Why hasn't the church made an Adam-God Gospel Topics Essay?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

About 10 years ago the church began publishing essays on various controversial gospel topics on the church's website. There are currently 14 Gospel Topics listed in the Gospel Topics Essay's section, which is in the Church History section in the Gospel Library app. These essays include four essays on plural marriage, one on race and the priesthood, another on Mother in Heaven, another on women and the priesthood, and another on becoming like God. Yet there is no essay on Adam-God, which is a very controversial topic with deep doctrinal implications. 

The fact that Brigham Young and other church leaders openly taught Adam-God in the early days of the church is very well documented. Adam-God was taught from the pulpit in General Conference and other public church meetings, in the temple, and in church leadership meetings. It was also published in official church publications. These teachings were slowly phased out and by the turn of the 20th century they were no longer taught at all. Since that time Adam-God was downgraded from doctrine to a theory, before eventually being publicly denounced as false doctrine by the leaders of the church. However, no official explanation has ever been given for what was actually taught in regards to Adam-God, why it was taught in the first place and to what extent, why this teaching was later denounced as false, or what the church's official position on Adam-God is today? Is it considered to be a theory that members are free to believe, as long as they don't publicly teach it, or is it still strictly considered to be "false doctrine" as Spencer W. Kimball stated or one of the "Seven Deadly Heresies" as Bruce R. McConkie declared it?

This would seem like a pretty important topic to address, so why hasn't the church written an essay on Adam-God? 

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[JLHPROF]

Perhaps too narrow a topic.  The theology concerning the Godhead in the Church changed a lot from 1830-1930 before generally stabilizing on what is taught today.  Most members aren't aware how much our doctrine on the Godhead changed during the first century of the Church.  Adam-God is one part of that but IMO the changing theology topic would make a better essay than any one part of our chronology.

And who knows?  It may yet get changed again.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by JLHPROF

[Grug the Neanderthal]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps too narrow a topic.  The theology concerning the Godhead in the Church changed a lot from 1830-1930 before generally stabilizing on what is taught today.  Most members aren't aware how much our doctrine on the Godhead changed during the first century of the Church.  Adam-God is one part of that but IMO the changing theology topic would make a better essay than any one part of our chronology.

Good point. I agree that Adam-God is only one issue with the changing view of the God-head in the 1800s and early 1900s, but I think that it is probably the most significant issue.

I don’t see the church writing an essay on this topic, whether specifically on Adam-God or including other issues around changed teachings on the Godhead, any time soon. 

[Duncan]

I know several people got into a big debate on Mormon Interpreter about it so maybe the Church wants to avoid wading into those waters. If people can't agree what it is or what then it's safe to avoid the issue

[Pyreaux]

There is no controversy if no one cares. No one knows what Brigham Young was talking about. The Journal of Discourses has ever been second-hand, unreviewed, unedited, non-church publication. We only reject the FLDS doctrine as false, not Brigham Young's non-doctrinal statements, that for all we know might have been right, we just don't have enough information. The only ones that imagine it's a great controversy are anti-Mormons and one minority splinter group we love to ignore.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I know several people got into a big debate on Mormon Interpreter about it so maybe the Church wants to avoid wading into those waters. If people can't agree what it is or what then it's safe to avoid the issue

I think the church is definitely trying to avoid the issue, but one could argue that it’s an issue that the church should address. If nothing else I think that the church could make an official statement acknowledging what was taught regarding Adam-God, who taught it, and stating that the church now considers it to be a theory that is not accepted as official church doctrine. Or if the church considers it to be false doctrine through and through, that should probably be addressed, as well as the implications of this position.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

There is no controversy if no one cares.

There are plenty who care though from what I have seen. Some have left the Church over it if their online accounts are to be believed.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

45 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

There is no controversy if no one cares. No one knows what Brigham Young was talking about. The Journal of Discourses has ever been second-hand, unreviewed, unedited, non-church publication. We only reject the FLDS doctrine as false, not Brigham Young's non-doctrinal statements, that for all we know might have been right, we just don't have enough information. The only ones that imagine it's a great controversy are anti-Mormons and one minority splinter group we love to ignore.

A lot more people care about it than you think. If nothing else it’s a major anti-Mormon talking point, and the church has essays that specifically address other major anti-Mormon talking points. So why not this one?

As far as what Brigham taught is concerned, much of what he taught about Adam-God is well documented and easy to understand. His teachings are recorded in official church publications like the Journal of Discourses and Millennial Star. They are also recorded in the official minutes of church meetings and in the journals of those who attended these meetings, such as Wilford Woodruff. 

Some very clear teachings of his include:

1) Adam is our Heavenly Father and Eve is our Heavenly Mother. They are the parents of our spirits and our bodies.

2) Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and the one who impregnated Mary, the mother of Jesus.

3) Adam and Eve were immortal resurrected beings who had lived and died on another planet prior to coming to this earth and being placed in the garden of Eden.

4) Adam and Eve were made the same way that we all were. They were physically born to parents. Adam was not literally made from dust nor Eve from his rib. 

5) Adam and Eve subsequently fell from their immortal resurrected state and became mortal in order to provide physical bodies for their spirit children. 

6) After their mortal lives came to an end, they returned to the spirit world from were they had come.

7) Righteous husbands and wives will one day become Adams and Eves on their own planets. 

Why doesn’t the church clarify which of these teaching are considered true or false today? Or if the leaders don’t know, why doesn’t the church come out and acknowledge what was taught and say that Adam-God is a considered a mystery and/or a theory that could be true, or at least have truth to it, but it shouldn’t be taught openly? 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[JLHPROF]

40 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

There is no controversy if no one cares. No one knows what Brigham Young was talking about. The Journal of Discourses has ever been second-hand, unreviewed, unedited, non-church publication. We only reject the FLDS doctrine as false, not Brigham Young's non-doctrinal statements, that for all we know might have been right, we just don't have enough information. The only ones that imagine it's a great controversy are anti-Mormons and one minority splinter group we love to ignore.

Your understanding of the Journal of Discourses is incorrect.  And Brigham's "non-doctrinal statements" were part of the temple endowment for at least a quarter century.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And Brigham's "non-doctrinal statements" were part of the temple endowment for at least a quarter century.

A lot longer than that in my opinion. I think there’s still holdovers from it today, although most clear references to it have now been removed. The most recent being the line about Adam being made "Lord over the whole earth and all things on the face thereof," which was removed in 2019.

[Pyreaux]

32 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

A lot more people care about it than you think. If nothing else it’s a major anti-Mormon talking point, and the church has essays that specifically address other major anti-Mormon talking points. So why not this one?

As far as what Brigham taught is concerned, much of what he taught about Adam-God is well documented and easy to understand. His teachings are recorded in official church publications like the Journal of Discourses and Millennial Star. They are also recorded in the official minutes of church meetings and in the journals of those who attended these meetings, such as Wilford Woodruff. 

Some very clear teachings of his include:

1) Adam is our Heavenly Father and Eve is our Heavenly Mother. They are the parents of our spirits and our bodies.

2) Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and the one who impregnated Mary, the mother of Jesus.

3) Adam and Eve were immortal resurrected beings who had lived and died on another planet prior to coming to this earth and being placed in the garden of Eden.

4) Adam and Eve were made the same way that we all were. They were physically born to parents. Adam was not literally made from dust nor Eve from his rib. 

5) Adam and Eve subsequently fell from their immortal resurrected state and became mortal in order to provide physical bodies for their spirit children. 

6) After their mortal lives came to an end, they returned to the spirit world from were they had come.

7) Righteous husbands and wives will one day become Adams and Eves on their own planets. 

Why doesn’t the church clarify which of these teaching are considered true or false today? Or if the leaders don’t know, why doesn’t the church come out and acknowledge what was taught and say that Adam-God is a considered a mystery and/or a theory that could be true, or at least have truth to it, but it shouldn’t be taught openly? 

I'm almost certain the Journal of Discourses are third-hand collections of second-hand (clerk) documents and no edits for correction, as a private venture, and because of this its value is historic and never doctrinal. 

That there looks like the Proto-Adam interpretation. By logic if God was a man, then he'd be the true first man, the proto-Adam, not the Biblical Adam.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Pyreaux

[mfbukowski]

Meh.

It's no big deal to me and can be interpreted in many ways.

Adam is Everyman and Father IS the Father of us all, as is Adam. "Father Adam" is a repeated phrase. And Jehovah is the father of our salvation and all members of the Godhead are said to be "one".

No biggie; it's just an alternate interpretation. 

[Benjamin Seeker]

Opinions among the brethren may be divided on Adam-God. Brigham Young claimed that the doctrine came from JS, and he also claimed to have learned it via revelation. With that kind of provenance, there may be some of the apostles who believe it while others take the more mainstream approach of rejecting it. If that’s the case, they’d have a difficult time coming up with publishable stance.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm almost certain the Journal of Discourses are third-hand collections of second-hand (clerk) documents and no edits for correction, as a private venture, and because of this its value is historic and never doctrinal. 

Not exactly an awe inspiring recommendation for your opinion, lol, but I applaud you for being clear on your level of certainty or lack of it  

It varies how much attention got paid to it and by whom before publishing.  Caution is wise, but dismissing it is an over abundance of caution imo.

From wiki, which is a decent summary according to my own less than stellar memory. Perhaps JLHProf can correct me if I am too far off. 

Quote

Watt recorded the material in the first four volumes of sermons himself, and he continued to contribute through volume twelve, but at least eleven other stenographers were involved.

After recording the sermons, Watt transcribed them and sent them to the speaker for careful review.^[3] By far, Young has the most sermons recorded in the Journal, with 390. It was said that:

Brigham Young secured stenographic reports of his addresses. As he traveled among the people, reporters accompanied him. All that he said was recorded. Practically all of these discourses (from December 16, 1851 to August 19, 1877) were published in the Journal of Discourses, which was widely distributed. The public utterances of few great historical figures have been so faithfully and fully preserved.^[4]

For at least the first volume, Young personally edited his own sermons.^[1] For future volumes, Young helped to select which sermons should be included in the publication, and he assigned his personal secretary to carefully copy-edit the manuscript pages before publication.^[3]

 

Recent scholarship comparing Watts’ transcripts vs his shorthand recordings shows he had a tendency to ‘improve’ on some of Pres. Young’s sermons to make them sound more educated, prophety.  But Young also approved a number of Watts’ ‘upgrades’, so again probably wise to be cautious, but no need to throw stuff out.  I am not aware what work has been done yet on the Adam-God sections checking the shorthand transcription.  Hopefully this will be done one day, but reading Pitman shorthand is a dying skill.  Also much of the shorthand record was discarded once transcribed, so it may not be available to check.

More info on JoD:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Journal_of_Discourses#Was_the_Journal_of_Discourses_one_of_the_.22standard_works.22_of_the_Church.3F

https://www.fromthedesk.org/journal-of-discourses-shorthand/ 

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/blog/preached-versus-published-part-1-of-3?lang=eng

Quote

For example, when we compare Watt’s shorthand to his longhand transcripts (and the resulting publication in the Journal of Discourses), it is clear that Watt made significant changes as he transcribed. He inserted words, phrases, and even extensive passages into his longhand that do not have any relation to the shorthand itself; these inserted passages’ style is often different from the style of the speaker he was transcribing. Also, comparing the shorthand transcripts and the Journal of Discourses shows that many cited scriptures were editorial additions, with no mention in the original shorthand itself. Changes to Brigham Young’s sermons thus changed the representation of his personality, not to mention his prophetic guidance.

 

A section of George D. Watt’s shorthand showing additions and subtractions.

Watt made many of these changes as he wrote. Sometimes he crossed out what he had written and inserted new text; this crossed-out material does not usually appear in the Journal of Discourses. When writing out his shorthand in a longhand transcription, Watt, like other shorthand reporters, often transcribed the end of a sermon less accurately than the start; perhaps he and others grew increasingly tired as they struggled to read their shorthand, and so they wrote a basic idea of what was originally recorded. He also did not transcribe some of his shorthand into longhand, including some very long passages, resulting in these sections’ absence from the Journal of Discourses. Other changes in wording, word order, and grammar appear for unknown reasons. Examples of these changes are included in parts two and three. 

To help us recover an accurate understanding of early leaders’ actual words, I have collected 50 sermons delivered by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, Parley P. Pratt, and others. I have created tables that highlight—aligned in parallel columns—my transcriptions of the sermons’ original 19th-century shorthand, the original longhand transcript (where it is extant), and the sermon as it was published in the Journal of Discourses.₁₀ These sermons are now available in the Church History Catalog in collection CR 100 912 under “Parallel Column Comparisons.” More sermons will be added to this collection in the future.  

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Brigham Young claimed that the doctrine came from JS, and he also claimed to have learned it via revelation.

Addressing both of these:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory#Question:_What_is_the_Adam-God_Theory.3F
 

Not saying this means BY’s comments on AG should therefore be dismissed, accepted, or whatever…just adding context. 

 

Quote

With that kind of provenance, there may be some of the apostles who believe it while others take the more mainstream approach of rejecting it. 

I would be very surprised if there were current apostles who accepted Adam God in some form other than ‘it’s a mistake’ given the denunciations that have come across the pulpit, especially Pres Kimball’s. 
 

My guess is there has not been an essay done because there isn’t a definitive summary of it that has been accepted by either church leaders or scholars and so nothing great to work with.  More likely to cause more confusion than to resolve it.
 

And while there is some controversy attached to it, it just isn’t that relevant to current discipleship in most members’ eyes, even if aware of it, unlike plural marriage given the possibility it is practiced in the next life, even if not currently practiced in this one.  While I aware of a few who have cited it as a concern that led to a loss of faith, it is near the bottom in frequency of appearance in my experience. 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm almost certain the Journal of Discourses are third-hand collections of second-hand (clerk) documents and no edits for correction, as a private venture, and because of this its value is historic and never doctrinal. 

Again, incorrect.

@Calm is right as usual.

There's even a First Presidency endorsement of them in one of the volumes and other endorsements as well.

Edited February 9, 2023 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

About 10 years ago the church began publishing essays on various controversial gospel topics on the church's website. There are currently 14 Gospel Topics listed in the Gospel Topics Essay's section, which is in the Church History section in the Gospel Library app. These essays include four essays on plural marriage, one on race and the priesthood, another on Mother in Heaven, another on women and the priesthood, and another on becoming like God. Yet there is no essay on Adam-God, which is a very controversial topic with deep doctrinal implications. 

The fact that Brigham Young and other church leaders openly taught Adam-God in the early days of the church is very well documented. Adam-God was taught from the pulpit in General Conference and other public church meetings, in the temple, and in church leadership meetings. It was also published in official church publications. These teachings were slowly phased out and by the turn of the 20th century they were no longer taught at all. Since that time Adam-God was downgraded from doctrine to a theory, before eventually being publicly denounced as false doctrine by the leaders of the church. However, no official explanation has ever been given for what was actually taught in regards to Adam-God, why it was taught in the first place and to what extent, why this teaching was later denounced as false, or what the church's official position on Adam-God is today? Is it considered to be a theory that members are free to believe, as long as they don't publicly teach it, or is it still strictly considered to be "false doctrine" as Spencer W. Kimball stated or one of the "Seven Deadly Heresies" as Bruce R. McConkie declared it?

This would seem like a pretty important topic to address, so why hasn't the church written an essay on Adam-God? 

 

It seems to me that it is like the racist notions explaining the priesthood ban for people of African origin; no need to revisit and address each problematic point of false doctrine in a single essay since their purpose is to help people learn about the gospel in its plainness.

The Church essays are not out to prove or explain why any particular doctrine is wrong, just testify of that which is correct in the contexts of Church history, doctrine and practices. It seems this topic is not found to be a big item for a threshold number of saints in their quest to seek learning by study and faith.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that it is like the racist notions explaining the priesthood ban for people of African origin; no need to revisit and address each problematic point of false doctrine in a single essay since their purpose is to help people learn about the gospel in its plainness.

The Church essays are not out to prove or explain why any particular doctrine is wrong, just testify of that which is correct in the contexts of Church history, doctrine and practices. It seems this topic is not found to be a big item for a threshold number of saints in their quest to seek learning by study and faith.

The essays are a big problem when someone gets hit like a deer in the headlights, and lose their testimonies, so I understand your point. I know the church was trying to look like they aren't hiding anything, but they probably should have laid more low on this count. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems to me that it is like the racist notions explaining the priesthood ban for people of African origin; no need to revisit and address each problematic point of false doctrine in a single essay since their purpose is to help people learn about the gospel in its plainness.

Two thoughts here:

1) The church did publish an essay about the priesthood ban, but not Adam-God. 

2) The church hasn't declared the previous explanations for the ban to be "racist notions" nor have they been declared to be "false doctrine." They have simply be disavowed as the official doctrine of the church today. Big difference. 

52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems this topic is not found to be a big item for a threshold number of saints in their quest to seek learning by study and faith.

I think that a lot more people know and wonder about Adam-God than you suggest. Plus, considering that it was explicitly taught from the pulpit in General Conference, in church publications, and in the endowment in the temple, it's kind of a big deal, regardless of what percentage of members have questions and concerns about it today. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

I'm almost certain the Journal of Discourses are third-hand collections of second-hand (clerk) documents and no edits for correction, as a private venture, and because of this its value is historic and never doctrinal. 

As has been pointed out already, you are incorrect. The Journal of Discourses was also frequently quoted from and cited in General Conference talks as late as the 1990s I believe. The current practice when quoting from talks from the Journal of Discourses is to cite the Desert News, which also published these talks and was an official church publication. 

8 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

That there looks like the Proto-Adam interpretation. By logic if God was a man, then he'd be the true first man, the proto-Adam, not the Biblical Adam.

I don't understand what you are saying here. Can you please elaborate?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Opinions among the brethren may be divided on Adam-God. Brigham Young claimed that the doctrine came from JS, and he also claimed to have learned it via revelation. With that kind of provenance, there may be some of the apostles who believe it while others take the more mainstream approach of rejecting it. If that’s the case, they’d have a difficult time coming up with publishable stance.

If this is the case, and I think it very well may be, then this would be a great reason to come out with an official statement saying that Adam-God is a mystery or theory that may or may not have truth to it, but shouldn't be taught openly at church, instead of having the statement by Bruce R. McConkie in 1980 calling it a "deadly heresy" remain the last word on the subject. The church is much more open to private diverse thought now than it was back in 1980. 

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Two thoughts here:

1) The church did publish an essay about the priesthood ban, but not Adam-God. 

2) The church hasn't declared the previous explanations for the ban to be "racist notions" nor have they been declared to be "false doctrine." They have simply be disavowed as the official doctrine of the church today. Big difference. 

I think that a lot more people know and wonder about Adam-God than you suggest. Plus, considering that it was explicitly taught from the pulpit in General Conference, in church publications, and in the endowment in the temple, it's kind of a big deal, regardless of what percentage of members have questions and concerns about it today. 

Re: 1), The Race and Priesthood essay addresses a change in policy affecting people worldwide, but there was no such policy change to be addressed in an essay that brings up Adam-God. The former temple practices are too localized in time and place, and there are lready statements by the Church about those kinds of changes.

Re: 2), Disavowal as official doctrine aside, evidently the bigness of the deal has to do with the overwhelming worldwide impact of a policy, as indicated in the Race and Priesthood essay, or the similar impact of doctrinal clarification as with the Becoming Like God essay.

[Benjamin Seeker]

36 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If this is the case, and I think it very well may be, then this would be a great reason to come out with an official statement saying that Adam-God is a mystery or theory that may or may not have truth to it, but shouldn't be taught openly at church, instead of having the statement by Bruce R. McConkie in 1980 calling it a "deadly heresy" remain the last word on the subject. The church is much more open to private diverse thought now than it was back in 1980. 

Fair point. FWIW, For years I’ve also thought it was weird that there’s no essay on Adam-God.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Also, I bet, like others here are suggesting, Adam-God is just not as present in current discussions of controversial/problematic issues as the other essay topics.

[JAHS]

In order to understand what Brigham Young believed we would have to go back in time and ask him specific questions about it. He didn't really expound on it much and at times he contradicted the concept in other speeches. What we have are second-hand notes that were written in shorthand by someone else as he spoke.  Though at the time the First Presidency endorsed the publication of the Journal there was no endorsement as to the accuracy or reliability of the contents of each speech. The subject may be of historical interest, but could not be considered official gospel doctrine and therefore would not be included in the Gospel Topics essays.