mormon idea of the endowment which is of course rather tied to the whole Adam/God mess to say the least.

So we have prior to Christ a tradition of a first born figure who is the Logos/Demiurge even if primarily seen in Platonic terms. Christ as the second Adam takes up similar imagery and is even called the second Adam in 1 Cor 15:45 and takes up the Logos identification in John. However the point is that there already was the tradition of a second Adam that was then applied to Christ. Outside of Philo (which many don't see as the basis of Paul's second Adam) there's rabbinical tradition of two Adams.

Note that Philo explicitly sees there being two Adams. Quoting from Allegorical Interpretation. 31 both Adams are in the garden at the same time.
 

Again the more Enochian and Merkebah texts are pretty explicit too on the two Adams with one who sits on the throne. The Apocalypse of Abraham is rather clear here. "And Abraham asked the chief-captain, My Lord chief-captain, who is this most marvelous man, adorned with such glory, and sometimes he weeps and laments, and sometimes he rejoices and exults? The incorporeal one said: This is the first-created Adam who is in such glory, and he looks upon the world because all are born from him, "

Interesting there are other things of interest in the various speculations about Adam around the time of Christ. The Life of Adam and Eve (1st century AD) has Satan falling because Adam is the image of God and Satan refuses to worship him. While this clearly comes out of the earlier tradition found in 2 Enoch and other texts, it's interesting how widespread this was. Rather than getting into the later Hekhalot or gnostic texts the earlier texts end up being even more interesting. It appears that this worshipping the visible image of God rather than the hidden God was fine by Jewish monotheism and may well have contributed to the ideas about Jesus. Brill has a whole book on this, Angelmorphic Christology: Antecendents and Early Evidence. Like all Brill books it's ridiculously overpriced. But it's worth checking out for anyone curious. 

And what makes all that of more value than something from the Lords anointed:

Quote

"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle." (Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867)

I have sat at Eldon's kitchen table and discussed  that with him, have you?

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

And what makes all that of more value than something from the Lords anointed:

I have sat at Eldon's kitchen table and discussed  that with him, have you?

Nope. Don't really care what Eldon thinks and don't think it addresses what Brigham believed. And the Lord's anointed condemned Brigham on Adam/God so you're in trouble no matter what if that's your criteria. More to me the interesting thing is what ideas Joseph and Brigham might have been restoring and how they may have become somewhat muddled on things. My point is just that the idea of two Adams is a rather common idea at the time of Christ and is used by Paul and John. So to dismiss it out of hand seems problematic. Further many elements of these old beliefs rather line up with important aspects of what Brigham taught (Eloheim, Jehovah/YHWH, Michael as head god, god we deal with & first Adam, Adam in the garden)

Of course the real issue for those reading all this through a fundamentalist lens is reconciling it all with the fossil and archaeological record. The theological complaints with Brigham are the least of the problems. There's abundant signs of human civilization going back thousands of years earlier than Brigham would have it. So whatever happened isn't quite what Brigham claimed.

My point is more that there is a ritualistic aspect to all this that probably shouldn't be taken historically any more than Peter, James and John appearing to Adam should.

The main argument for two Adams isn't whether Brigham believed it. (I think he clearly didn't) Rather it's the question of whether the ritual of a descent from heaven to fallen earth is only about a single person.

Edited December 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I have not said anything against modern prophets. I know what they said and why they said it. I have said that some of what they said has been misunderstood to mean other than what they said.

I see, it is just a simple misunderstanding! 

So if I teach and continually testify in church that Adam is God the Father as Brigham Young taught and that we should worship Adam and pray to Adam, you are trying to convince me that the church will be cool with that?  You are trying to convince me that everything they have said against it is simply a misunderstanding?  And that apostate sects who denounce the modern church for rejecting Adam-God have no basis because the brethren actually agree with the apostates on that matter?

[co-eternal]

The truth of it is that all Gods have been/will be called "Adam".

Adam is a role, the role of the Father of the spirits that come to an earth and the First man on that earth, the progenitor  of all who come to that earth in mortality. And the Father of the savior of that earth.

When we use these names, Elohim, Adam, Jehovah, they are relative to the earth we live on.  And eternal progression is about an individual progressing through those roles.  So, yes, in a maner of speaking, there were two Adams, but one was called Elohim because he was the presiding priesthood When the other, Actually called Adam, was introduced to the garden. Why, Because Elohim had been an Adam so he presided. 

But the one we call Adam relative to this earth, Joseph taught that he is the Father of our spirits and the Physical Father of Jesus. Brigham said it. Wilford recorded it. But that is just one testimony of it.

[co-eternal]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

I see, it is just a simple misunderstanding!

Again, that is not what I said. Why do you continue to miss represent what I said.  - hyperbole

[pogi]

Just now, co-eternal said:

Again, that is not what I said. Why do you continue to miss represent what I said.  - hyperbole

???

“I have said that some of what they said has been misunderstood to mean other than what they said.”

 

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Again, that is not what I said. Why do you continue to miss represent what I said.  - hyperbole

Then you accept that modern prophets reject the theory, and therefore do not accept all their words.

[co-eternal]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

???

“I have said that some of what they said has been misunderstood to mean other than what they said.”

 

I said "some".

You said "all".

 

[pogi]

Just now, co-eternal said:

I said "some".

You said "all".

No I didn’t.  

You are being evasive!  Answer the question honestly and clearly:

Do you accept that modern prophets have disavowed the Adam-God theory as taught by Brigham Young?

[co-eternal]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

Then you accept that modern prophets reject the theory, and therefore do not accept all their words.

 You remind me of those who asked Jesus what is the greatest commandment.

Not all things that one might believe are mutually exclusive actually are, just as Jesus' answer portrayed. (what Jesus was saying is that the first and second were really the same thing because you could not live one without living the other)

So the official Church Doctrine is that Adam was immortal when he came to this earth and He brought Eve with him when he came. That is not what the canon of scripture says. Is there a way to resolve that difference without condemning the scriptures that say one thing or the modern prophets who say another. 

You appear to be trying to force me to chose one or the other and you will probably condemn me for either choice. But with some understanding, it is consistent to chose them both and the truth.

[co-eternal]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

No I didn’t.  

You are being evasive!  Answer the question honestly and clearly:

Do you accept that modern prophets have disavowed the Adam-God theory as taught by Brigham Young?

You are correct, you said "just" - which implies all.

[co-eternal]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

, just like you don’t accept all of the words of modern prophets.

Back up your words. Show the reference to support your claim.

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Back up your words. Show the reference to support your claim.

I already did.  The burden is on you to show how the words of Brigham and Spencer W, Kimbal, Mckonkie and others on the subject of Adam-God are reconcilable.  

Interesting how insistent you are for a CFR when you still have not answered several CFRs from JLHPROF (who believes in Adam-God, by the way) and myself for “proof” that JS taught Adam God.  You have not yet supplied any quotes from him.  You also have not answered questions from Calm and myself about modern prophets.  It appears you are not willing to engage in dialogue.

I was prodding you as an experiment to see how far your cognitive dissonance would allow you to go.  It appears that your tenacity is stronger than my curiosity, so I am outa here.

Edited December 9, 2017 by pogi

[co-eternal]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

I already did.  The burden is on you to show how the words of Brigham and Spencer W, Kimbal, Mckonkie and others on the subject of Adam-God are reconcilable.  

Interesting how insistent you are for a CFR when you still have not answered several CFRs from JLHPROF (who believes in Adam-God, by the way) and myself for “proof” that JS taught Adam God.  You have not yet supplied any quotes from him.  You also have not answered questions from Calm and myself about modern prophets.  It appears you are not willing to engage in dialogue.

I was prodding you as an experiment to see how far your cognitive dissonance would allow you to go.  It appears that your tenacity is stronger than my curiosity, so I am outa here.

I have no idea what a CFR is.

YOU MADE THE CLAIM " , just like you don’t accept all of the words of modern prophets. ". You have not provided any quote of what I've said for you to make such claim".

I have presented many quotes of what Joseph taught.

And your question was designed to Trap, just as those who questioned Jesus.

And I have no obligation to you or Calm what so ever,  neither of you have any stewardship over me.

And it is disappointing that the way you have repeatedly miss represented what I have said is tolerated and allowed on this forum.

And it is you who demand answers and now back out - not willing to have a dialog.

[clarkgoble]

Reread what I said. There was a two Adam doctrine at the time of Christ. I gave extensive evidence for it including the New Testament. My argument is simply that has to be a background when interpreting what Brigham and Joseph said. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I have no idea what a CFR is 

It has already been explained to you.  Call For Reference.  You have made claims about JS to which you have not supplied a reference.  

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

YOU MADE THE CLAIM " , just like you don’t accept all of the words of modern prophets. ". You have not provided any quote of what I've said for you to make such claim".

I have presented many quotes of what Joseph taught.

You have said you are a believing member of the Church.  Modern prophet Spencer W. Kimball called the belief that Adam is God a heresy.  Modern prophet Brigham Young taught it as truth.  Therefore whether we believe Kimball or Young none of us accept ALL the words of modern prophets.

And you have not presented a single teaching of Joseph that Adam is God because such a teaching doesn't exist.  You have presented Brigham's claims that he got the teaching from Joseph, but not a single word Joseph uttered or wrote teaching Adam is Heavenly Father.

48 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

And I have no obligation to you or Calm what so ever,  neither of you have any stewardship over me.

And it is disappointing that the way you have repeatedly miss represented what I have said is tolerated and allowed on this forum.

And it is you who demand answers and now back out - not willing to have a dialog.

I wish you would participate in good faith discussion and quit playing the victim.  I appreciate your viewpoint but not the way you attempt to sidestep board rules and make claims not in evidence.

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It has already been explained to you.  Call For Reference.  You have made claims about JS to which you have not supplied a reference.  

I most certainly did - multiple times. And was even accused of plagiarizing attributed quotes for doing so.

But you have not provided a reference about what you claim of me.

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

I most certainly did - multiple times. And was even accused of plagiarizing attributed quotes for doing so.

But you have not provided a reference about what you claim of me.

Not a single one shows Joseph teaching that Adam is God.

[co-eternal]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Not a single one shows Joseph teaching that Adam is God.

So what does this say?
 

Quote

 

"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle."

- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867

 

So did you not read them? That is just one. and there were other post with quotes saying the same thing.

So, AGAIN, you make false claims!

[JLHPROF]

35 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

So what does this say?
"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle."

So did you not read them? That is just one. and there were other post with quotes saying the same thing.

Again, not a teaching of Joseph.  A claim of Brigham with no historical evidence to back it up.  There is no record of Adam God ever being taught by Joseph.

I think Brigham is exaggerating the extent to which Joseph taught it.  I believe your quote is Brigham referencing many of Joseph's teachings such as the endowment, the King Follett discourse, and his teachings on Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Joseph alluded to Adam God principles but there is no record of his reaching the conclusion Brigham came to.

[pogi]

58 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

So what does this say?
 

So did you not read them? That is just one. and there were other post with quotes saying the same thing.

So, AGAIN, you make false claims!

WW quoting BY quoting JS does not count as “proof” that JS taught it.  This is a third hand source...weak sauce!

[co-eternal]

9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Again, not a teaching of Joseph.  A claim of Brigham with no historical evidence to back it up.  There is no record of Adam God ever being taught by Joseph.

I think Brigham is exaggerating the extent to which Joseph taught it.  I believe your quote is Brigham referencing many of Joseph's teachings such as the endowment, the King Follett discourse, and his teachings on Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Joseph alluded to Adam God principles but there is no record of his reaching the conclusion Brigham came to.

Can you not read? Brigham says that Joseph taught it. That would hold up in court.

Quote

 

"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle."

- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Journal of Wilford Woodruff, December 16, 1867

 

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, co-eternal said:

Can you not read? Brigham says that Joseph taught it. That would hold up in court.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

No, Woodruff says that Young says that Smith says...23 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH.  Where are the first, or even second hand, writings during Joseph's life?

This is a third hand source and a second hand testimony.  Hearsay rule - second hand testimony is not admissible in court.

Edited December 9, 2017 by pogi

[co-eternal]

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, Woodruff says that Young says that Smith says...23 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH.  Where are the first, or even second hand, writings during Joseph's life?

This is a third hand source and a second hand testimony.  Hearsay rule - second hand testimony is not admissible in court.

Are you asserting that they lied?