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

[Grug the Neanderthal]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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:

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

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

Adam-God was considered doctrine during the Presidency of Brigham Young and for about 25 years afterwards. It was then downgraded to a theory, and later declared false. And it wasn't something that was allegedly taught, there is concrete proof that it was openly taught by Brigham Young and other church leaders. Adam-God has serious doctrinal implications. We have received the endowment through Brigham Young who believed and taught Adam-God and declared that Adam-God was a central theme of the endowment. If he was wrong, that calls the reliability of the endowment teachings into question. If he was this wrong about the identity of God, this would also call his credibility as prophet, seer, and revelator into question, along with the credibility of his successors. And if he was right and Spencer W. Kimball was wrong, that's just as bad. And if the truth lies somewhere in the middle, then that is also a doctrinal issue in my opinion. 

The church is in kind of a tough spot with this, which is probably why no essay on this topic has been written. However, I'd be interested to see what type of explanation and stance the church today would give on this. The "Brigham Young didn't say that or was misquoted" explanation no longer works. His teachings are too well documented and easily accessible today. 

[manol]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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. 

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

If that article (or another saying essentially the same thing) was published by the church, would that work in your opinion? 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

He changed the way he taught it over the years, somethings quite quickly (see below).  I think his experience as leader and prophet made him more aware of the need to be careful in how he said things.  

An excellent presentation:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf
 

Quote

This is probably the most important point that can be made with regard to this intriguing, complex, and somewhat perplexing subject.

When Brigham Young first introduced the public to his Adam–God teachings in April of 1852 he claimed that they would prove a person’s “salvation or damnation.”72 Just two and a half years later his rhetoric changed dramatically. In General Conference, once again, he gave an Adam–God talk but this time he said, “I propose to speak upon a subject that does not immediately concern yours or my welfare. . . . I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any trouble about them whatever.” After specifying that “these are my views with regard to the gods, and eternities” and saying, “I will tell you what I think about it” he used a very significant term—thirteen times. He said, “I will tell you what I reckon.” His exact words were: “I will tell you what I think about it, and as the [Southerners] say, ‘I reckon.’ And as the Yankees say, ‘I guess’; but I will tell you what I reckon.”73 It should be pointed out here that Brigham Young was a northern Yankee from New York state—not a Southerner. He may have deliberately chosen to employ the term ‘reckon’ instead of ‘guess.’

And what did Brigham Young admit that he was guessing about in this sermon? The very elements of the Adam–God Theory that are the most problematic. Here is what he said:

“I reckon that Father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives.”74
“I reckon our spirits and all the spirits of the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve.”75
“I reckon that Adam . . . himself planted [the Garden of Eden].”76

The bottom line is that the core principles of the Adam–God Theory were simply Brigham Young guessing or reckoning

 

Edited February 9, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.

Alleged?  Spencer W, Kimball undoubtedly knew that BY had taught the Adam God doctrine.  Not theory.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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?

The essays provide accurate information with which people can learn by study and faith, notwithstanding our various mindsets and perspectives at the time we read them. The Lord will lead the seeker of His will.

Regarding your question, President Kimball seems to be saying that the Adam-God theory is a doctrine which is not according to the scriptures, and which is alleged to have been taught by Church authorities in past generations. This is a small comment leading into the broader counsel concerning personal revelation, which I think is the resolution to decisions on what to believe despite the innumerable personal differences in how we assimilate and process information, feelings and our experiences. Our Own Liahona (churchofjesuschrist.org)

It seems that subject matter alone is insufficient justification for developing a Gospel Topic essay, but "special public interest" and "wide interest" is the key to what is selected. Church Provides Context for Recent Media Coverage on Gospel Topics Pages (churchofjesuschrist.org) Knowing how thorough the Church is in studying out her endeavors, I imagine surveys of some sort are used to help make that determination.

Edited February 9, 2023 by CV75

[Grug the Neanderthal]

18 minutes ago, manol said:

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

If that article (or another saying essentially the same thing) was published by the church, would that work in your opinion? 

I think this article is problematic, but this is probably about what I would expect the church to do if they ever did one. The current essays have FAIR written all over them. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Adam-God was considered doctrine during the Presidency of Brigham Young and for about 25 years afterwards.

Sort of.  The early leaders of the Church were a bit more loosey-goosey when it came to "doctrine" as opposed to conjecture / opinion.  Sometimes they conflated the two.  And sometimes the "common consent" requirement whereby "doctrine" is established was more a process than a specific and discrete event.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

It is important to note that Young did not consider the Adam-God theory official Church doctrine. He made it very clear that he considered it non-essential to salvation. No revelation was ever to the Church or was it ever promoted in official statements.

Young knew that the doctrine had become a stumbling block to some members of the Church and decided not to clarify or further confuse the matter. He said, the "subject ... does not immediately concern yours or my welfare... I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know" (October 8, 1854, Historical Department of the Church [HDC]).

According to one researcher on the subject, “those familiar with LDS history and practice are well aware that official doctrine must meet certain requirements which were not met by the Adam-God theory. The fact is it was never a part of the LDS canon, never presented in an official statement, never the subject of any known revelation, and never declared church doctrine by any recognized Church authority.”

In a private letter outlined by President Wilford Woodruff and written by Apostle Joseph F. Smith on the subject states:

The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's ‘bare mention’ was ‘without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.’ Only the scripture, the ‘accepted word of God,’ is the Church's standard (Letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, HDC).

The doctrine or theory was never advocated or taught in any official statement by the leadership of the Church (occasionally, doctrinal clarifications were and are issued by the First Presidency and by the Quorum of the Twelve. (It is important to note that new scripture may be added by common consent of the membership of the Church).

There is one case where the theory is referred to in a statement titled, "Instructions to the Saints," which appeared in the Deseret News. The statement was to clarify the doctrinal differences taught by Apostle Orson Pratt and President Young. Rather than stating what Church doctrine was on the matter, the statement simply said, "It is deemed wisest to let that subject (the Adam-God Theory) remain without further explanation at present" (Messages of the First Presidency 2:222).
...

Young seems to have decided to let the issue rest and not to explain more. He stated:

Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care of one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species. (JD 4:217; see also JD4:271; 7:238; 7:285; 11:43, 268).

The world may in vain ask the question: "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God who we serve. Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (JD 13:311. See also JD 1:238; 10:231; 13:309).

"Line upon line, precept upon precept" and all that.

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

It was then downgraded to a theory, and later declared false. And it wasn't something that was allegedly taught, there is concrete proof that it was openly taught by Brigham Young and other church leaders. Adam-God has serious doctrinal implications.

And yet, it does not seem to be binding on us.

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

We have received the endowment through Brigham Young who believed and taught Adam-God and declared that Adam-God was a central theme of the endowment. If he was wrong, that calls the reliability of the endowment teachings into question.

From FAIR:

Quote

Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it

The endowment was and is a ceremony that can be adapted to the needs of its audience. Brigham Young attempted to introduce the concept of Adam-God into the endowment, as far as it had been revealed to him and he was able to interpret it. He was not able to fully resolve the teaching and integrate it into LDS doctrine. After his death, Adam-God was not continued by his successors in the Presidency, and the idea was dropped from the endowment ceremony and from LDS doctrine. If there is anything true in that doctrine, one would expect that truth to be in harmony with what is already revealed. Only further revelation from the Lord's anointed can clear up the matter.

Not sure what you mean by "into question."

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

If he was this wrong about the identity of God, this would also call his credibility as prophet, seer, and revelator into question, along with the credibility of his successors.

We can pretty much always find something we can point to in this way.

I don't think "credibility as prophet, seer and revelator" ought to be viewed like a balloon, collapsible by a single prick.  

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And if he was right and Spencer W. Kimball was wrong, that's just as bad.

I don't think so.  It seems like a person can accept, or reject, the theory, be "right" or "wrong" about it, without that affecting his salvation.

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

And if the truth lies somewhere in the middle, then that is also a doctrinal issue in my opinion. 

There are all sorts of gaps and errors and limitations in our understanding of the Restored Gospel.  I suspect the Lord is not requiring a perfect understanding of these things.

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The church is in kind of a tough spot with this,

I'm not sure about that.  

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

which is probably why no essay on this topic has been written.

The Church is also in "tough spots" regarding polygamy, same-sex attraction/marriage, Mountain Meadows, and so on.  And yet the Church has published candid essays on these.

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

However, I'd be interested to see what type of explanation and stance the church today would give on this.

So would I, but none of us is situated to speak intelligently in response to such an inquiry.  It's all just speculation.

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

The "Brigham Young didn't say that or was misquoted" explanation no longer works.

I am not familiar with this explanation.  Most sources acknowledge what Brigham Young said, and I don't know of any substantive discussion alleging that he has been "misquoted."

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

His teachings are too well documented and easily accessible today. 

Yes, that's my point.  

Can you point to some instances of people saying "Brigham Young didn't say that or was misquoted"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Grug the Neanderthal]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Alleged?  Spencer W, Kimball undoubtedly knew that BY had taught the Adam God doctrine.  Not theory.

SPK's grandfather, apostle Heber C. Kimball, also taught Adam-God. I think it's highly unlikely that SPK didn't know that BY and HBK believed and taught this. But at this point in history, the original sources were not nearly as accessible to the general church membership as they are today. So they "allegedly taught" stance would have still been a pretty effective way to deflect and no throw BY and Co under the bus and open a huge can of worms at the time that he declared Adam-God it false from the pulpit.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

SPK's grandfather, apostle Heber C. Kimball, also taught Adam-God. I think it's highly unlikely that SPK didn't know that BY and HBK believed and taught this. But at this point in history, the original sources were not nearly as accessible to the general church membership as they are today. So they "allegedly taught" stance would have still been a pretty effective way to deflect and no throw BY and Co under the bus and open a huge can of worms at the time that he declared Adam-God it false from the pulpit.

HCK claimed to be the source of some of the teachings, btw.

Quote

Interestingly, there is some evidence that the ‘revelation’ claims for Adam–God ideology did not originate with Brigham Young, but rather with his close friend and associate Heber C. Kimball. There is one well-documented instance where Brother Kimball claimed that some of the concepts connected with the Adam–God Theory were revealed to him.46 There are also two other statements that need to be taken into careful consideration. The first comes from Thomas Stenhouse’s book. It reads: “Brother Heber had considerable pride in relating to his intimate friends that he was the source of Brigham’s revelation on the ‘Adam deity.’”47 Since Mr. Stenhouse was an apostate from Mormonism at the time he wrote this, some people might tend to discount his assertion. But the second statement seems to lend credence to it. This one comes from Elder Orson Pratt. He said that the notion of “Adam being our Father and our God . . . [was] advanced by Bro[ther] Kimball in the stand [or at the pulpit], and afterwards approved by Bro[ther] Brigham.”48

And Joseph’s teachings were also not as accessible to Brigham, so he may have been going by memory and filled in gaps or made jumps he wouldn’t have done if he had.

Quote

The entire text of that book was not published until 1867 but because it came through the break-off Reorganized church President Young would not have been likely to accept its authenticity. The full version of the Book of Moses would have effectively discounted several Adam–God Theory elements. It is noteworthy that the year after Brigham Young died John Taylor directed none other than Orson Pratt to publish the full Book of Moses in the first American edition of the Pearl of Great Price. It was canonized as a standard for doctrinal judgment just two years later.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

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?

I don’t think this is a contest between President Young and President Kimball or a test as to whether or not we should believe any of President Kimball’s teachings.  When has the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve ever taught this as doctrine?  Which general authority in your lifetime has taught this as church doctrine?  

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We can pretty much always find something we can point to in this way.

I don't think "credibility as prophet, seer and revelator" ought to be viewed like a balloon, collapsible by a single prick.  

One could toss out most of the Old Testament and a great deal of the New with the "single-prick" perspective. 

Peter denied Christ a few times, then repented and engaged in a great prophetic ministry. He received the revelation to accept Gentiles into fellowship, then waffled on integrating said Gentiles, for which Paul called him on the carpet. Given traditional accounts of his life and his appearance at the Kirtland Temple, God seems to have considered him a good and faithful servant anyway.

Jeremiah's prophecies were not exactly fulfilled to the letter and are reinterpreted by Daniel: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/08/ezra-11-jeremiahs-70-year-prophecies.html

Dan Ellsworth, as usual, has great thoughts: 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by OGHoosier

[JLHPROF]

39 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don’t think this is a contest between President Young and President Kimball or a test as to whether or not we should believe any of President Kimball’s teachings.  When has the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve ever taught this as doctrine?  Which general authority in your lifetime has taught this as church doctrine?  

Unanimity is required to make a teaching official but it has zero effect on whether something is true.

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

Is that so? Wikipedia sites George D. Watt that his private and unbinding publication, that Brigham Young edits the sermons for 1 volume out of 26 volumes, 10,000 talks mostly by Brigham Young.

And FAIR basically says what I said:

Quote

Also, it should be noted that the Journal of Discourses has never been published by the Church... ...it was done privately by George Watt

...It does in fact have some errors in it... ...attributed to the fact that the discourses given by the brethren were not always reviewed by them for errors (many gave their sermons impromptu, especially Brigham Young).

...The Journal of Discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Alleged?  Spencer W, Kimball undoubtedly knew that BY had taught the Adam God doctrine.  Not theory.

He knew the FLDS teach an alleged Adam-God doctrine and that it was false, not necessarily Brigham Young's.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Line upon line, precept upon precept" and all that.

I don't think that this principle applies here. We're talking about the Lord's mouth piece on earth and the head of his church potentially having a serious misunderstanding of who God is. At the very least we have one church president teaching that Adam is our Father in Heaven and the Father of Jesus Christ and then subsequent church presidents declared this teaching to be false. This leaves us with some unanswered questions.

Was BY right about Adam-God, but the Lord instructed him and subsequent leaders to stop teaching it publicly because it was a stumbling block for so many people? Was BY right and subsequent leaders just couldn't grasp it and therefore declared it a false doctrine by mistake? Was BY on to something, but didn't fully understand it? Was he right about some of it but wrong about other parts of it? Or was BY wrong about the whole thing? There are several possibilities, each with doctrinal implications. 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church is also in "tough spots" regarding polygamy, same-sex attraction/marriage, Mountain Meadows, and so on.  And yet the Church has published candid essays on these.

So why is there no essay on Adam-God then? 

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Can you point to some instances of people saying "Brigham Young didn't say that or was misquoted"?

Here are two examples from Joseph Fielding Smith:

"Relationship of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ. * * * In all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed." (Joseph Fldg. Smith, Doc. of Sal. 1:96, April 15, 1939)

"Question: In the Journal of Discourses Brigham Young is quoted as saying, “Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven.” I am unable to harmonize this with your statement that Adam is not “the father of Jesus Christ. . . .” Will you please clarify this discrepancy of opinion?

Answer: . . . The expression that he was the same character that was in the Garden of Eden has led to misunderstanding because of the implication which many place upon it that it had reference to Adam. . . . I maintain that President Young was NOT referring to Adam, but to God the Father, who created Adam, for he was in the Garden of Eden, and according to Mormon doctrine, Adam was in his presence constantly. . . .

. . . President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam." (Joseph Fldg. Smith, Ans. to Gospel Ques., Priesthood manual, 1972-73, pp. 20-22)

 

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I don’t think this is a contest between President Young and President Kimball or a test as to whether or not we should believe any of President Kimball’s teachings.

I don't think it necessarily is either, but taken at face value President Kimball is declaring the teachings of Brigham Young on Adam-God to be false. That's problematic and requires some kind of explanation in my opinion. 

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

When has the united voice of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve ever taught this as doctrine?  Which general authority in your lifetime has taught this as church doctrine?

I don't think that either of these questions has any bearing on determining the truth regarding Adam-God teachings one way or the other. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

And Joseph’s teachings were also not as accessible to Brigham, so he may have been going by memory and filled in gaps or made jumps he wouldn’t have done if he had.

Maybe. Then again, he was personally tutored by Joseph Smith and was likely far better acquainted with his teachings than we are today. We really only have a record of a small portion of what Joseph Smith taught. Much of what Brigham would have heard him teach was never recorded. There is also a decent amount of evidence that Joseph Smith taught Adam-God or something similar.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

The entire text of that book was not published until 1867 but because it came through the break-off Reorganized church President Young would not have been likely to accept its authenticity. The full version of the Book of Moses would have effectively discounted several Adam–God Theory elements.

I don't think that the Book of Moses is any more problematic for Adam-God than the KJV.

5 hours ago, Calm said:

He changed the way he taught it over the years, somethings quite quickly (see below).  I think his experience as leader and prophet made him more aware of the need to be careful in how he said things.  

While it's true that BY became more careful in how explicitly he taught Adam-God and in what setting, he clearly believed and taught pretty much the exact same version of Adam-God from 1852 to the end of his life in 1877.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There is also a decent amount of evidence that Joseph Smith taught Adam-God or something similar.

May I request that you provide this evidence? 

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Maybe. Then again, he was personally tutored by Joseph Smith and was likely far better acquainted with his teachings than we are today. We really only have a record of a small portion of what Joseph Smith taught. Much of what Brigham would have heard him teach was never recorded.

Undoubtedly true. However, the other apostles who disagreed with him, and declined to carry on the teaching of Adam-God, were also proteges of Joseph Smith. This is a moot point at best.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

While it's true that BY became more careful in how explicitly he taught Adam-God and in what setting, he clearly believed and taught pretty much the exact same version of Adam-God from 1852 to the end of his life in 1877.

I would be less confident in this statement. Our records are clear that he taught some variety of Adam-God, but they are too fragmentary to say that his 1852 presentation survived untouched to 1877.

More to the point, I have to ask a question. Say Brigham Young was mistaken. What is the doctrinal implication? Don't just say "there are implications", let's spell them out. What are they?

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't think that either of these questions has any bearing on determining the truth regarding Adam-God teachings one way or the other. 

 

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Unanimity is required to make a teaching official but it has zero effect on whether something is true.

 

Eh, I gotta disagree with both of these comments. A doctrine can be "true" as in "eternally binding in the heavens" - though try asking pre-Crucifixion Simon Peter if the Jewish ban on pork or Gentiles is "true" and the contingent nature of temporal prophecy will become evident - but that truth cannot be known without a means of discovering it. That means of discovery is what we're really talking about here, the doctrine in question is just the foil that brings us to that confrontation. Thank heavens for it. 

Unanimity of the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency is the modern standard for determining official doctrine and I say that very much bears on the question of whether or not we have reason to believe such-and-such doctrine is true.

Edited February 10, 2023 by OGHoosier

[carbon dioxide]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:45 PM, 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? 

Not sure how well it is easy to understand.  In fact based on the points you mention if correct its its filled with nonsense.  A resurrected being that is immortal became mortal and died again and was resurrected again later?   Immortality and resurrection are reversible.  I thought reincarnation was just for mortals.  I guess reincarnation is for resurrected beings as well. I have come to terms of what Brigham said in accordance to what the scriptures say.   There are many Adams and Eves.   God the Father can be called Adam and God the Mother can be called Eve, Its a generic name that can be given to pretty much anyone based on circumstances.  So I don't have a problem with what Brigham said though the way he said it, at least how its recorded in the JOD is a horrible mess. 

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

There are many Adams and Eves.   God the Father can be called Adam and God the Mother can be called Eve, Its a generic name that can be given to pretty much anyone based on circumstances.  So I don't have a problem with what Brigham said though the way he said it, at least how its recorded in the JOD is a horrible mess. 

Yeah, I'll note that a major presupposition in this whole discussion is the Western use of names. Names in a Western context are unitary identifiers. A name is attached to one object (or one class of object) and it refers to that object exclusively. 

Meanwhile, in the scriptures names seem to be based on roles. Elias, YHWH, Elohim, Cephas, even "taking upon ourselves the name of Christ"... a name is a descriptor, not an alphabetical ID code. All the more true of "Adam" and "Eve" - which just mean "Man" and "Woman." 

Edit: I'll add D&C 19, where God identifies Himself with the names Endless and Eternal, which only makes sense on a name-as-descriptor model.

Edited February 10, 2023 by OGHoosier

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There is also a decent amount of evidence that Joseph Smith taught Adam-God or something similar.

Did you read the FAIR presentation I linked to?  The similarity ends where Brigham contradicts core teachings from the Book of Moses, for example.  I think Matthew Brown does a good job at showing the likely path Brigham’s thought took from Joseph’s revelations and teachings to his/Heber’s teachings.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Not sure how well it is easy to understand.  In fact based on the points you mention if correct its its filled with nonsense.  A resurrected being that is immortal became mortal and died again and was resurrected again later?   Immortality and resurrection are reversible.  I thought reincarnation was just for mortals.  I guess reincarnation is for resurrected beings as well. I have come to terms of what Brigham said in accordance to what the scriptures say.   There are many Adams and Eves.   God the Father can be called Adam and God the Mother can be called Eve, Its a generic name that can be given to pretty much anyone based on circumstances.  So I don't have a problem with what Brigham said though the way he said it, at least how its recorded in the JOD is a horrible mess. 

God the Father doesn’t have to be Elohim, though he may be (assuming Brigham assumes the actual names of the three are Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael as believed by Joseph F. Smith).  There were multiple God the Fathers in Brigham’s cosmology.  Elohim apparently would have been the grandfather of Michael’s spirit, Jehovah his God the Father, Michael/Adam our God the Father.

Quote

On 8 October 1854 Brigham Young taught that Eloheim instructed Yahovah/Jehovah and Michael to organize the elements and create a world and then adorn it with various forms of life—as had been done previously (see Campbell, The Essential Brigham Young, 94). Brigham Young explained that “this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam”

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf

Did Brigham ever explicitly state Elohim was Adam/Michael or did he use “God the Father” or similar language only.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

While it's true that BY became more careful in how explicitly he taught Adam-God and in what setting, he clearly believed and taught pretty much the exact same version of Adam-God from 1852 to the end of his life in 1877.

I beg to differ.  At the very least there is a massive difference between teaching someone is damned for not believing and teaching it is unnecessary for our salvation.  If you mean solely the relationships and experiences of the Gods in his teachings, then please map out those concepts and show the dates those are taught occur throughout 1852 to 1877….at least show he taught the same concepts at the beginning and the end.  That is a CFR btw…(not challenging you on this, I want to see the documentation—preferably the corrected shorthand versions where they exist—of his teachings over time because I haven’t been able to find such a collection and would like to see for myself if it is consistent or not).

Edited February 10, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

From Jonathan Stapley’s work on Brigham’s Garden Cosmology, his view of core teachings of Joseph’s compared to Brigham’s…

Quote

First, Joseph Smith taught in the KFD that “God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all.”9 This idea is attested in four of the audits. Additionally, Joseph Smith taught this concept in sermons, letters, and revelations from 1839 to 1844 and was remarkably consistent. For example, one observer recorded Smith preach in 1840 that “Eternity means that which is without beginning or End,” and that “the Soul is Eternal. It had no beginning; it can have no End.” Later in the same sermon Smith reiterated “that the Soul of man—the Spirit, had Existed from Eternity.”10 In fact, the idea that human spirits are eternal and uncreated is perhaps the single best documented Nauvoo teaching of Joseph Smith11 and it was fundamental to his approach to the problem of evil.12

Second, narrating the time before the world was created Smith declared “that God himself finds himself in the midst of Sp[irits]” and he saw that it was “proper to institute laws for those who were in less intelligence that they mi[gh]t. have one glory upon another” and thus “save the world of the Sp[irits].”13 In other words, God beheld a body of uncreated spirits, and entered into a relationship with them that included establishing the laws necessary for their progression and salvation. This teaching is found in three of the audits, and is a concept that Joseph Smith taught as early as 1839.14

Third, Smith declared that if we were to pull back the veil from heaven we would see God “in all the person[,] image, very form of man,” noting (importantly for the topic of this article) that “Adam was created in the very fashion of God. Adam received instruction walked talked as one man with another.” Imago dei is a Latin theologi- cal term translated as the image of God, and denotes that humans were created in that image (Gen. 1:27). All humans are in the image of God; most readers of the Jewish and Christian scriptures stopped there, but Smith was not finished. He gave God a history: God “was once as one of us and was on a planet,” but importantly, he “was on a planet as Jesus was in the flesh.”15 This latter and often overlooked clarification is noted in all five of the audits. And expanding upon the idea, Smith narrated the relationship between Christ and the Father: “So hath the Son power to do what the Fa[the]r. did . . . to lay down his body & take it up—J[esus]—did as my Fa[the]r. laid down his body & take it up agn[.]”16 This idea, that Jesus did what the Father did before him is documented in Smith’s sermons in each year from 1841 to the year he died.17 According to Smith, God the Father was once a man like Jesus Christ was a man.

Lastly, Smith noted that humans were to follow in a path of exaltation. These uncreated spirits that God found himself among were to progress even to the station of gods, or as Smith stated, “K[ing]. & Priest to God”18—invoking the temple liturgy. Exaltation as being a king and priest to God is present in four of the sermon audits….

[T]he entire temple liturgy is predicated on the incorporation of women and men together into the material structure of heaven on earth—the “priesthood” to use the contemporary term. And the necessity that women and men both be integrated into this priesthood was essential from the first moments Joseph Smith revealed it. Without women and men together, Smith’s cosmos would be fractured and wasted.22
Again, to reiterate, Joseph Smith taught four concepts as part of his Nauvoo cosmology: (1) spirits were never created; (2) God wanted to help these uncreated spirits advance; (3) God the Father was once a man on a planet as Jesus was a man on our planet; and (4) humans are exalted to be kings and queens, priests and priestesses, and that God the Father is complimented by a Mother God. 

The core of Brigham’s Adam-God teachings fundamentally contradict Joseph’s Nauvoo cosmology according Stapley.  I am not that familiar with either to definitively say he is right, that Joseph never taught God was the literal father of our spirits in some way or that Brigham always taught that our spirits were created and could be destroyed.  Would be interested in documented opinions.

Quote

Brigham Young went so far as to claim that not only were spirits created through celestial procreation, but that the irreparable spirit would also be destroyed. Like the burning of wood and coal, or the composting of weeds, their matter—what Young frequently called “native element”—was recycled in births of new spirits. [from the corrected shorthand transcript]

Both Young and the Pratts imagined themselves within a cosmology of exaltation through their lived experience of procreative biology. This—the analogical exaltation of biology—then becomes the foundation of Young’s so-called “Adam-God” teachings.…

Unlike Joseph Smith’s uncreated spirits and gods, Young clearly taught the creation of spirits from unintelligent spirit matter. Thus for Young, God the Father at one point did not exist—a concept that many have found problematic. His response was to extend the familial chain. Analogizing a squash and a seed (his take on the proverbial chicken and egg), Young stated, “there never was a time when there was not both.” Then shifting to God, “who was the Father of God our Father[?]” Young asked. “[T]he Father who was before him[.] God his Father was before him that is all we can say about it.”…

Take, for example, the shorthand account of his sermon of June 18, 1865. Speaking of the creation of Adam and Eve, he stated: “God cre- ated he him male and female created he them . . . this is my view[:] he created him [Adam] just as you and I created our children[.] pre- cisely for there is no other process in heaven or earth[,] under it or in all the eternities that is[,] were or ever will be[.] there are certain laws[,] rules[,] regulations to govern and control the elements and control the intelligence that is formed from the elements[,] and this process is from everlasting to everlasting.”29 Brigham Young asserted that sexual procreation is a foundational law of the cosmos. Thus Adam was not created from the dust of this earth, or from “adobe” as Young frequently mocked.30 Adam was no mere golem. He and Eve were born the same way every other human is born. Young explained that this process happened not on this earth, “but another earth” where Adam lived, died, and from which “he was exalted to thrones and kingdoms and principalities and powers.” Then he “came here and commenced a work.”31 According to Young, Adam and Eve were resurrected beings from another planet.

also on how Brigham partially got there…

Quote

There was no need to worry, Brigham Young claimed, the scriptures and other related sources did not offer a reliable narrative of creation. They were, bluntly, “baby stories.”28 When confronting the teachings of the bible, he reverted to claims of natural law and biological imperative.

From the footnotes:

 

Quote

Young described these ideas as “natural philosophy.”

 

https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/jmh/article-abstract/47/1/68/219221/Brigham-Young-s-Garden-Cosmology

What made me first go to Stapley is his chart for Brigham’s main discussions on Adam-God.  Unfortunately I can’t get the screenshot to work

 

Edited February 10, 2023 by Calm