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

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I have read Elden Watson's take on Adam-God and strongly disagree with his interpretation. 

Watsons' two Adam idea is one of the worst LDS apologetics I have ever read.  Even when I was an full on believer and hobby apologist I found it non sensical.  So did John Tvetdness if I recall.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Watsons' two Adam idea is one of the worst LDS apologetics I have ever read.  Even when I was an full on believer and hobby apologist I found it non sensical.  So did John Tvetdness if I recall.

I agree that it's a total joke. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Watsons' two Adam idea is one of the worst LDS apologetics I have ever read.  Even when I was an full on believer and hobby apologist I found it non sensical.  So did John Tvetdness if I recall.

That is Robert Boylan's assessment as well: https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/11/refutation-of-elden-watsons-two-adams.html

Thanks,

-Smac

[carbon dioxide]

If the Adam-God view of what Brigham Young said is correct that the resurrected God the Father became mortal than it has to be true with every other world that exists.

Moses 1:33-34: "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.  And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many."

So we have a system of a resurrected being continually going from the resurrected to the mortal state and back again probably hundreds of billions times over again.  In fact it might have just happened in the last 5 minutes.  I does not make me fell too confident in my future resurrection.  Perhaps I will toggle from the mortal to the immortal a trillion times over.  The Atonement of Christ may not be what I expected it to be.  We get to be resurrected and die again, and again, and again, and again, and again....

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Adam-God view of what Brigham Young said is correct that the resurrected God the Father became mortal than it has to be true with every other world that exists.

Moses 1:33-34: "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.  And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many."

So we have a system of a resurrected being continually going from the resurrected to the mortal state and back again probably hundreds of billions times over again.  In fact it might have just happened in the last 5 minutes.  I does not make me fell too confident in my future resurrection.  Perhaps I will toggle from the mortal to the immortal a trillion times over.  The Atonement of Christ may not be what I expected it to be.  We get to be resurrected and die again, and again, and again, and again, and again....

That was Orson Pratt's objection too.

I don't see it as a problem.  It's an issue of perspective.

[Calm]

Is Two Adams essentially the same as Two God the Fathers or can they be viewed as two separate things?  Brigham Young identifies Elohim as a different being than Michael/Adam in what I have read and if that is consistent throughout, that creates a possible Two God the Fathers theory as opposed to two adams where one if the father of our spirits and the other is the one who takes the fall.  
 

So in Two Gods, Michael/Adam is called God the Father by Brigham because he is the Father of our spirits and ultimately our bodies as the first man.  Elohim is called God the Father because he is in charge of everything and all others do as he commands. Does that position contradict anything that Brigham claimed in his various Adam-God comments?  Not saying that is my personal position, I am not trying reconcile Brigham’s teachings as I find the idea of multiple falls for the same individual as uninspired at this time.
 

However, two God the Fathers makes more logical sense to me of what Brigham was teaching. But if he ever equated Adam and Elohim, that would be a fail.  I assume Elohim and Michael were kept separate by him.

Edited February 15, 2023 by Calm

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

If the Adam-God view of what Brigham Young said is correct that the resurrected God the Father became mortal than it has to be true with every other world that exists.

Moses 1:33-34: "And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten.  And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many."

So we have a system of a resurrected being continually going from the resurrected to the mortal state and back again probably hundreds of billions times over again.  In fact it might have just happened in the last 5 minutes.  I does not make me fell too confident in my future resurrection.  Perhaps I will toggle from the mortal to the immortal a trillion times over.  The Atonement of Christ may not be what I expected it to be.  We get to be resurrected and die again, and again, and again, and again, and again....

Good point.  Brigham seemed to really get this one wrong.

[Teancum]

On 2/13/2023 at 8:28 PM, OGHoosier said:

This is a reasonable and intuitive assessment. Surely we would want the apostles and prophets to be right on the most important things. However, this raises another question: what are the most important things, and do they always remain the most important things? I'm reminded of an anecdote from Ireland, which has been undergoing a precipitous de-Catholicization lately. There were controversies around the status of the liturgy, the role of Catholic tradition in public life, etc. Care to hazard a guess at one of the biggest flashpoints?

The Catholic tradition of abstaining from meat on Fridays. 

Now, it would seem to me that this is one of the less important things to dispute. But it had sunk so deep into the lived routine of Irish Catholics that its sudden revocation by the episcopal authorities jarred them very badly. What this illustrates is that a) what is key is in the eye of the beholder, and b) what is key to one generation may not be so key to another, and vice versa. I really gotta find that article again, it was really a very interesting (if short) read on religious sociology. 

Since revelation will be around intergenerationally, one way or another, it doesn't seem possible for God to thread the needle in a way that appears perfectly self-consistent without doing away with fallibility, even conceptually. 

Fair question. There has certainly been a big thread of high "prophet-ology" , I guess one might call it, running through Church history. The best example is Wilford Woodruff's claim that the prophet would never lead the Church astray, or God would whack them. The scriptures are consistent in saying that the prophet speaks for God. The list of prophets and apostles that have advocated this is too long to list - basically all of them. 

However, paired with this has been an equally resilient tradition of conciliar governance, going all the way back to D&C 107, and prophetic fallibility, going all the way back to D&C 1. Prophets have been hasty to say that "they are only prophets when speaking as prophets" or as Joseph Smith put it, "are moved upon by the Holy Ghost." J. Reuben Clark, James E. Faust, and D. Todd Christofferson are all on record stating that the Prophet can get things wrong, and that doctrine/canon is established by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. 

I'm not convinced these two traditions are in conflict at all, really, especially since all their advocates have practiced both. The President of the Church is the leader of the Church and has the initiative when it comes to revelation, but he can't establish doctrine all by himself. That's the synthesis in practice. I don't think it's always been practiced as such in the Church, but it has been for at least the last 70 years, and I don't think there's anything theologically wrong with the Church refining its practices of getting revelation.

I think they're more unique and beneficial because I connect with God primarily through the ordinances and fellowship of the Church, and that tells me that God's seal is upon it for all practical intents and purposes. I'll also admit to being very unimpressed with the quality of secular moral philosophy - seems frankly dysgenic. Finally, I just cannot believe in materialism. Can't do it. I would have to just ignore or handwave away too much with no good reason to do so. Given my rejection of materialism, I'd have to confront the mysterium tremendum via some other philosophy, and I find a very great deal here among the Latter-day Saints. I think we have compelling answers to the problem of evil, divine hiddenness, Euthyphro's Dilemma, and of course the great existential question of the anthropomorphism of God. There's also the most significant fact of all...I've had spiritual experiences here directly in connection with Latter-day Saint worship practices. Repeatedly, but not predictably. I frankly don't think they're from my brain - I am the expert on what my brain feels like, after all. And with my rejection of materialism, they make more sense as something external and spiritual, with which I enter a relationship of trust - which is the better translation imo of the Greek pistis, translated "faith." That faith has been rewarded. I'm a very young man. I have already been saved from a great many social maladies and neuroses by my adherence to my faith, which makes me think its generally to be trusted whereas the wisdom of my peers has fallen very short. 

Alma 32, basically lol. I echo @Kevin Christensen and @mfbukowski...the Book of Mormon goes hard when it comes to philosophy. More reason for me to take it seriously ;). 

By all means, read other good books - Joseph Smith was all about that. So am I. I even feel fairly similarly about scripture - but scripture wasn't just written for me. It has to be a least common denominator for millions of people across a plenitude of languages, cultures, and times, and it has to come from a fallible human too. I honor scripture for doing what it does...it doesn't need to do everything. I'll also note that when I do get insights from scripture, they hit differently than insights from, say philosophy reading.

Fair enough. You are certainly the expert on your own opinions; my statements, however, represent my understanding of your opinions and the implications of that understanding. 

On the nature and characteristics of God and the Godhead being fairly consistent: I think they are. I see Adam-God theory as a weird flash in the pan that Brigham's apostolic peers quenched, after all - the system handled it. However, throughout all of scriptural history, the conception of the Godhead has certainly changed, from YHWH and El among the pantheon to singular YHWH to the monarchial monotheism of the modern-day Church (I'll note that I don't consider the Triune God as an intermediary step there because I think it's extraneous).  However, the core characteristics of this presentation remain quite similar - I reflect on the very old story of Noah and the Ark and how its rhetorical effect is to juxtapose the Canaanite Flood stories of capricious deities with the Israelite God who just wants humans to stop hurting each other. I'm okay with the image flexing to fit the position of the people. I have an illustration.

Most people don't really grasp how the US government funds itself. The intuitive understanding of how taxes and budgets work is that your taxes go to an account at the Treasury, which are then disbursed to the organs of the government per the budget. Your taxes pay for government, literally. This is accurate for state and local governments, but not the federal government. Your federal tax dollars are deleted from existence and the Fed "prints" however much money the federal budget demands.  Why do we pay federal taxes then? Because, by deleting your tax dollars, the Fed can reduce the supply of dollars and thus offset the inflation that would be caused by their annual print-fest. There's some complicated formulas in there, but that's basically how it works. 

Is the first explanation false then? I would say no. Your tax dollars still pay for government, just not the way you thought; instead of buying paper clips and parachutes like you thought, they buy off inflation. You get the right idea of what your taxes accomplish in practical terms, and you don't need to understand as many terms. The early "simple" explanation intuitively captures the practical function of the later, "complex" explanation. This pedagogical tool is essential for early childhood education. I'd say its also essential for early civilizational education. Which is what we are undergoing.

I don't find it too hard to believe that God would help OT prophets make references to Christ to help Christian-era converts recognize what they're seeing, so in that case I subscribe to "the author is dead" literary interpretation because the Muse isn't dead, lol. Scripture and prophets, to me, represent a history of God's interaction with His people. We know, thanks to the divine gift that is D&C 19, that God is willing to allow misunderstandings if they advance His other goals. So, I could be the target of that same operation, but frankly, I'm already that way with everything else in society. Politics and science are both processes of iterative development in which I am right only provisionally, and religion touches on truths they can't. What's the loss? I'll trust God to catch me up on what I missed when I get to the other side - but I also don't have reason to think that I have missed much. I have reason to think that it's possible I'm wrong on religious things, but as things stand I don't think I have much reason to think that I am wrong on religious things. Does that make sense? 

 

Thinking and pandering all of this.  Will share some thoughts but not sure when.  Been a busy few days.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

On 2/14/2023 at 12:42 PM, smac97 said:

That is Robert Boylan's assessment as well: https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/11/refutation-of-elden-watsons-two-adams.html

Thanks,

-Smac

That was awesome. Thanks for sharing.