The "Adam-God Theory"

[_gdemetz]

Reply to Mormon Critics Concerning the "Adam-God Theory"


First of all, I would like to state as a matter of record that the prophet Brigham Young did not believe in the so-called Adam-God theory that has been attributed to him. He has made numerous statements to the contrary and I will just quote one of them here:

"Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of." (JD 13:311. See alsoJD 1:238, 10:231, and 13:309.)

I believe that the great confusion that came about over this matter was basically for two reasons. The first, and main reason, was due to the manner of speech by Brigham Young. Brigham Young would sometimes refer to Heavenly Father as "Adam," and the Heavenly mother of Adam, or Michael, as "Eve," according to Elden Watson who was the compiler of the "Manuscript Addressesof Brigham Young, 1801-1877" (six volumes). This fact alone accounts for about 98% of this great misunderstanding. The other 2% maay be explained by the discrepancies between Wilford Woodruff's notes, written in longhand, and the stenographers report which did not include some of Woodruff's notes. Elden Watson observed that Brigham Young may have been inadequately recorded. One may then ask the obvious question; if there were two "Adams," then why didn't Brigham Young just say so instead of having his talks so confusing? The answer to that is that on many occasions he did distinguish, or at least attempted to. Perhaps, he could have stated Adam, Sr. and Adam, Jr., but these were legal terms in those days which were frequesntly used in writing, but very seldom used when speaking, and probably would have been considered as irreverent anyhow. One should also keep in mind that the name "Adam" is a title which means "first man," and one should also consider that as Seth was the son of Adam (or first man), Adam was the son of God who could also be considered as the real first man, or "Adam," since He was the Father of Adam! I refer you to Luke 3:38, Moses 6:22, and the following statement by Brigham Young which accurately describes his beliefs concerning the matter!

"Things were first created spiritually; the Father actually begat the spirits,and then He commenced the work of creating earthly tabernacles, precisely as He had been created in the flesh Himself, by partaking of the coarse material that was organized and composed this earth, until HIs system was charged with it, consequently, the tabernacles of His children were organized from the coarse materials {or dust} of this earth." ("The Discourses of Brigham Young," page 50)

Now, in the light of all of the above, let's examine the controversial statement made by Brigham Young on April 9, 1852, with my comments in brackets:

"When our Father Adam {Heavenly Father} came into the garden of Eden, He came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve {Adam, or MIchael's Heavenly Mother}, one of His wives with Him. {Now there is a possible ommision as previously mentioned.} He {Adam, or Michael} 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 {the god who is over all this earth under Christ - see Daniel, chapter 7, where he reigns until Christ comes with the clouds of heaven to reign on earth personally!}, and the only god with whom we have to do" {meaning that Adam will reign over our earth as our god and our prince under Christ, who will reign over many worlds , including ours, under HIs Heavenly Father. However, it should be remembered that we all have the potential to progress and become like our Heavenly Father.}.

The rest of this statement by Brigham Young is self explanatory so I will not include it all here. Instead, let's examine another controversial statement made by Brigham Young on August 28, 1852 in this same light:

"After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit, and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organixation of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, and Adam {a Heavenly Father, and this meaning should be more obvious to the critics since the prophet is referring to others who will later receive their exaltations!!!} will have to go there, and he cannot do it without Eve {a Heavenly Mother}; He must have Eve to commence the work of gereration, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink the fruits of the coporeal world, until this gross matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to established laws, to produce mortal {actually, terrestial bodies that will eventually become mortal, like Adam's, or Michael's} tabernacles for their spirit children."

The rest of this statement is self explanatory and I will not include it here. In conclusion, I will simply state that when these controversial statements by the prophet Brigham Young are examined carefully with proper consideration to his manner of speech, it is apparent that they are consistent with his other quotes which I mentioned in this writing. Also, it is not reasonable that Brigham Young would contradict himself to the great degree that his critics have asserted. The explaination which I have presented is by far more reasonable as well as more consistent with all of his other statements and teachings.


George Joseph DeMetz, Jr.

[_lulu]

Mormon theology is like an Etch a Sketch.

[_Fence Sitter]

Poor Brigham, God only knows how many times that bus will run him over.

BY taught Adam God.
That BY was not consistent in how he referred to God does not mean he didn't teach Adam God it just means he was not consistent. (If lack of consistency is going to be an argument then you will either have to throw out the D&C description of the nature of God or the one in the Book of Mormon.)
BY went even so far as to incorporate his Adam God doctrine in the Saint George temple lecture at the veil which was later removed by Joseph F. Smith in 1904 or 05.
If he didn't teach it then please explain the following.

In late 1890, 1891, 1892, Bishop Edward Bunker Jr. and his father, Edward Bunker Sr. of Bunkerville, Utah, and his counselor Myron Abbot were before church courts. The Bunkers denied Adam-God doctrine; Abbott accepted it. The final High Council Court was held June 11, 1892, and was attended by President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor, George Q. Cannon. In summary, the Bunkers had their hands slapped for advancing false doctrine and “indulging in mysteries.” Bunker Sr. was advised “to let these things alone.” Abbott, who supported Adam-God doctrine, was cautioned to not become “puffed up in pride” over the victory. See Adam-God Maze, pp. 215-238 for the sources covering the above. Also Unpublished Revelations, pp. 168-175.

or why Brigham had to almost oust Orson Pratt from the Quorum of the 12 for taking issue with BY's teaching on Adam-God?

There are a lot of threads you can research here on this. Most of Watson's paper has been refuted, even he admits at the end of his paper that BY never made a statement about two Adams.

By taught Adam-God, he was just wrong.

[_gdemetz]

Anyone who disputed it and was reprimanded, or whatever, etc., simply did not understand what he meant. It is obvious to me what he meant since he also referred to future Adam's and Eve's who would be exalted, and then go into a new world and do just what Heavenly Father did in this one. The compiler of all of his discourses who was very familiar with his discourses as well as his manner of speech was also of the same opinion as me. Brigham Young also stated clearly what he meant many other times, and some of them I quoted in this writing.

[_gdemetz]

Can you please give me a reference where he retracted those statements?

[_bcspace]

The explaination which I have presented is by far more reasonable as well as more consistent with all of his other statements and teachings.

Yes you have. I personally was coming to an Adam Sr Adam Jr explanation when I came across this:

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

Game, set, match. An Adam God theory is incompatible with other statements of BY and is also incompatible with doctrine extant at the time.

[_moksha]

George, welcome to the forum! Great post.

[_gdemetz]

Thanks for the kind remarks!

[_Drifting]

So, in summary.

Brigham Young said Adam was God.
Brigham Young also said Adam wasn't God.

He seems kind of confused for a man with direct daily access to our creator...

[_Jason Bourne]

The explaination which I have presented is by far more reasonable as well as more consistent with all of his other statements and teachings.

Yes you have. I personally was coming to an Adam Sr Adam Jr explanation when I came across this:

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

Game, set, match. An Adam God theory is incompatible with other statements of BY and is also incompatible with doctrine extant at the time.

Dream on BC. BY Taught Adam was God. It was in the endowment, it was understood as such by those who heard it. Your constant crow of victory is another example of how disingenuous you are.

I will offer you this challenge again and it is about the 6th time. Find me one contemporary of Young that understood his AG teaching as Adam SR/JR. Till you can do so shut up about it.