Adam-God Theory

[_Pokatator]

Thank you for the web site Cinepro.

Welcome to the board Kolohe, great question and a great avatar. I am a big fan of Israel.

[_bcspace]

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?

Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

[_collegeterrace]

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?

Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

Nice try fool.

Young claimed that he had "never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (13 J.D. 95.) In 1873, Young lamented, "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." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

[_ludwigm]

==quote== Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?==/quote==
Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.
BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

Nice try fool.
Young claimed that he had "never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (13 J.D. 95.) In 1873, Young lamented, "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." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

I've translated bcspace's words for You:

BY never taught such a thing. He has preached sermons and has given interviews to Deseret News.
In one of his sermons he said that his sermons are scriptures.
In one of his interviews he said that there is a particular doctrine which God revealed to him and he revealed to the other Latter-day Saints - namely that Adam is our Father and God. (Maybe, he said his private opinion, he talked as man, not as THE PROPHET.)
Can You find one word about teaching?

You know, the story is about words restored (=redefined).
Horse means deer. Or tapir. Or whatever.

[_cinepro]

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

Can you provide the quotes from Brigham Young where he says that?

[_Who Knows]

BY didn't know wtf he was talking about. He contradicted himself (which is how BCSpace chooses to get his 'out') regarding adam/god.

To try to make sense of what he 'taught' is silly.

He was making it up as he went along, just like all the early church leaders.

[_Alter Idem]

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?

Thanks to Cinepro's link, I can. Thank-you, thank-you Cinepro!!!!

I wrote on this topic on my blog at MADB.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... blogid=18&

From my article;
In a nutshell, this is what the Adam-God theory which Brigham Young taught comprised;

Adam was a resurrected, immortal being, someone who had lived on an earth like ours, had received his exaltation and become one of "the gods". In the celestial world he and his wives begat spirit children (that's us) and so he is the father of all the spirits who inhabit this earth. He and his wife Eve came to earth and together they ate the fruits and veges of the earth, which had the effect on their bodies as to allow them to bear mortal children. They became as little children, forgetting all and "fell" that the plan could carry on. Later they died, but "did not lay their bodies down in the dust" but went back to the spirit world.

Jesus Christ is Adam's oldest spirit son, his heir; He was the firstborn of his spirit children in the Celestial world. Hence it was Adam who came to the virgin Mary and is the literal father of Jesus.

Pres.Young did not explain what relationship there was between Eloheim, Jesus Christ and Adam--but he did suggest that Eloheim is the Grandfather of Adam. (see page 18-19) Brigham Young saw Eloheim as a separate being from Adam and claimed that Adam had contact with his "grandfather" and "great-grandfathers"...these would be more of "the Gods" mentioned in scripture. So, Adam does not equal Eloheim--at least not the Eloheim who cursed Cain..that was the "grandfather" Adam.

"Adam" is also a title--he used it as a title when explaining at times and this can add to the confusion.

Also, the Adam/God theory that Fundamentalists preach today is different. I'm pretty certain they identify Adam as being also Eloheim, but Brigham Young did not make that identification.

[_Alter Idem]

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?

Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

BC, I think you ought to read the article Cinepro linked to. It is clear that Brigham Young identified the mortal Adam and Eve with resurrected, immortal beings who came to earth, gave up their immortality by eating the fruits and then they fell--not their children. The explanation you gave is the one I like also, but it's not what Brigham Young taught.

If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.

[_bcspace]

BC, I think you ought to read the article Cinepro linked to. It is clear that Brigham Young identified the mortal Adam and Eve with resurrected, immortal beings who came to earth, gave up their immortality by eating the fruits and then they fell--not their children. The explanation you gave is the one I like also, but it's not what Brigham Young taught.

I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.

It never was part of LDS teachings to begin with that I know of considering the Church's definition of doctrine.

[_Alter Idem]

BC, I think you ought to read the article Cinepro linked to. It is clear that Brigham Young identified the mortal

Adam and Eve with resurrected, immortal beings who came to earth, gave up their immortality by eating the fruits and then they fell--not their children. The explanation you gave is the one I like also, but it's not what Brigham Young taught.

I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

I've read this. But he did not convince me that Brigham Young was misquoted. He only convinced me of what I already knew--that it contradicts scripture to say that immortal, resurrected beings were the ones who "fell" and lived on earth for almost 1,000 years. Watson discounts this interpretation of Brigham Young's Theory because it is unscriptural, but nowhere does he show us that Brigham Young never taught it. He also did not address Orson Pratt's criticisms. From Pratt's criticisms, we see O.Pratt claimed B.Young's theory involved resurrected beings reverting back to a mortal state and he vehemently disagreed with it--for precisely the same reason Elden Watson rejected it--it is unscriptural (not to mention revolting!).
If we accept Elden's Watson's revision of Adam/God to what you quoted, then Orson Pratt's criticism of the doctrine makes no sense. As I said, there would have been no reason for O.Pratt to voice the criticisms he did if Watson's version was what B.Young was teaching. Also, B.Young and O.Pratt discussed this over years...do we really think Orson Pratt could never grasp B.Young's true teaching--as Eldon Watson describes it? That is just not reasonable.

If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.
It never was part of LDS teachings to begin with that I know of considering the Church's definition of doctrine.

Yes, it was part of LDS teachings--but it was never canonized, if that's what you are inferring. It was taught by Brigham Young from 1852 to about 1861 publicly and was later taught privately until Pres. Youngs' death. We know this because it can be found in church writings. It was almost made part of the temple ceremony except that Brigham Young died before being able to complete the project.

We could believe that Brigham Young was misunderstood and Elden Watson's interpretation was what Brigham Young actually meant...the problem is, we've got Orson Pratt's clear explanation of the problems with B.Young's theory to know that B.Young taught something different than Watson believes he taught. Maybe Brigham Young misunderstood Joseph Smith--years later, he attributed the teaching to Joseph. Maybe what Joseph taught him was closer to Watson's interpretation. I think that is a possibility.