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

[ksfisher]

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I think the church is definitely trying to avoid the issue,

I don't think so, I think it is just not relevant.  Adam-God never gets mentioned in any Sunday church meetings that I go to.  It never gets spoken about in conference of sacrament meeting.  No one is holding firesides teaching it.  I've never heard it mentioned in an official church meeting.  The issue has been settled for a long, long time.

[manol]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Thank you for the link, very informative. I'm not sure why it doesn't fill the need that @Grug the Neanderthal is talking about, unless it's not aimed at the target audience he has in mind.

Personally, I'm not so much interested in the historicity of the Adam-God theory as I am in whether or not it offers a useful paradigm. Imo the theory implies an appealing symmetry: From where we are now, if there are generations of Gods extending forward into the future, presumably likewise there are generations of Gods extending back into the past... the term "God" being a title which can be applied to multiple beings on multiple levels, rather than referring solely to one single being on the highest level.  Not that this answers ALL theological questions (nor even as many as it raises!), but imo it is arguably more elegant than an asymmetrical pattern which extends forwards in time but does not likewise extend back in time.

For the record this is NOT my current paradigm; however, it is something I embraced at one point in my past.

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by manol

[Teancum]

13 hours 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.

And who knows?  It may yet get changed again.

 

What an amazing thing for a Church that claims to have a prophet that knows who God is.

Quote

 “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God”  Joseph Smith

 

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

It is a significant issue.  Brigham Young taught that God was someone who the Church says God is not.  He taught false doctrine on a huge issue.  If that is the case he certainly was not a prophet at all and his successors because he lost any prophetic authority be teaching this false doctrine.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think so, I think it is just not relevant.  Adam-God never gets mentioned in any Sunday church meetings that I go to.  It never gets spoken about in conference of sacrament meeting.  No one is holding firesides teaching it.  I've never heard it mentioned in an official church meeting.  The issue has been settled for a long, long time.

Just like Joseph's wives...no wonder I was in shock and it led to my faith crisis. If I'd been taught or told about it like BY's wives it might not have happened. But the church hid it.

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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. 

Hardly and that is not what he taught.  Not at all.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What an amazing thing for a Church that claims to have a prophet that knows who God is.

 

When we become one with God, we will most certainly know with certainty the character of God.  As we progress to this point we will comprehend more and more.  I don’t believe it is meant to know with certainty the character of God in this life, save for in small ways.  How can a finite, mortal being fully understand an infinite, immortal one?

Quote

It will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave

Also context is important to understand Joseph’s point….which I expect Mfb greatly appreciates.

Quote

: “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another.”[1] “If men do not comprehend the character of God,” he explained, “they do not comprehend themselves.” They cannot “comprehend anything, either that which is past or that which is to come.” They do not understand their own relationship to God. “Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us.”[2]

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-7-no-3-2006/comprehending-character-god-key-successful-relationships

Or if you prefer an even greater context..

Quote

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible,--I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form--like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said, As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power--to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? I you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Here, then, is eternal life--to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. . . .

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds come rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of his Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all his children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the Gospel, about which so much hath been said.

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.

https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/SalvationLearnedBeyondGraveJS.htm

What is the character of God according to the above?  It is the character of man progressed to exaltation.  We know this principle well in our faith even if we don’t comprehend everything of how to get there yet…nor did Joseph expect us to since it is in the same sermon he speaks of it taking a great while after death to learn all.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Calm

[Harry T. Clark]

I don't think President Nelson wants to bring any attention to a controversial issue so close to what the polygamous factions believe.  We don't believe in it and so let it alone.  Also, how would the essay be written?  Is there enough to write on it?  Brigham Young believed that Adam was God and we believe that he was mistaken.  The end.

[ksfisher]

34 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Just like Joseph's wives...no wonder I was in shock and it led to my faith crisis. If I'd been taught or told about it like BY's wives it might not have happened. But the church hid it.

I wasn't meaning to imply that something was being hidden, just that it's not relevant. 

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Gotta love this from FAIR:

Quote

Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won't be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.

It was developed enough to teach it as a lecture as part of the endowment at the St George temple.  The argument above is bogus and IMO dishonest.

[Teancum]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

When we become one with God, we will most certainly know with certainty the character of God.  As we progress to this point we will comprehend more and more.  I don’t believe it is meant to know with certainty the character of God in this life, save for in small ways.  How can a finite, mortal being fully understand an infinite, immortal one?

Also context is important to understand Joseph’s point….which I expect Mfb greatly appreciates.

https://rsc.byu.edu/vol-7-no-3-2006/comprehending-character-god-key-successful-relationships

Or if you prefer an even greater context..

https://emp.byui.edu/SATTERFIELDB/Talks/SalvationLearnedBeyondGraveJS.htm

What is the character of God according to the above?  It is the character of man progressed to exaltation.  We know this principle well in our faith even if we don’t comprehend everything of how to get there yet…nor did Joseph expect us to since it is in the same sermon he speaks of it taking a great while after death to learn all.

Sorry but at least to me if someone claims to he a prophet and teaches something so blatantly false they are not much of a prophet at all.

[CA Steve]

43 minutes ago, Calm said:

When we become one with God, we will most certainly know with certainty the character of God.  As we progress to this point we will comprehend more and more.  I don’t believe it is meant to know with certainty the character of God in this life, save for in small ways.  How can a finite, mortal being fully understand an infinite, immortal one?

To paraphrase an old saying; I kind of expect the prophet to know God from Adam.

Edited February 9, 2023 by CA Steve

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sorry but at least to me if someone claims to he a prophet and teaches something so blatantly false they are not much of a prophet at all.

What is blatantly false in Joseph’s sermon?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

This is simply not correct at all.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

To paraphrase an old saying; I kind of expect the prophet to know God from Adam.

There is what we have Joseph saying about God and what we have Brigham saying.  I believe Joseph’s sermon is reasonable and makes sense if we look at Christ’s life as we know it, though certainly not mainstream Christianity.  And it is in line with revelation I believe received before and after his sermon by himself and others.

Brigham, I have no clue where he was going with it or what to conclude.  Some of his comments can make sense, others not so much.  I think someone could be a prophet, but be a lousy speaker and make mistakes, but I don’t think that accounts for what was going on with Brigham, though some of it appears to be him reasoning it out as he talks and unless that gets polished up, I find those commentaries generally have major gaps.

Brigham had one vision of heaven I am aware of if I am remembering a quote correctly; I assume he had more than one.  I have wondered if he saw a future time (such as when Joseph saw Alvin and others still living in the Celestial Kingdom) where Adam was functioning in a role of God the Father and therefore assumed Adam had always been such and then started reasoning from there.  I don’t believe visions always come with subtitles or perfect knowledge implanted in one’s brain, I think prophets can even be confused by their visions at times and only later comprehend what they were pointing to.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

What is blatantly false in Joseph’s sermon?

I was referring to BY and his  AG doctrine.

[manol]

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

[quoting Joseph Smith]  "If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves."

Agreed!  Imo the bolded clause in the following passage is implying something along similar lines: 

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

35 minutes ago, Calm said:

When we become one with God, we will most certainly know with certainty the character of God.  

Maybe we already are one with God, and with one other, to an extent we cannot presently perceive because of the veil.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

[again quoting Joseph Smith]  "When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation..."

Yup.  Maybe Joseph mis-heard that other revelation, and it was supposed to be "... Ladder-day Saints".

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was referring to BY and his  AG doctrine.

Ah, I don’t have any more to say than I have already, a mystery that won’t be settled till Brigham explains himself imo.

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

There is what we have Joseph saying about God and what we have Brigham saying.  I believe Joseph’s sermon is reasonable and makes sense if we look at Christ’s life as we know it, though certainly not mainstream Christianity.  And it is in line with revelation I believe received before and after his sermon by himself and others.

Brigham, I have no clue where he was going with it or what to conclude.  Some of his comment can make sense, others not so much.  I think someone could be a prophet, but be a lousy speaker and make mistakes, but I don’t think that accounts for what was going on with Brigham, though some of it appears to be him reasoning it out as he talks and unless that gets polished up, I find those commentaries generally have major gaps.

In the earlier days of the Restored Church I believe nearly all sermons were given extemporaneously, including those in the Journal of Discourses.  The early Saints felt that they should preach strictly by the Spirit. Elder Orson Pratt Once said sometimes he gave sermons when his “mind seemed to be entirely closed up....”  “What few words I could stammer forth before a congregation, were altogether unsatisfactory to my own mind, and I presume to those who heard me.” Add to this that the sermons were recorded by a second person writing in shorthand what he though he heard.
I believe Brigham Young believed what he said about this but later on he did not seem consider it to be official Church doctrine that everyone had to agree with.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, manol said:

I'm not sure why it doesn't fill the need that @Grug the Neanderthal is talking about, unless it's not aimed at the target audience he has in mind.

The link is from Fair, which is not the church. Fair is just a bunch of apologists giving their own opinions. The conclusions put forth by Fair do not constitute official explanations or positions of the church. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

The issue has been settled for a long, long time.

I guess if you consider Spencer W. Kimball declaring it false doctrine back in 1976 as the final word on the matter that trumps everything else, then that might settle it for you. But a lot has changed in the church since those days. And there are things that Spencer W. Kimball has said that many members of the church today have a problem with, so that muddies the waters a bit. And then of course there's the problem of two presidents of the church, one hundred years removed from each other blatantly contradicting each other about who God is. On what grounds did SWK label teachings of BY on God false and on what grounds are we required to accept his take on Adam-God over BY's?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

It is a significant issue.  Brigham Young taught that God was someone who the Church says God is not.  He taught false doctrine on a huge issue.  If that is the case he certainly was not a prophet at all and his successors because he lost any prophetic authority be teaching this false doctrine.

I agree that Adam-God is a significant issue. Whether or not Brigham taught false doctrine on who God is or whether or not the church today does, is a significant issue. I black and white take on this issue is very problematic in my opinion, which is why it's interesting that the church hasn't done an essay on this.

[Teancum]

52 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ah, I don’t have any more to say than I have already, a mystery that won’t be settled till Brigham explains himself imo.

Ok but I think it is a mistake to call it a mystery.  We have his words on the topic. Many of them.  Its pretty easy to understand what he was saying and Orson Pratt opposed him on the doctrine.  So no it is not really a mystery at all.

[smac97]

16 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. 

It may be a "topic," but not a doctrinal one.  I think that may be the distinction.  The Church's essays include the following topics:

• Are “Mormons” Christian?
• Becoming Like God
• Book of Mormon and DNA Studies
• Book of Mormon Translation
• First Vision Accounts
• Joseph Smith’s Teachings about Priesthood, Temple, and Women
• Mother in Heaven
• Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints
• Plural Marriage in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo
• Plural Marriage and Families in Early Utah
• The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage
• Race and the Priesthood
• Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

The Church "owns" these, most of which pertain to doctrine.

Pres. Kimball made the following remarks in October 1976 General Conference:

Quote

Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

I'm not sure the Church needs an essay to elaborate on this.

16 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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? 

I don't know that any of us are situated to answer that question.

I think an essay on this could be a good idea.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

If the saints and prospective saints aren't getting hit with one thing that undermines their faith and testimony, it will be another; some succumb and some do not. I think the Church chooses the essay topics and content on some other doctrinal basis than that.