Calm Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) For those very familiar with the Adam-God teachings, does Brigham ever explain why if Adam had to eat plants of this earth in order to become mortal so as to be able to produce biological children, how was the immortal Adam able to produce Jesus using the identical biological method? Edited February 10, 2023 by Calm
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 5 hours ago, Calm said: 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). What does it mean to be damned? Isn't it to have ones progression stopped? If Adam-God is true and one refuses to accept it, then at some point their progression would be stopped until they accept it. But that's not one I'm referring to. The essence of Brigham Young's teachings on Adam-God, particularly that Adam is our Heavenly Father and the Father of Jesus Christ, remained consistent from 1852 to 1877. I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more remains to be told. (Brigham Young, JD 1:51) There seems to be no end to the number of different gods proclaimed by their worshippers. Yet Jesus said, “And this is life eternal that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.” (John 17:3) Knowing and understanding the identity of God is one of the first principles of the Gospel, yet it is one of the great theological mysteries. But even when some of these mysteries are revealed and explained to mankind, they have generally been rejected. It is no wonder that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young had such difficulty teaching these truths to both Mormons and non-Mormons. Many of those who followed Brigham Young in Church leadership positions experienced great difficulty with his teachings pertaining to the identity of God. They were explained away, misinterpreted, covered over, and even denied. On more than one occasion they were even labeled as false doctrine. It has frequently been said that Brigham Young never taught such things, or that he was misquoted. [102] However, the following selection of references by Brigham Young, as well as some of his contemporaries, demonstrates that he continued throughout his life to teach the same doctrine that he did in the famous sermon of 1852. It is important to note the consistency and frequency of these remarks regarding Adam and his unique position over this earth. April 9, 1852 Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken–He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. (Brigham Young, JD 1:50) April 16, 1852 Adam came to earth with a celestial body. (Jrnl. of Samuel H. Rogers) October 3, 1852 The Father of Jesus Christ was Adam. (Jrnl. of William Clayton) October 23, 1853 Supposing that Adam was formed actually out of clay; out of the same material from which bricks are formed; that with this matter God made the pattern of a man, and breathed into it the breath of life, and left it there, in that state of supposed perfection, he would have been an adobe to this day. He would not have known anything. (Brigham Young, JD 2:6) [103] December 10, 1853 Adam, the Father and God of the human family. The above sentiment appeared in Star No. 48, a little to the surprise of some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with the more candid and comprehensive mind. * * * It is upon this foundation that the throne of Michael is established as Father, Patriarch, God; and it is for all his children who come into this world, to learn and fully understand the eternity of that relationship. (Mill. Star 15:801, 802) February 19, 1854 He <Brigham> said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ. Our God was no more or less than Adam, Michael, the Archangel. (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal) September 17, 1854 Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth. Could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was, that He came from another world & made this. Brought Eve with him partook of the fruits of the earth begat children & they were earthly & had mortal bodies & if we were faithful we should become Gods as He was. (W. Woodruff’s Journal) October 8, 1854 Adam came from another world and brought Eve. They were the parents of every spirit on this earth. (Jrnl. of Joseph Lee Robinson) There is always an Adam & Eve as the 1st man and woman to earths. Adam & Eve were mortals and resurrected before this earth. (Samuel Richards’ Journal) [104] May 6, 1855 Adam and Eve had lived upon another earth. Were immortal when they came here. Adam assisted in forming this earth & agreed to fall when He came here & He fell that man might be. * * * So as soon as they began to eat of the fruit of the earth, they received into their system the seeds of mortality & of death. So their children were mortal & subject to death, sorrow, pain & wo. (W. Woodruff’s Journal) March 11, 1856 Orson Pratt does not understand how Adam could be God. (Hist. of Samuel W. Richards, p. 15) April 20, 1856 He <Adam> was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world, and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle. (Brigham Young, JD 3:319) June 29, 1856 . . . there is but one God that pertains to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth–the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world. . . . (Heber C. Kimball, JD 4:1) February 8, 1857 He <Adam> is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or [105] not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; . . . (Brigham Young, JD 4:217-18) October 7, 1857 Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. * * * when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, “Here; you have been faithful, good boys: I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;” then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam. (Brigham Young, JD 5:331, 332) March 24, 1858 Orson Pratt promises not to oppose Brigham Young’s doctrine that Adam is our God. (W. Woodruff’s Journal) June 19, 1859 The Apostles and Prophets, when speaking of our relationship to God, say that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone. God is our Father, and Jesus Christ is our Elder Brother, and both are our everlasting friends. This is Bible doctrine. (Brigham Young, JD 6:332) October 9, 1859 When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobes from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning. There is no such thing in all the eternities where the Gods dwell. Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth. (Brigham Young, JD 7:285) [106] May 20, 1860 I have been too free in telling who and what God is. (Brigham Young, Des. News) June 12, 1860 “This earth was once a garden place,” where God our Father dwelt, and took possession and a stand that mankind will take who attain to that honour. (Heber C. Kimball, JD 8:243) September 4, 1860 Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized. * * * He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph & Brigham. For this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print, and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have never had access to, and the Lord has revealed this doctrine unto them or they could not have taught it. (W. Woodruff’s Journal) October 14, 1860 Many of the sisters grieve because they are not blessed with offspring. You will see the time when you will have millions of children around you. If you are faithful to your covenants, you will be mothers of nations. You will become Eves to earths like this; and when you have assisted in peopling one earth, there are millions of earths still in the course of creation. (Brigham Young, JD 8:208) October 8, 1861 I will give you a few words of doctrine, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Br. Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published, therefore pay good attention, [107] and store it up in your memories. Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father and God, that will be a cause <curse> to many Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world holds it <in> derision. (Brigham Young, manuscript entitled “A Few Words of Doctrine”, Brigham Young Collection, Church Archives) February 23, 1862 Man is the offspring of God. * * * We are as much the children of this great Being as we are the children of our mortal progenitors. We are flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, and the same fluid that circulates in our bodies, called blood, once circulated in his veins as it does in ours. (Brigham Young, JD 9:283) April 30, 1862 The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God and Father of all the inhabitants of this earth. (Heber C. Kimball, Memorandum, Sacred History, Solomon F. Kimball, Church Archives) April/May 1863 . . . the land where our heavenly Father made his appearance and planted the Garden of Eden. This land is choice above all other lands upon the face of the earth. (Brigham Young, JD 10:222) January 8, 1865 One of the prophets describes the Father of us all, saying, “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the fiery flame,” etc. (Brigham Young, JD 11:41-42) [108] June 18, 1865 God has made His children like Himself, . . . He created man, as we create our children; . . . As the Apostle Paul has expressed it, “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being.” “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, . . .” I am quite satisfied to be made aware by the scriptures, and by the Spirit of God, that He (Adam) is not only the God and Father of Jesus Christ, but is also the Father of our spirits and the Creator of our bodies, . . (Brigham Young, JD 11:122-123) August 12, 1866 The kingdoms he possesses and rules over are his own progeny. * * * Our Father and God rules over his own children. (Brigham Young, JD 11:262) February 10, 1867 They <Israel> will come up tribe by tribe, and the Ancient of Days, He who led Abraham, and talked to Noah, Enoch, Isaac, and Jacob, that very Being will come and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (Brigham Young, JD 11:327) June 30, 1867 I ask this question of you, mother Eves, every one of you. If you are not sanctified and prepared, you ought to be sanctifying and preparing yourselves for the blessings in store for you when it will be said of you, this is Eve. Why? Because you are the mother of all living. You might as well prepare first as last. If you wish to be Eves and mothers of human families, you ought to bear the burden. (Brigham Young, JD 12:97) December 16, 1867 Adam is Michael the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ and is our God and Joseph taught this principle. (Brigham Young, W. Woodruff Jrnl.) [109] June 8, 1868 . . . Adam is our God. Who his God and Father may be I have no knowledge. (A. F. MacDonald, Minutes of the Provo School of the Prophets) December 11, 1869 Some have thought it strange what I have said concerning Adam. But the period will come when this people, if faithful, will be willing to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and God, but not the Father of their spirits, for that was our Father Adam. (Brigham Young, W. Woodruff Jrnl.) September 25, 1870 He is our Father; He is our God, the Father of our spirits; He is the framer of our bodies, and set the machine in successful operation to bring forth these tabernacles that I now look upon in this building, and all that ever did or ever will live on the face of the whole earth. This is the doctrine taught by the ancients, taught by the prophets, taught by Jesus, taught by his Apostles, taught by Joseph Smith, . . . (Brigham Young, JD 13:250) May 7, 1871 Do you not all know that you are the sons and daughters of the Almighty? If you do not I will inform you this morning that there is not a man or woman on the earth that is not a son or daughter of Adam and Eve. We all belong to the races which have sprung from father Adam and mother Eve; and every son and daughter of Adam and Eve is a son and daughter of that God we serve, who organized this earth and millions of others, and who holds them in existence by law. (Brigham Young, JD 14:111) [110] May 21, 1871 He <God> organized it <this world>, and brought forth the inhabitants upon it. We are his children, literally, spiritually, naturally, and in every respect. We are the children of our Father. . . . (Brigham Young, JD 14:136) May 18, 1873 I never saw any one, until I met Joseph Smith, who could tell me anything about the character, personality and dwelling-place of God, anything satisfactory about angels, or the relationship of man to his Maker. * * * We know more about God and the heavens than we care to tell. * * * Where is the divine who knows the least thing about that Being who is the Father of our Spirits and the author of our bodies? * * * What I know concerning God, concerning the earth, concerning government, I have received from the heavens, not alone through my natural ability, and I give God the glory and the praise. * * * but it is all by the power of God, and by intelligence received from him. (Brigham Young, JD 16:46) June 18, 1873 How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me–namely that Adam is our father and God–I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it. Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him, and after it was made he and his companions came here. (Brigham Young, Deseret Weekly News 22:308-309) August 31, 1873 When Father Adam came to assist in organizing the earth out of the crude material that was found, an earth was made upon which the children of men could live. After the earth was prepared Father Adam came and stayed here, and [111] there was a woman brought to him. Now I am telling you something that many of you know, it has been told to you, and the brethren and sisters should understand it. There was a certain woman brought to Father Adam whose name was Eve, because she was the first woman, and she was given to him to be his wife; I am not disposed to give any further knowledge concerning her at present. There is no doubt but that he left many companions. The great and glorious doctrine that pertains to this I have not time to dwell upon; neither should I at present if I had time. He understood this whole machinery or system before he came to this earth; and I hope my brethren and sisters will profit by what I have told them. (Brigham Young, JD 16:167) July 19, 1874 We shall go on from one step to another, reaching forth into the eternities until we become like the Gods, and shall be able to frame for ourselves, by the behest and command of the Almighty. All those who are counted worthy to be exalted and to become Gods, even the sons of God, will go forth and have earths and worlds like those who framed this and millions on millions of others. This is our home, built expressly for us by the Father of our spirits, who is the Father, maker, framer and producer of these mortal bodies that we now inherit, and which go back to mother earth. (Brigham Young, JD 17:143) May 14, 1876 Is there in the heaven of heavens a leader? Yes, and we cannot do without one and that being the case, whoever this is may be called God. Joseph said that Adam was our Father and God. (Brigham Young, Journal History, Church Archives) February 7, 1877 Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. He had received the [112] Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had gained his resurrection, and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he was through his faithfulness. And he had begotten all of the spirits that were to come to this earth. And Eve, our common mother, who is the mother of all living, bore those spirits in the Celestial world, and then this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam, our common Father. * * * Father Adam’s oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family, is Father Adam’s first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. In his divinity, he (Adam) having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spirit to Mary, and she conceived. For when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came. (L. John Nuttall Journal, see 1:18-21.) * * * From Brigham Young’s first announcement in 1852 right up to the year of his death (1877), he, as well as other Church leaders, continued to teach and defend the doctrine that Adam occupied the office and honored the title of God of this earth. However, those teachings were met with both acceptance and rejection throughout those 25 years. And for over a century since Brigham’s death, the controversy has continued–with both advocates and dissenters continuing to preach and write on this controversial Adam-God doctrine. But after considering the compilation of statements in this chapter, the evidence is clear that Brigham Young continuously taught this doctrine throughout his administration as Church president. [113] MICHAEL/ADAM by Ogden Kraut, Chapter 11 CHRONOLOGY OF THE DOCTRINE
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 6 hours ago, Calm said: Did you read the FAIR presentation I linked to? No I didn't. But I'm very familiar with the differences between the KJV and JST of Genesis (Book of Moses) as well as what BY and JS taught about Adam. I don't consider the Book of Moses to be any more problematic for Adam-God than Genesis. If there is a specific point you would like me to address, please share it.
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. Just because you consider what Brigham Young taught to be filled with nonsense doesn't mean that what he taught is false. So this really isn't helpful in the discussion. 8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. I agree that the names Adam and Eve are titles, but I disagree that they "can be given to pretty much anyone based on circumstances." They are the names given to the first man and first woman on each earth. And Adam-God as recorded in the JoD is consistent with other records of Adam-God teachings contained in journals and the minutes of church meetings. Edited February 10, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 10, 2023 Author Posted February 10, 2023 8 hours ago, OGHoosier said: May I request that you provide this evidence? This deserves its own thread. I will have to go through my notes and write something up. I will try to have a new thread on this up by the end of the weekend.
manol Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 7 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Meanwhile, in the scriptures names seem to be based on roles. Elias, YHWH, Elohim, Cephas, even "taking upon ourselves the name of Christ"... Word. 1
smac97 Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Quote "Line upon line, precept upon precept" and all that. I don't think that this principle applies here. I think this principle applies more often than we would sometimes like to omit. This one, too: "For now we see through a glass, darkly." (1 Cor. 13:12.) 10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: 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. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You seem to think that the accuracy or falsity of the Adam-God doctrine is pivotal or essential. I don't. I am quite okay with having "unanswered questions." They are part of the gig of the Latter-day Saint. We ought not claim that we have all truth, or that we fully understand all truth we have received, or that there is no room for some errors in our understanding. I think we still have quite a ways to go. "{H}e that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day." (D&C 50:24.) "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (AoF 1:9.) Meanwhile, I think there is more than enough meat on the bone to let us proceed in faith. As we look back to the early leaders of the Church, I think we ought to grant them a fair measure of grace, and then quite a bit after that as well. I have previously suggested this here: Quote I think we need to stop speaking evil of the Lord's anointed, both past and present. We can and should address disagreements in the Church, but in the right time, and place, and manner. I think we need to remind ourselves of Mormon 9:31. Often. "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." For the love of pete, we need to cut the early members of the Church some slack. A lot of slack, actually. It's not like the Lord gave them books entitled "How to Establish the Kingdom of God in Ten Easy Steps," or "Apostleship for Dummies," or "Everything You Want to Know About Revelation (But Are Afraid to Ask)." The early leaders of the Church were functioning in their leadership capacities with little or no "institutional knowledge" regarding the ins and outs of church governance. So when Brigham Young became an apostle, and then the Presiding High Priest, he had very little in the way of training from more experienced general authorities to teach him how to run the Church. And he had very little in the way of formal education (which, in the 19th century, would have been fairly limited anyway). The same goes for his predecessor, Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and his successors. And the Church was in tremendous turmoil and under much hardship for many years (persecutions in Nauvoo, the initial trek west, the ongoing flow of immigrants in the ensuing years, the settlement of the west, the creation of towns, the feeding and provisioning of thousands of newly-minted and -arrived church members, international missionary work, building the Salt Lake Temple, Johnston's Army, Mountain Meadows, polygamy, and on and on and on). I am deeply impressed at the accomplishments of the early leaders of the Church. Their experiences, their successes, and their failures, have been helpful to the subsequent generations of leaders and members of the Church. One of the benefits which are now accruing to today's leaders is the ability to look back and see what was done by past leaders, including perhaps some occasional tendency to publicly conflate personal opinion with scriptural/revelatory precepts. I think today's leaders are much better about differentiating between the two, and focusing on the latter to the exclusion of the former when making public, formal remarks in their capacities as General Authorities. These men and women had to deal with many more life-and-death issues, moral conundrums, matters of civil governance, and so on, than we do. It's easy for us to sit in front of our computers and presume to dole out judgments against people we've never met, who faced situations we've never seen, and dealt with challenges we've never endured. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (3 Nephi 14:2) The truth claims of the Church do not - or in my view ought not - stand or fall on the verity of the Adam-God doctrine. It's a pretty vague thing anyway. 10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: 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. Fair questions, these. And there are other questions as well. 10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Quote 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? The essays have apparently been reviewed and approved by the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency. None of us is privy to their deliberations on this issue (if any). My surmise is that the essays are intended to address questions that have a broad contemporary concern. Adam-God doesn't seem to fit the bill. 10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Quote 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). Elder Smith (he was not president at the time he wrote the above comment) was apparently referencing a single sermon by Brigham Young. And his surmise has a fair grounding. See here (emphasis added) : Quote SOURCE OF ADAM-GOD THEORY. President Brigham Young is quoted-in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!-as having said: “Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do. 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. Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: “It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael.” Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate…. ALL EXALTED MEN BECOME GODS. To believe that Adam is a god should not be strange to any person who accepts the Bible. When Jesus was accused of blasphemy because he claimed to be the Son of God, he answered the Jews: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” Paul said, writing to the members of the Church in Rome: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” And to the Galatians he said: “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Joseph Smith taught a plurality of gods, and that man by obeying the commandments of God and keeping the whole law will eventually reach the power and exaltation by which he also will become a god. (Joseph Fldg. Smith, Doc. of Sal. 1:96, April 15, 1939) That said, I think Elder Smith's "erroneously transcribed" doesn't work, both because the above quotation is far from the only iteration of the concept, and also because of this (from MormonWiki) : Quote Many claim that Brigham Young was misquoted. This has been so frequently claimed that Rodney Turner, a professor at BYU, felt he should address it in his M.A. thesis: "It is the writer's opinion that the answer to this question is a categorical no. There is not the slightest evidence from Brigham Young, or any other source, that either his original remarks on April 9, 1852, or any of his subsequent statements were ever misquoted in the official publications of the Church... "In the light of Brigham Young's attitude toward the errors of others, and in view of the division created by his remarks concerning Adam, it would be stretching one's credulity to the breaking point to believe that he would have remained silent had he been misquoted… Brigham Young would surely have referred to those misquotations at sometime or other—he never did… The complete absence of any real evidence to the contrary obliges the writer to conclude that Brigham Young has not been misquoted in the official publications of the Church..." ("The Position of Adam in Latter-day Saint Scripture and Theology," M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, August, 1953, pages 45-47) The MormonWiki article is a pretty solid compendium of information about this topic. Here is another: https://www.adamgod.com/ Then there are the seemingly inconsistent or contradictory statements from Brigham Young: Quote Brigham contradicting himself? We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal children. We believe that he made Adam after his own image and likeness, as Moses testifies; and in this belief we differ from the professedly Christian world, who declare that “His center is everywhere, but his circumference is nowhere.” Their God has no body nor parts; our God possesses a body and parts, and was heard by Adam and Eve Walking in the garden in the cool of the day (JD 10:230-231). I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted with God our heavenly Father, or the great Elohiem. You are well acquainted with Him, for these is not a soul of you but what has lived in His house and dwelt with Him year after year; and yet you are seeking to become acquainted with Him, when the fact is, you have merely forgotten what you did know... There is not a person here today but what is a son or a daughter of that Being. In the spirit world their spirits were first begotten and brought forth, and they lived there with their parents for ages before they came here. This, perhaps is hard for many to believe, but it is the greatest nonsense in the world not to believe it. If you do not believe it, cease to call Him Father; and when you pray, pray to some other character. (JD 9:216) "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 for 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 of one family and Jesus Christ is also of our species." (JoD 4:215, Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, February 8, 1857) "I have been your dictator for twenty-seven years - over a quarter of a century I have dictated this people; that ought to be some evidence that my course is onward and upward. But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? Sisters can you tell the difference? I can say this for the Latter-day Saints, and I will say it to their praise and my satisfaction, if I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, "I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!" - BY See also this synopsis at Saints Unscripted: Quote So essentially what we have is Brigham Young teaching a few different times that Adam—as in Adam and Eve—was God the Father in mortal form. In early statements, Brigham Young seemed pretty sure about this, but as time went on his language became a little less forceful and a little more opinion-based. For the sake of time I’m going to throw up a bunch of the stuff he said and if you’re interested you can pause the video and go through and read them. Now when you just look at these quotes, it seems pretty clear where Brigham stood on the subject. And I’m personally just fine with the idea that Brigham Young was mistaken. But it’s also not that simple, because for every reference to Adam as God, there are even more references where Brigham Young teaches that Adam is just Adam, and God is God. Two separate beings. Stephen Robinson said: “On occasion, my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don’t know what ‘it’ is.” An apostle, Elder Bruce R. McConkie echoed that statement: “What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.” The fact is that the standard works do not teach that Adam was God the Father. It’s not a doctrine of the restored gospel. It wasn’t something Brigham Young presented to the Quorum of the Twelve, in fact, at least one of the apostles of Brigham’s day, Orson Pratt, pushed back against the teaching. A later prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, denounced it. So the next question is, if prophets can make mistakes like this, then how can we trust that anything the prophets say is true? Keep in mind two things: First, these early saints, including Brigham Young, were all converts to the church. Everyone, especially converts, and especially in the early days of the Restoration, learn doctrine line upon line. That’s a lifetime process. We’re all ugly sharp rocks in a rock tumbler, and over time those edges get smoothed out. Nowadays there are checks in place to make sure that all official doctrine is unanimously agreed upon by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Second, I reference another quote from Brigham Young: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.” We do believe God answers prayers. So if you run into something you’re not sure about, study it out in your mind and see if God has anything else to say about it. Even the Church’s official newsroom says: Individual members are encouraged to independently strive to receive their own spiritual confirmation of the truthfulness of Church doctrine. Moreover, the Church exhorts all people to approach the gospel not only intellectually but with the intellect and the spirit, a process in which reason and faith work together. Thanks, -Smac 3
Teancum Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 18 hours ago, Pyreaux said: He knew the FLDS teach an alleged Adam-God doctrine and that it was false, not necessarily Brigham Young's. Baloney.
Calm Posted February 10, 2023 Posted February 10, 2023 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Teancum said: Baloney. I believe the FLDS have taken multiple mortal probations further than what Brigham taught, possibly added other things to it. I am not that familiar with their doctrine to judge. I might check that out later as now I am curious. Edited February 10, 2023 by Calm
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 11, 2023 Author Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 8 hours ago, smac97 said: The truth claims of the Church do not - or in my view ought not - stand or fall on the verity of the Adam-God doctrine. I agree and I made no such suggestion. However, if BY was dead wrong on Adam-God or SWK was dead wrong for calling it false doctrine, then I think this definitely calls into question the reliability of the teachings of the prophet, seer, and revelator on really any subject. If they can be this wrong about who God is, then how can we trust them to teach us the truth about God and his plan for us? What good is it to have a prophet, seer, and revelator if we can’t trust their teachings on God? This is a very common concern that people have over Adam-God. I think an essay addressing this conundrum would be helpful. 8 hours ago, smac97 said: I think Elder Smith's "erroneously transcribed" doesn't work Agreed. I don’t agree that Brigham Young contradicted himself on Adam-God in the way those two articles suggest. Not even close. His teachings on Adam-God were quite consistent in my opinion. Edited February 11, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
OGHoosier Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 42 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: If they can be this wrong about who God is, then how can we trust them to teach us the truth about God and his plan for us? What good is it to have a prophet, seer, and revelator if we can’t trust their teachings on God? Good question. What does "trust" mean? Because if absolute infallibility is required by trust, then you can't trust your own eyes by which you read all these things. 1
smac97 Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Quote The truth claims of the Church do not - or in my view ought not - stand or fall on the verity of the Adam-God doctrine. I agree and I made no such suggestion. Thank you for your clarification. Your comments here gave me that impression: "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." I am happy to stand corrected. 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: However, if BY was dead wrong on Adam-God or SWK was dead wrong for calling it false doctrine, then I think this definitely calls into question the reliability of the teachings of the prophet, seer, and revelator on really any subject. Could you elaborate? Absent an expectation of infallibility, this assertion has never worked for me. We have means whereby we can, for lack of a better term, "measure doctrine." Consider these remarks by Kent Jackson: Quote The more restrictive view of what constitutes scripture would include only what is called "the scriptures"-that is, the four standard works: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These constitute the canonized, authoritative corpus of revealed writings against which all else is measured. President Joseph Fielding Smith taught, "My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them…. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine" (DS 3:203). And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve: Quote It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they speak and write. Now you keep that in mind. I don’t care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer and revelator — please note that one exception {when he is speaking as the prophet, taught from earlier in the paragraph} — you may immediately say, “Well, that is his own idea.” And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard works (I think that is why we call them “standard” — it is the standard measure of all that men teach), you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. And these remarks by President Lee: Quote If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24–26, 1973, Reports and Discourses, p.69) And this observation by Elder Neil L. Andersen: Quote Some face trials of faith when they are confronted by others who want to discredit the Church and destroy faith. Some question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with Church doctrine. "There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church," he said. "The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in a obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find." And this excellent compilation from FAIR. And this sentiment attributed to Joseph Smith: "‘I will give you a key that will never rust, —if you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray." 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: If they can be this wrong about who God is, then how can we trust them to teach us the truth about God and his plan for us? The same way we always have. Consider these remarks by Michael Ash: Quote Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true. Your reasoning seems to isolate each prophet from all other others. I don't think that works. Your reasoning also seems to implicitly require infallibility. I don't think that works, either. If Bro. Ash is right, we can rely on the cumulative guidance found via Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: What good is it to have a prophet, seer, and revelator if we can’t trust their teachings on God? I think we can. We just need to ditch expectations of infallibility. 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: This is a very common concern that people have over Adam-God. I think an essay addressing this conundrum would be helpful. Perhaps so. I would certainly not be opposed to such an essay. 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Agreed. I don’t agree that Brigham Young contradicted himself on Adam-God in the way those two articles suggest. Not even close. His teachings on Adam-God were quite consistent in my opinion. Okay. Thanks, -Smac
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 11, 2023 Author Posted February 11, 2023 4 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Good question. What does "trust" mean? Because if absolute infallibility is required by trust, then you can't trust your own eyes by which you read all these things. No, I don't think that absolute infallibility is required in order for people to have full confidence in the teachings of the prophet, seer, and revelator and mouthpiece of God upon the earth about God and his will for mankind. However, there's a big difference between a prophet, seer, and revelator not being absolutely infallible and either teaching very wrong things about the character of God or declaring true teachings about the character of God from a previous prophet, seer, and revelator to be false doctrine.
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 11, 2023 Author Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Thank you for your clarification. Your comments here gave me that impression: "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." I am happy to stand corrected. My point is really on the reliability of the teachings of the church as delivered by the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 being undermined, not the truthfulness of the church or the restoration. But I also think that this issue, along with other issues, can cause a reasonable person to question the truthfulness of the church as well, whether that be the entire restoration, Brigham Young's legitimacy as the successor of Joseph Smith, or whether or not Joseph Smith may have fallen as a prophet by the end of his life. For example, in the Nauvoo Expositor there is statement by William Law and the other authors that one of the reasons that they considered Joseph Smith to be a fallen prophet was because he was teaching "a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his ability to fall with all his creations," which sounds an awful lot like Adam-God to me. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Could you elaborate? Absent an expectation of infallibility, this assertion has never worked for me. We have means whereby we can, for lack of a better term, "measure doctrine." I generally agree with JFS that we should measure doctrine using the four standard works. But I am also of the opinion that he made this statement with specifically Adam-God in mind as a means of justifying why he rejected this teaching. (He likely had other things in mind, too.) And using the scriptures as a measuring stick for Adam-God doesn't actually solve the problem. While there are a number of scriptures which appear to contradict Adam-God when taken at face value within the current view of the Godhead in the church, there are also scriptures which support Adam-God, too. And there are also scriptures which contradict the current understanding of the God-head in the church, while others support it. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: Your reasoning seems to isolate each prophet from all other others. I don't think that works. Your reasoning also seems to implicitly require infallibility. I don't think that works, either. What do you mean? I think that the teachings of true prophets, seers, and revelators about the character and identity of God ought to be very consistent with each other. I don't think that their teachings should be taken in isolation. This doesn't mean that prophets are required to be infallible, but in my opinion there's a big difference between not being infallible and having such an extreme disagreement about the character and identity of God. At the very least, this would suggest that our prophets are significantly more fallible than the church lets on. If BY can be as wrong as later presidents of the church claimed, what's to keep RMN or any other church president past or present from being dead wrong about things they teach as doctrine about God. 4 hours ago, smac97 said: we can rely on the cumulative guidance found via Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. I agree with this approach, but it again doesn't really help with Adam-God. Believers in Adam-God claim to have found guidance "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason" and so do those who reject Adam-God. So we're back to square one. Edited February 11, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
OGHoosier Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 9 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: No, I don't think that absolute infallibility is required in order for people to have full confidence in the teachings of the prophet, seer, and revelator and mouthpiece of God upon the earth about God and his will for mankind. However, there's a big difference between a prophet, seer, and revelator not being absolutely infallible and either teaching very wrong things about the character of God or declaring true teachings about the character of God from a previous prophet, seer, and revelator to be false doctrine. Okay, but if you're going to say that then the next question follows. What can the prophet to be fallible about? What in the Gospel is not comparably serious? Are the commands of God somehow less important than the identity of God? Because that is what we're talking about here - God's character is His attributes, His power, etc., none of which is changed by Adam-God. All Adam-God does is identify God with Adam. It's an identity question, not a character question. Which is more important? What would be okay? What is the prophet allowed to be mistaken about? I'm going to be honest with you; what with the priesthood restriction and Adam-God, I do not believe that the prophets are infallible, and I think everybody has different answers to that question I just posed to you. I think Adam-God concerns the identity of God and not His character, and therefore is not so awful of a problem (especially since the Church didn't carry it on past Brigham's death). But I think everybody will have different rankings of what they consider to be most important, and therefore there can be no answer to the question that I posed to you. I think God will not allow the prophet to set the Church on a catastrophically wrong trajectory. I believe that a prophet's words should be believed until they are corrected by that same authority - but prophets have the power to correct prophets. It was thus in the Old Testament, it was thus in the New, and it is thus in the Restoration thereof. 2
Tacenda Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: I agree and I made no such suggestion. However, if BY was dead wrong on Adam-God or SWK was dead wrong for calling it false doctrine, then I think this definitely calls into question the reliability of the teachings of the prophet, seer, and revelator on really any subject. If they can be this wrong about who God is, then how can we trust them to teach us the truth about God and his plan for us? What good is it to have a prophet, seer, and revelator if we can’t trust their teachings on God? This is a very common concern that people have over Adam-God. I think an essay addressing this conundrum would be helpful. Agreed. I don’t agree that Brigham Young contradicted himself on Adam-God in the way those two articles suggest. Not even close. His teachings on Adam-God were quite consistent in my opinion. Well, the church knows that many leave the church over a lot of these essays, maybe that's their reluctance...thinking of the Book of Abraham and the Papyri, polygamy in Palmyra, the Priesthood Ban etc. The Adam-God might just nail the coffin shut.
carbon dioxide Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 3 hours ago, Tacenda said: Well, the church knows that many leave the church over a lot of these essays, maybe that's their reluctance...thinking of the Book of Abraham and the Papyri, polygamy in Palmyra, the Priesthood Ban etc. The Adam-God might just nail the coffin shut. I have heard this claim that many leave the church over the essays but where is the evidence of people leaving in a statistically significant way?
carbon dioxide Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 14 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: No, I don't think that absolute infallibility is required in order for people to have full confidence in the teachings of the prophet, seer, and revelator and mouthpiece of God upon the earth about God and his will for mankind. However, there's a big difference between a prophet, seer, and revelator not being absolutely infallible and either teaching very wrong things about the character of God or declaring true teachings about the character of God from a previous prophet, seer, and revelator to be false doctrine. Prophets/apostles have a right to their own views and can be wrong on occasion. We have no right or expectation to demand that they be correct 100% of the time. We would not want people to demand that of us. It is unfair to demand that of them. Prophets know only what God tells them and even when God tells them something, they may not understand the topic completely. They may try to piece things together to make sense of things they do not understand and sometimes their efforts may be right and other times not so much. What seems clear to me is Brigham's Adam-God issue never really developed or was spread much beyond him. It does not seem to have been spread down to the ward level and in Sunday School classes. The membership as a whole never really taught it in anyway. Something one would expect from a true teaching or doctrine of the church. What use is it to teach a true doctrine or teaching that never gets accepted and pushed in any meaningful way? I have my own version or view of what the Adam-God issue is using the scriptures as my primary source. Personally I think most of what Brigham said was right but either he or the scribes butchered it so much that it creates confusion. I do blame Brigham for being very loose or careless on his terminology it thus created problems. That is just my opinion. Some of the views are just off the rails like the idea that the individual called Adam in Genesis is God the Father. That is ABSURD. God the Father is a resurrected being. He is a perfect being and can not die, EVER after being resurrected. Edited February 11, 2023 by carbon dioxide
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 11, 2023 Author Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 15 hours ago, OGHoosier said: What can the prophet to be fallible about? Prophets can be fallible in their own personal righteousness. They have their own personal weaknesses and can sin and make other mistakes. They can also teach things that are wrong or instruct people to do things that are wrong. But I think that there is a limit to how much a prophet can sin, how seriously they can err in what they instruct people to do, and to what degree a prophet can teach something false, especially when it comes to doctrine about who God is and how the plan of salvation works and still be considered a true prophet whose teachings can be trusted. 15 hours ago, OGHoosier said: God's character is His attributes, His power, etc., none of which is changed by Adam-God. For the most part I agree here. Certainly most of our Heavenly Fathers attributes, powers, etc. are not changed whether or not he is Adam. However, Adam-God is not without significance. According to Adam-God, our Heavenly Father had the ability to leave his exalted and immortal state for a time and condescend to earth, fall, and become mortal again for a time. According to Adam-God all of us are literally physically and spiritually children of our Heavenly Father. According to Adam-God, our Heavenly Father is a polygamist and for each planet one of his wives serves as the Heavenly Mother and Eve for that planet. According to Adam-God the destiny of righteous men and women is to become Adams and Eve's of planets ourselves. 15 hours ago, OGHoosier said: I believe that a prophet's words should be believed until they are corrected by that same authority - but prophets have the power to correct prophets. It was thus in the Old Testament, it was thus in the New, and it is thus in the Restoration thereof. Can you please provide some examples of prophets in the scriptures correcting the false teachings of previous prophets? 2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Some of the views are just off the rails like the idea that the individual called Adam in Genesis is God the Father. That is ABSURD. God the Father is a resurrected being. He is a perfect being and can not die, EVER after being resurrected. Like I said before, just because you believe that the idea that Adam in Genesis is God the Father is completely off the rails and absurd, doesn't mean that it is. Brigham didn't think so and neither does anyone who believes in Adam-God. There is evidence in the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith that support the idea that Adam in Genesis is God the Father. There's also evidence that appears to contradict it. Edited February 11, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
Tacenda Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Prophets can be fallible in their own personal righteousness. They have their own personal weaknesses and can sin and make other mistakes. They can also teach things that are wrong or instruct people to do things that are wrong. But I think that there is a limit to how much a prophet can sin, how seriously they can err in what they instruct people to do, and to what degree a prophet can teach something false, especially when it comes to doctrine about who God is and how the plan of salvation works and still be considered a true prophet whose teachings can be trusted. For the most part I agree here. Certainly most of our Heavenly Fathers attributes, powers, etc. are not changed whether or not he is Adam. However, Adam-God is not without significance. According to Adam-God, our Heavenly Father had the ability to leave his exalted and immortal state for a time and condescend to earth, fall, and become mortal again for a time. According to Adam-God all of us are literally physically and spiritually children of our Heavenly Father. According to Adam-God, our Heavenly Father is a polygamist and for each planet one of his wives serves as the Heavenly Mother and Eve for that planet. According to Adam-God the destiny of righteous men and women is to become Adams and Eve's of planets ourselves. Can you please provide some examples of prophets in the scriptures correcting the false teachings of previous prophets? Like I said before, just because you believe that the idea that Adam in Genesis is God the Father is completely off the rails and absurd, doesn't mean that it is. Brigham didn't think so and neither does anyone who believes in Adam-God. There is evidence in the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith that support the idea that Adam in Genesis is God the Father. There's also evidence that appears to contradict it. I may be way off the mark, but do you want the Adam-God theory to be right? Edited February 11, 2023 by Tacenda
manol Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Can you please provide some examples of prophets in the scriptures correcting the false teachings of previous prophets? This question wasn't directed at me, but here's an example that comes to mind: "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." (Matthew 5:38-42) I'm not sure that Jesus' teachings in this passage have actually caught on in the two thousand years since they were given, but there they are, directly contradicting Leviticus 24:19-20 in word and in spirit. Edited February 11, 2023 by manol 2
OGHoosier Posted February 11, 2023 Posted February 11, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Prophets can be fallible in their own personal righteousness. They have their own personal weaknesses and can sin and make other mistakes. They can also teach things that are wrong or instruct people to do things that are wrong. Agreed. 2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: But I think that there is a limit to how much a prophet can sin, how seriously they can err in what they instruct people to do, and to what degree a prophet can teach something false, especially when it comes to doctrine about who God is and how the plan of salvation works and still be considered a true prophet whose teachings can be trusted. Honestly, I also agree. However, I think we can err just as easily (probably easier) when we are trying to judge if a prophet has done so. The thing I most take issue with is your specification of "doctrine about who God is and how the plan of salvation works" as the dividing line, because it suggests that you have authority to declare which parts of the gospel are "more important" than the others - presumably the ones the prophets "especially" can't get wrong, no? I don't think any of us can just pick that - at best we can pick what's most important to us. Plus, it doesn't really work when you go back to the Bible. The Old Testament prophets taught a gospel of sacrifice and obedience - which are true and vital principles - but they taught without anything more than indirect reference to the indispensable element of salvation that is Christ's Atonement. In Alma 40 Alma teaches Corianton about salvation but leaves it pretty much about heaven and hell after the resurrection - no reference to what we now know about degrees of glory and such. You can argue that they were operating with less light and knowledge, but what is indisputable is that they left their listeners with an impression about the Plan of Salvation that was fundamentally inaccurate and which conflicts with later revelation on its face. The best case, though, is visible in D&C 19:1-13. In this paradigmatic section, the voice of Christ declares that He had divine punishment described as "endless" and "eternal". I will quote verses 6 and 7. Quote 6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment. 7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of men, altogether for my name's glory. After which He continues and explains that Eternal and Endless are among His names (significant for the Adam-God discussion in that names are clearly descriptions here, not just identifiers - Endless is not God's name in the same sense that OGHoosier is mine), and therefore "endless torment" and "eternal damnation" represent claims that God owns the punishments, not descriptions of their actual nature. However...far be it from me to act irreverently towards the Lord of Sabaoth, but surely He knew that this would be misunderstood by just about everybody. And clearly it was, since He had to clarify it. He could have stated Himself more clearly. He could have clarified in earlier scripture that the punishments are His, but are not never-ending. He could have said that the concept of never-ending punishment was a corruption introduced into the scriptures. But Christ did none of these things. Instead He owned the words, and gave His reason for choosing them - they are more express and work upon the hearts of men. In short, the Lord chose a rhetorical strategy that traded accuracy for impact. He accommodated mankind in the situation, giving revelation according to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom were placed...actively instructing His prophets to teach something He knew would leave people with a false impression. The misinterpretation was the point, Christ was banking on it! Inasmuch as He can say that He wasn't lying because of His names, He's technically correct...the best kind of correct. But this is loophole logic and we know it. Christ knows it. He chose to show us the loophole because it teaches us something very important about prophecy and ongoing revelation. D&C 19 is dictated in the words of Christ. Either Joseph Smith got the message very wrong in transit or Christ is saying something like the following: prophets can misunderstand, they can be misunderstood, and God can use even the misunderstandings for His glory. Or He can allow it and correct them later. How do I see Adam-God? I see it as Brigham Young getting a funky interpretation of scripture and liturgy (which fluctuated in the particulars throughout his life and for which he claimed no moment of particular revelation) which the collected Apostles did not take up, nor did they allow to spread, and which later prophets repudiated. That looks like correction to me. As for prophets in general, I say that prophets can correct prophets, and so we follow the prophets as they come. I look to D&C 107:21-32, which invests no one individual with exalted authority but rather invests authority in quorums over which the Presidents preside. God works through all of them, with the President of the Church as first among equals. This "quorums-based" approach has been ascendant among General Conference talks of late, and I am quite happy about it. 2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Can you please provide some examples of prophets in the scriptures correcting the false teachings of previous prophets? Sure. In Jeremiah 25:8-12 and 29:10-14, Jeremiah prophesies that the Lord will let Babylon rule Judea for 70 years and then He will punish them and restore Judah. This...does not happen, and the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel both creatively reinterpret Jeremiah's words in order to adapt them to events as they actually played out. See here: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/08/ezra-11-jeremiahs-70-year-prophecies.html Joseph Smith's own revelations on the Plan of Salvation expand on and correct the simpler but inaccurate teachings of Book of Mormon prophets. Peter gets the revelation to revoke the kosher laws and open the Church to the Gentiles. However, as Paul details in Galatians 2:11-14, Peter later pulled back on that, separated himself from the Gentiles he had previously worshiped with, and compelled the Gentiles to follow the Jewish law. It looks like some Jewish Christians which were sent by James the Just (whom Paul regards as an apostle) caused Peter's about-face. Paul has to correct Peter on this when he comes to Antioch, and records his argument in Galatians 2:14-21. As part of it he accuses Peter of misunderstanding the nature of Christ's atonement and acting foolishly. This is pretty much directly analogous to latter-day Apostles repudiating and correcting Brigham Young's teaching with respect to Adam-God. Edited February 11, 2023 by OGHoosier 2
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 12, 2023 Author Posted February 12, 2023 5 hours ago, OGHoosier said: Agreed. Honestly, I also agree. However, I think we can err just as easily (probably easier) when we are trying to judge if a prophet has done so. The thing I most take issue with is your specification of "doctrine about who God is and how the plan of salvation works" as the dividing line, because it suggests that you have authority to declare which parts of the gospel are "more important" than the others - presumably the ones the prophets "especially" can't get wrong, no? I don't think any of us can just pick that - at best we can pick what's most important to us. Plus, it doesn't really work when you go back to the Bible. The Old Testament prophets taught a gospel of sacrifice and obedience - which are true and vital principles - but they taught without anything more than indirect reference to the indispensable element of salvation that is Christ's Atonement. In Alma 40 Alma teaches Corianton about salvation but leaves it pretty much about heaven and hell after the resurrection - no reference to what we now know about degrees of glory and such. You can argue that they were operating with less light and knowledge, but what is indisputable is that they left their listeners with an impression about the Plan of Salvation that was fundamentally inaccurate and which conflicts with later revelation on its face. The best case, though, is visible in D&C 19:1-13. In this paradigmatic section, the voice of Christ declares that He had divine punishment described as "endless" and "eternal". I will quote verses 6 and 7. After which He continues and explains that Eternal and Endless are among His names (significant for the Adam-God discussion in that names are clearly descriptions here, not just identifiers - Endless is not God's name in the same sense that OGHoosier is mine), and therefore "endless torment" and "eternal damnation" represent claims that God owns the punishments, not descriptions of their actual nature. However...far be it from me to act irreverently towards the Lord of Sabaoth, but surely He knew that this would be misunderstood by just about everybody. And clearly it was, since He had to clarify it. He could have stated Himself more clearly. He could have clarified in earlier scripture that the punishments are His, but are not never-ending. He could have said that the concept of never-ending punishment was a corruption introduced into the scriptures. But Christ did none of these things. Instead He owned the words, and gave His reason for choosing them - they are more express and work upon the hearts of men. In short, the Lord chose a rhetorical strategy that traded accuracy for impact. He accommodated mankind in the situation, giving revelation according to the circumstances in which the children of the Kingdom were placed...actively instructing His prophets to teach something He knew would leave people with a false impression. The misinterpretation was the point, Christ was banking on it! Inasmuch as He can say that He wasn't lying because of His names, He's technically correct...the best kind of correct. But this is loophole logic and we know it. Christ knows it. He chose to show us the loophole because it teaches us something very important about prophecy and ongoing revelation. D&C 19 is dictated in the words of Christ. Either Joseph Smith got the message very wrong in transit or Christ is saying something like the following: prophets can misunderstand, they can be misunderstood, and God can use even the misunderstandings for His glory. Or He can allow it and correct them later. How do I see Adam-God? I see it as Brigham Young getting a funky interpretation of scripture and liturgy (which fluctuated in the particulars throughout his life and for which he claimed no moment of particular revelation) which the collected Apostles did not take up, nor did they allow to spread, and which later prophets repudiated. That looks like correction to me. As for prophets in general, I say that prophets can correct prophets, and so we follow the prophets as they come. I look to D&C 107:21-32, which invests no one individual with exalted authority but rather invests authority in quorums over which the Presidents preside. God works through all of them, with the President of the Church as first among equals. This "quorums-based" approach has been ascendant among General Conference talks of late, and I am quite happy about it. Sure. In Jeremiah 25:8-12 and 29:10-14, Jeremiah prophesies that the Lord will let Babylon rule Judea for 70 years and then He will punish them and restore Judah. This...does not happen, and the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Daniel both creatively reinterpret Jeremiah's words in order to adapt them to events as they actually played out. See here: http://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2020/08/ezra-11-jeremiahs-70-year-prophecies.html Joseph Smith's own revelations on the Plan of Salvation expand on and correct the simpler but inaccurate teachings of Book of Mormon prophets. Peter gets the revelation to revoke the kosher laws and open the Church to the Gentiles. However, as Paul details in Galatians 2:11-14, Peter later pulled back on that, separated himself from the Gentiles he had previously worshiped with, and compelled the Gentiles to follow the Jewish law. It looks like some Jewish Christians which were sent by James the Just (whom Paul regards as an apostle) caused Peter's about-face. Paul has to correct Peter on this when he comes to Antioch, and records his argument in Galatians 2:14-21. As part of it he accuses Peter of misunderstanding the nature of Christ's atonement and acting foolishly. This is pretty much directly analogous to latter-day Apostles repudiating and correcting Brigham Young's teaching with respect to Adam-God. I appreciate you providing some examples of what you believe were prophets correcting other prophets in the scriptures. I get what you’re saying, but I disagree that any corrections were happening in the situations you mentioned. I believe more light was being added or a lower law was replaced, but no false teachings were corrected. We also don’t know how much the Old Testament prophets taught about Christ that isn’t recorded in our current scriptures. Nor do we know how much they knew but weren’t allowed to openly teach because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. I also want to clarify that I’m not claiming that Brigham's teachings on Adam-God were false. All I’m doing is looking at the implications of later apostles and presidents of the church declaring his teachings on Adam-God to be false. BY and SWK can’t both be right about Adam-God. And I think that needs some kind of explanation by the church.
Grug the Neanderthal Posted February 12, 2023 Author Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, Tacenda said: I may be way off the mark, but do you want the Adam-God theory to be right? I want to know the truth about Adam-God. And I hope that I’m prepared to recognize and accept the truth, whatever it may be. I will say that I think it’s much worse for the church if Brigham was wrong than if he was right or at least partially right. I think the idea that later apostles just couldn’t grasp what he was getting at or he didn’t explain it well enough to be far better than him teaching totally absurd things about who our Heavenly Father is. In my opinion if what BY taught in regards to Adam-God is completely absurd, that undermines the credibility of our prophets, seers, and revelators and calls into question the reliability of the endowment ceremony. Edited February 12, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
carbon dioxide Posted February 12, 2023 Posted February 12, 2023 (edited) 10 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Like I said before, just because you believe that the idea that Adam in Genesis is God the Father is completely off the rails and absurd, doesn't mean that it is. Brigham didn't think so and neither does anyone who believes in Adam-God. There is evidence in the scriptures and teachings of Joseph Smith that support the idea that Adam in Genesis is God the Father. There's also evidence that appears to contradict it. I think the idea that immortal beings, resurrected beings can die is absurd. It not than when we are resurrected, it is possible we can die again. Which suggests that if resurrected beings can die, the Atonement of Christ is not as great as we have be taught to believe. It is pretty much temporary and reversible. The name Adam is a generic name and can be applied to literally hundreds of billions of individuals. God the Father can be called Adam. Jesus Christ can be called Adam. Michael can be called Adam. Moses 1 tells us that every world that God has created, countless before man so hundreds of billions, has called the first man on those worlds as Adam. Hundreds of billions of Adams in the Universe. We are called to be Adams. When God the Father and Christ appeared to Adam in the garden, there were basically three Adams in the garden. I think is best to teach with the least amount of confusion possible. That is my biggest problem with what Brigham said. He was kind of promiscuous in his usage of that name and it has created problems. I see no reason why the Holy Ghost could not be called Adam as well. It just seem to be a name that can be attached to a lot of different individuals. I think its best to reconcile with what Brigham Young said, if he said any truth at all, with the scriptures and what has been taught generally by the mouths of God's servants. The whole premise of the two and three witnesses principle applies. We should refer to God the Father as the Father. We should refer to Jesus as the Son. We should refer to Michael as Adam. Michael or Adam was called by the Father and the Son to be Lord over all the earth while in the garden. Michael or Adam is still Lord over all the earth and will continue to be Lord over this earth until he is released from that calling which occurs before the 2nd Coming when the Son comes to Adam or the ancient of days in Daniel and those powers or keys are transferred from Michael or Adam to Christ. Until then, Michael or Adam is running the day to day show on in this world. Edited February 12, 2023 by carbon dioxide 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now