Adam-God Theory

[_RockSlider]

Here's FAIR's take on the lecture at the veil--
http://en.fairmormon.org/Adam-God_and_t ... he_Veil%22

Well that was pitiful. The Nuttal version does exist in full. see the Craig L. Tholson documentation, as well as available from Collier's Publishing Co. (Fred C. Collier). This information was obtained from the archives (when they they were open). The information quoted in that link did not even touch upon The Adam God parts of that lecture (notice they mention it was a 30 minute lecture ... what did they quote there, 1 minute?). The lecture clearly states that Adam was a resurrected being and that Eve was an immortal being brought here by Adam.

If FAIR wanted to really be fair, they would publish the whole lecture.

I also like how they let you know that this was BY's idea, that flopped ... Why would they assume that it was not in the original endowment given by Joseph Smith. Is that not what BY was trying to capture in writting? What is their evidence that BY came up with this and Joseph Smith did not teach it?

The Craig L. Tholson document is excellent because it also documents the "Bunkerville Problem" It talks about how the lecture at the veil was given for "a number of years" when it caused a big stir in the Bunkerville ward

Don't be fooled by that silly link ... it does not at all reflect the content of the Lecture at the Veil.

[_RockSlider]

Lorenzo Snow

Four years later, in 1840, Lorenzo received a personal revelation that clarified Father Smith’s mysterious saying: “The Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me – the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, that pathway of God and man. I formed the following couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown to me, and explains Father Smith’s dark saying to me at a blessing meeting in the Kirtland Temple, prior to my baptism,…”As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be” (Snow, Biography, p.46). At first, he shared this revelation with no one except his sister Eliza. Then he privately related it to Birgham Young, who wisely told him” “Brother Snow, that is new doctrine; if true, it has been revealed to you for your own private information, and will be taught in due time by the Prophet to the Church; till then I advise you to lay it upon the shelf and say no more about it” (Whitney, Juvenile Instructor, Jan. 1900, p.4). This Lorenzo did until the Prophet Joseph delivered the King Follett discourse and taught the same doctrine publicly for the first time. Thereafter, Lorenzo Snow felt free to teach it. (My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth, Church lesson manual, p.68)

[_iamse7en]

It seems this post would have been better placed in this thread. And it seems I guessed right that bcspace clings to the Watson nonsense.

[_Bazooka]

Why is Adam-God classed as a theory?

It was revealed through inspiration to Mormon Prophets and taught, officially, by them as doctrine.

[_BenBritton]

Hey everyone (first post here and nice to be here). I wanted to jump in the discussion as I have also done a fair amount of reading on Adam-God doctrine/theory. I'd like to add to the Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael discussion. So, there are at least 3 historically correct interpretations within Adam-God teachings of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael (Michael always being our Heavenly Father, and Adam). All the quotes I have used here are found in David John Buerger's article "The Adam-God Doctrine".

The first interpretation comes from Brigham quotations. That is, as stated already in the thread, Elohim is Michael's grandfather God, and Jehovah is Michael's father God. There are a few quotes that illustrate that interpretation. Here is a concise clear quote from Brigham in Utah at the school of the prophets sometime after he'd already introduced the subject, "Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam." (recorded in the Joseph F. Smith Journal, June 17th 1871)

A variation on that comes from Edward Stevenson, a member of the quorum of the 70 who took part in church meetings with Lorenzo Snow and other church leadership various times where they deliberated on Adam-God doctrine. Edward Stevenson wrote in his journal in Feb. 28, 1896, "Certainly Heloheim, and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim 2d Jehovah, 3d Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come. . . . Then Who is Jehovah? The only begoton Son of Heloheim on Jehovahs world." This places Jehovah as Savior on Michael's world during his normal mortal probation before he was resurrected and became our Heavenly Father according to Adam-God theory.

A third variation comes form George Q. Cannon. His son, Abraham, who was instructed by his father, reported, "He believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God[.]"

It goes to show that interpretations of Adam-God were not consistent between contemporary church leaders, and it has always been a bit of a murky subject. I recently wrote a blog post that is meant to give a run down of the facts and then provide some tools to help believing members of the church grapple with the resulting issues. The post is here: http://mormoncontroversies.wordpress.co ... -adam-god/

[_Tobin]

Hey everyone (first post here and nice to be here). I wanted to jump in the discussion as I have also done a fair amount of reading on Adam-God doctrine/theory. I'd like to add to the Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael discussion. So, there are at least 3 historically correct interpretations within Adam-God teachings of Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael (Michael always being our Heavenly Father, and Adam). All the quotes I have used here are found in David John Buerger's article "The Adam-God Doctrine".

The first interpretation comes from Brigham quotations. That is, as stated already in the thread, Elohim is Michael's grandfather God, and Jehovah is Michael's father God. There are a few quotes that illustrate that interpretation. Here is a concise clear quote from Brigham in Utah at the school of the prophets sometime after he'd already introduced the subject, "Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam." (recorded in the Joseph F. Smith Journal, June 17th 1871)

A variation on that comes from Edward Stevenson, a member of the quorum of the 70 who took part in church meetings with Lorenzo Snow and other church leadership various times where they deliberated on Adam-God doctrine. Edward Stevenson wrote in his journal in Feb. 28, 1896, "Certainly Heloheim, and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim 2d Jehovah, 3d Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come. . . . Then Who is Jehovah? The only begoton Son of Heloheim on Jehovahs world." This places Jehovah as Savior on Michael's world during his normal mortal probation before he was resurrected and became our Heavenly Father according to Adam-God theory.

A third variation comes form George Q. Cannon. His son, Abraham, who was instructed by his father, reported, "He believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God[.]"

It goes to show that interpretations of Adam-God were not consistent between contemporary church leaders, and it has always been a bit of a murky subject. I recently wrote a blog post that is meant to give a run down of the facts and then provide some tools to help believing members of the church grapple with the resulting issues. The post is here: http://mormoncontroversies.wordpress.co ... -adam-god/

Welcome to the forum.

I subscribe to the view all of this is nonsense and discount all of it. But I'm always interested in more quotes by other leaders along this topic. It helps cement that view.

[_ludwigm]

... interpretations of Adam-God were not consistent between contemporary church leaders ...

Is there something consistent in Mormon Theology?
Is there Mormon Theology at all?



FYI
Theology (from Greek Θεός meaning "God" and λογία, -logy, meaning "study of") is the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and their influences and of the nature of religious truths, or the learned profession acquired by completing specialized training in religious studies, usually at a university or school of divinity or seminary.

[_BenBritton]

Thanks, Tobin. I should clarify that I don't subscribe to it. I believe Spencer W Kimball's declaration that Adam-God theory (what was taught by Brigham Young) is false doctrine. The purpose of my blog post I linked to is to help believing members who are at odds with the fact that early church leaders believed (Brigham Young and some subsequent prophets and apostles) and taught it.

[_Fence Sitter]

Hi Ben and welcome.

I have a few questions regarding your blog post.

Judging by Spencer W. Kimball’s clear declaration that Adam-God doctrine is false doctrine we can assume that Brigham didn’t have an accurate understanding of the doctrine

Why do you assume that SWK knew what he was talking about and BY didn't? Both are now dead. What is to prevent a future prophet from declaring BY was actually right?

Whatever we can do by ourselves the Lord requires at our hands, and if we can find out a doctrine is true or false on our own than the Lord welcomes the opportunity for us to gain a greater ability to discern between light and darkness.

What is the point of having a prophet of God if God allows his prophet to mislead his people on a fundamental issue for years? Are you willing to apply this same reasoning to SSM and women holding the priesthood? Perhaps those are also issues that God is just letting his people work out.

As convenient as that would be, though we do have many accounts of the Lord sending angelic ministrations and visions to his modern prophets, there is no evidence that these happen on a weekly basis

Actually in Joseph Smith time it was quite common, a time frame that BY shared. But we are not talking about something that God let go for a week or two, we are talking about a doctrine that BY promoted for well over a decade, installed as part of the temple ceremony at the St George temple and died promoting. Do you believe God just forgot to mention he was not Adam during all this time when he was clearly communicating to BY on a host of other items? (Or at least according to BY he was.)

I would like to add a more personal note that I have worked through this issue for myself and I have received a powerful witness from God that though the prophet Brigham Young didn’t understand this doctrine fully, he was still a prophet of God.

And there were those in BY's time that received this same kind of witness that BY's Adam God doctrine was from God, men who were apostles of God. In fact BY was so firmly convinced of it that he threatened to throw Orson Pratt out of the quorum of 12 apostles unless he acknowledged the truth of the doctrine.

From Conflict in the Quorum by Gary Bergera pg 126

A very serious conversation took place between President BY and Orson Pratt upon doctrine. O.P. was directly opposed to the Presidents view and freely expressed his entire disbelief in them after being told by the President that things were so and so in the name of the Lord.

Thanks

[_BenBritton]

Hey Fence Sitter, I'd be happy to.

Q: "Why do you assume that SWK knew what he was talking about and BY didn't? Both are now dead. What is to prevent a future prophet from declaring BY was actually right?"

There were signs from the beginning that Brigham Young didn't have it right. The prophets and apostles including New Testament teachings and Joseph Smith onward have taught that we do things in the kingdom of God through common consent. D&C 29:13 says, "For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith." This pattern was broken from the beginning with Orson Pratt being an obvious opponent, and plenty of church membership being resistant as well.

Joseph F. Smith, who had been taught Adam-God by Brigham Young which we have written record of, pointed out that Adam-God doctrine was never presented to the quorum of the 12 in a revelation or presented to the church and accepted by either of those bodies. He said, ""With reference to Prest. B. Youngs remarks, in a discourse delivered in 1852. with reference to 'Adam being the only God with whom we have to do' &c. I will say:---Prest. Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The Doctrine was never submitted to the Councils of the Priesthood not to the Church for approval or ratification and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof...."

So, in Brigham's day an apostle opposed the teaching, and 20 years after his death Joseph F. Smith as an apostle (who had intimate knowledge of the doctrine) was minimizing it's importance. It was never presented as a revelation or commandment of the Lord to the Councils of the Priesthood. After Brigham's death it was progressively minimized and then finally consistently rejected by apostles and prophets. The pattern of an official revelation was missing from the doctrine's inception, and the pattern of at least partial rejection by the Lord's prophets, seers and revelators has been consistent since the doctrine's first public announcement.

If a future prophet declared Adam-God to be true, he would have to follow the pattern the Lord has set out. The church didn't always realize that in it's infancy, but we have learned with our errors!


Q: "What is the point of having a prophet of God if God allows his prophet to mislead his people on a fundamental issue for years? Are you willing to apply this same reasoning to SSM and women holding the priesthood? Perhaps those are also issues that God is just letting his people work out."

A prophet is an imperfect tool. The point is that he holds the priesthood keys and directs and authorizes the work of God. Having a prophet on the earth means we can receive the ordinances of salvation for ourselves and for our dead. As a revelator, we believe the prophet receives continuous revelation, not constant revelation, which would be necessary to keep every teaching, interpretation and church practice in perfect alignment. The length of time that Adam-God was taught by leaders of the church is considerable, however the Lord provided warning signs from the very beginning as I've already illustrated.

As far as current church policies that people are debating goes, I believe the declarations and revelations as already set out in our canon of scriptures, and where they are silent I believe what the apostles and prophets teach us as they are united. I don't suspect them of "working out" anything, however I also don't believe that they have everything figured out perfectly and that our church is destined to go on operating exactly the same until the 2nd coming.


Q: "Actually in Joseph Smith time it was quite common, a time frame that BY shared. But we are not talking about something that God let go for a week or two, we are talking about a doctrine that BY promoted for well over a decade, installed as part of the temple ceremony at the St George temple and died promoting. Do you believe God just forgot to mention he was not Adam during all this time when he was clearly communicating to BY on a host of other items? (Or at least according to BY he was.)"

I agree Joseph Smith seems to be the exception. All other leaders of the modern dispensation seem to have revelation come at a much slower pace, but Joseph was the prophet of the restoration and that makes sense, at least to me. We are back on the same question - Why did God let it go on for so long? I think the most important factor here is that God had already revealed everything the church needed to reject this teaching. They knew about common consent, they had scriptures in the canon that contradict Adam-God, which is exactly why Orson Pratt didn't get on board. Most importantly they had an apostle who rejected it. The Lord allows us to do things for ourselves in every situation. He doesn't give the same revelation twice, at least that's what Joseph Smith taught.

Hasn't there been apostasy too many times in the past for us to wonder if it is possible? Yes, apostasy happens. The Lord expects us to be a little independent. Thank goodness that we pulled through some of the false doctrine that has been uttered from the pulpit by the man holding the keys of the priesthood. If the church had careened into complete apostasy would the Lord have intervened powerfully at that point? I don't know. I hope so! He certainly took Brigham from the earth in the same year he began instituting Adam-God as part of the endowment.


Q: "And there were those in BY's time that received this same kind of witness that BY's Adam God doctrine was from God, men who were apostles of God. In fact BY was so firmly convinced of it that he threatened to throw Orson Pratt out of the quorum of 12 apostles unless he acknowledged the truth of the doctrine."

Not really a question, but I'd like to respond anyhow. I do believe that Adam-God doctrine is rooted in truth. Someplace back before it became the false doctrine we know it as now there was a beginning of truth. We are drawn to truth. D&C 88:40, "40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth;". I firmly believe that all who were and are drawn to Adam-God doctrine are drawn to the truth that is in it, however it will take a prophet to clearly define the error from the truth in it, and for now it has been shelved!

A question for you Fence Sitter, have you studied and prayed about all of these issues as you keep commandments and covenants? In other words, I believe I'm offering some valid points, but I think the truth of all things is best learned through the Holy Ghost.