Adam-God Theory

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _consiglieri »

bcspace wrote:
Which tells me that you did not read it at all is this is not Watson's claim.


Here is the best that Watson can do to support his claim:

From Last Section of Watson's Paper--As was pointed out previously, there is some indication that he did try to make the distinction between Adam Sr. and Adam Jr., . . .


This is a long way from the actual proof necessary to expect the acceptance of so radical a theory.

Not to mention a theory that contradicts virtually everything else Brigham Young had to say on the subject.

The best Watson can say of his evidence is that it constitutes "some indication."

And this from the guy who is the major proponent (and inventor) of the theory!
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _consiglieri »

bcspace wrote:In what context and which Adam? Adam Sr. (God the Father) or Adam Jr.(the Adam who precipitated the fall)?



A classic instance of the old theological dodge, "When in trouble, invent another person with the same name."

(See "Elias.")
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _grindael »

BenBritton wrote:Grindael, I will follow up with all the information you have put out there later tonight, but in the mean time let's continue the conversation about priesthood.

Wilford Woodruff's quote does not appear to me to indicate that Adam has higher authority than Christ. His "of course" introduction to the statement about Christ as High Priest seems to me to indicate that he teaching here that Christ has superior authority to Adam. It is not at all surprising that Wilford Woodruff would be teaching something different than Adam-God in this quote. In fact, it is extremely likely that he would NOT be teaching Adam-God considering this quote is from 1889, just 4 years after his own counsel to the Saints deemphasizing Adam-God and commanding the Elder's to end their speculation on the subject.

You said, "...ADAM holds those keys in the world today; he will hold them to the endless ages of eternity," however the Joseph Smith quote I offered in my last post refutes that. Adam will deliver his stewardship up to Christ, that which was given to him as to holding the keys of the universe. Webster's 1828 definition for universe is: "U'NIVERSE, n. [L. universitas. ]The collective name of heaven and earth, and all that belongs to them; the whole system of created things." Adam retains his standing as head of the family, but the authority over the entire system of creation, which Adam was temporarily entrusted with (according to the term stewardship), is given to Christ. Joseph Smith placed Christ above Adam in the eternal worlds, and I see no evidence that he was teaching something parallel to Adam-God in any of his quotes on priesthood authority and Adam or Michael.

Wilford Woodroof has regressed in his quote, in my opinion, to this interpretation of Priesthood authority that Joseph Smith taught.


Nice try, but you can't reconcile this part of Woodruff's teaching,

These two men [Adam & Noah] were the first who received the Priesthood in the eternal worlds, before the worlds were formed.

That would place both of them superior to Christ. Priesthood authority seniority goes by ordination date. Adam held all of the keys before Christ. He turns them over to Christ because Christ is given this earth. And why would Adam be entrusted with the keys to the entire Universe? That makes no sense if he was subordinate to Christ. He would only need the keys to this earth. Especially if Christ was the pre-existent God Jehovah. But there is where you are going wrong. Joseph never taught that.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_BenBritton
_Emeritus
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _BenBritton »

Wilford Woodruff is referring to Joseph's teaching on Adam and Gabriel. In that set of teachings on Priesthood, which we have been quoting and Wilford Woodruff refers to, assumes Christ as Lord and God. In it Joseph taught that Michael was the "archangel". According to the 1828 webster dictionary, "ARCHAN'GEL, n. 1. An angel of the highest order;" Then laterJoseph says, "the Son of man shall send forth his Angels." Why does Adam receive the priesthood first? Because he the archangel, the only angel referred to with that title. The prefix arch- means highest or chiefest, so Adam is the first of the Angels, and first to receive the priesthood, Noah is 2nd.

In a revelation Joseph lays out the hierarchy as follows, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." I see that the arch-angel became the arch-man but still not superior to Son-Ahman

It is my opinion that Joseph is referring to Adam as the highest in authority next to Christ. I think he says Adam receives it first, because in Joseph's mind Christ is God and the source of the priesthood, thus the name of the priesthood, the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _grindael »

BenBritton wrote:Wilford Woodruff is referring to Joseph's teaching on Adam and Gabriel. In that set of teachings on Priesthood, which we have been quoting and Wilford Woodruff refers to, assumes Christ as Lord and God. In it Joseph taught that Michael was the "archangel". According to the 1828 webster dictionary, "ARCHAN'GEL, n. 1. An angel of the highest order;" Then laterJoseph says, "the Son of man shall send forth his Angels." Why does Adam receive the priesthood first? Because he the archangel, the only angel referred to with that title. The prefix arch- means highest or chiefest, so Adam is the first of the Angels, and first to receive the priesthood, Noah is 2nd.

In a revelation Joseph lays out the hierarchy as follows, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." I see that the arch-angel became the arch-man but still not superior to Son-Ahman

It is my opinion that Joseph is referring to Adam as the highest in authority next to Christ. I think he says Adam receives it first, because in Joseph's mind Christ is God and the source of the priesthood, thus the name of the priesthood, the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".


Once again Ben, you are talking about when Joseph taught that the Father and the Son were one being, and was teaching a hierarchy that is Protestant. Try again. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... march-1832
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _grindael »

grindael wrote:
BenBritton wrote:Wilford Woodruff is referring to Joseph's teaching on Adam and Gabriel. In that set of teachings on Priesthood, which we have been quoting and Wilford Woodruff refers to, assumes Christ as Lord and God. In it Joseph taught that Michael was the "archangel". According to the 1828 webster dictionary, "ARCHAN'GEL, n. 1. An angel of the highest order;" Then laterJoseph says, "the Son of man shall send forth his Angels." Why does Adam receive the priesthood first? Because he the archangel, the only angel referred to with that title. The prefix arch- means highest or chiefest, so Adam is the first of the Angels, and first to receive the priesthood, Noah is 2nd.

In a revelation Joseph lays out the hierarchy as follows, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." I see that the arch-angel became the arch-man but still not superior to Son-Ahman

It is my opinion that Joseph is referring to Adam as the highest in authority next to Christ. I think he says Adam receives it first, because in Joseph's mind Christ is God and the source of the priesthood, thus the name of the priesthood, the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".


Once again Ben, you are talking about when Joseph taught that the Father and the Son were one being, and was teaching a hierarchy that is Protestant. Try again. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... march-1832


BOAP is a good source, but they don't give the date of the revelation, even though they gave you a hint, the Book of Commandments. And Webster's 1828 is not unique to Mormon Doctrine so I don't see the point. The Universe quote was 10 years after that edition, by the way.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
_BenBritton
_Emeritus
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _BenBritton »

Well this is excellent evidence that joseph had an inkling about God and Christ as separate beings early on. Here is more testimony to that fact "At one of these meetings after the organization of the school, (the school being organized_ on the 23rd of January, 1833, when we were all together, Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling, with our hands uplifted each one praying in silence, no one whispered above his breath, a personage walked through the room from east to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did and Joseph answered that is Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; he was surrounded as with a flame of fire. He (Brother Coltrin) experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw Him.

When asked about the kind of clothing the Father had on, Brother Coltrin said: I did not discover his clothing for he was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but this appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed I should melt down in his presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that they exist and that they are two separate personages."

I use the Webster to get a baseline.
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _Uncle Ed »

My, my, what a topic, and in-depth to the point of "thread necromancy". I find it all interesting because of one point I did not see mentioned, which I think sweeps away any objections a TBM might have in trying to synthesize all of these quotes and discrepancies and contradictory statements by the same people. These names and titles are possessed by GOD, all of them, for GOD has been and done it all throughout eternity. To pick at words is like worrying a scab. GOD Is and has been Adam, Elohim, Jehovah and Jesus the Christ. There is nothing and nobody that GOD has not been and Is not. So when mortals, even "prophets" pronounce upon the nature, identities, powers, authorities, keys and titles of GOD there is inevitably going to result a ton of overlap and apparent confusion: but confusion only in the minds of some who insist on a more neat and tidy Godhead and eternity....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_consiglieri
_Emeritus
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:47 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _consiglieri »

God has never been Consiglieri.


Trust me on this.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
_BenBritton
_Emeritus
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 11:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by _BenBritton »

OK, I have a great follow up on Joseph Smith on Adam-God. According to Buerger, Joseph Smith always taught Adam as subservient to Christ. He does a fantastic job so it's my turn to cut and paste large chunks of text!

This claim that Joseph Smith taught "that Adam was God" is the first of three known occasions on which Brigham Young attributed the origin of Adam-God to Smith.39 While there is no reliable primary source documentation from Smith's era to support this assertion, much later testimony from other intimates of Joseph Smith such as Helen Mar Kimball (one of Joseph's plural wives) in 1882, and Benjamin F. Johnson in 1903, endorse Brigham's claim.40 It is therefore appropriate to consider briefly the merits of this assertion.

Joseph Smith unquestionably viewed "Adam" as an individual whose importance extended well beyond the role of first parent to the human race. Five years after the organization of the Church, the Prophet published a revelation which identified "Michael, or Adam, [as] the father of all, the
prince of all, the ancient of days[.]"41 Four years later, in a sermon in Nauvoo in 1839, he went much further. As recorded by Willard Richards, Smith announced that

"The Priesthood was . . .first given to Adam: he obtained the first Presidency & held the keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,—he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures . . . . he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over
the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council . . . . The Son of Man stands before him and there is given him glory & dominion. —Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family." [emphasis in original]42

The centrality of Adam's role was reiterated by the Prophet in a major discourse on the priesthood the following year. He spoke of Adam being the "first and father of all, not only by progeny, but he was the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the Salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven and will continue to be revealed from henceforth." This has, in retrospect—and in isolation—the ring of Adam-God to it, but Smith then said,

"Adam holds the Keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i.e. the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that have [been and] are to be revealed . . . . This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill [sic] Christ shall present the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation."43

In both of these 1839 and 1840 sermons, Joseph clearly places Adam in a position subservient to Christ, a relationship seemingly incompatible with the Adam-God doctrine later articulated by Brigham. As Orson Pratt noted, there also were other important inconsistencies between the fully developed Adam-God doctrine and the scriptures revealed by Joseph Smith. A problem with our present D & C 29 and Book of Moses has already been alluded to; all three of these scriptures clearly place the speaker ("I, the Lord God") in authority above Adam. Moreover, Adam is commanded to repent and seek redemption "through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son."

Pratt's discomfort with Brigham's Adam-God doctrine was not limited to Young's insistence that Adam was not created from the dust of this earth. Other Latter-day Saint scriptures such as the Book of Mormon also pose some difficulties. The prophet Amulek, for example, is there reported as saying a resurrected "mortal body . . . can die no more," that in the resurrection, "spirits [are] united with their bodies, never to be divided" (Alma 11:45). As both the Book of Moses (6:12), and the Doctrine and Covenants (107:53) report the death of Adam, there is at least a theoretical problem with the notion that he had been resurrected prior to his earthly experience.

Additionally, Section 107, which was the third section in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, said in part, "And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever."44

Another early revelation (March 1832), now D & C 78, also appeared in the 1835 edition, and made a very similar point. The "Lord God," the "Holy One of Zion," it reported, "hath appointed Michael your prince and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given him the keys of salvation under the council and direction of the Holy One."45 As the "Lord," "Lord God," and "Holy One" in these passages are all understood in Mormon theology to refer to Jesus Christ,46 these scriptures are as irreconcilable with Adam being the father of Christ as were Joseph's later sermons quoted above. Indeed, the sermons essentially restate the message of these scriptures.

These later sermons are all the more significant when one recalls that Brigham had asserted that "it was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God when in Luke Johnson's." Johnson was ordained one of the original Apostles in mid-February 1835; briefly (six days) disfellowshipped and removed from the Council of the Twelve in September 1837; went again into apostasy in December 1837; and was excommunicated in April 1838. Although he was re-baptized into the Church well after Smith's death (in 1846), it follows from his church career that any preaching on Adam-God by Smith "in Luke Johnson's" would have to have occurred in Kirtland well before the Nauvoo sermons.

On the other hand, the Nauvoo period also marked the first major synthesis of the Mormon perception of the nature of God, and all of Smith's later teachings are not necessarily known. The Prophet's sermons and writings in his last years more clearly identified God the Father as an actual being who possessed a physical, but "glorified" corporal body such as our own. Smith's important discourses on April 7, 1844 (the "King Follett Sermon") and June 16, 1844 (on the plurality of gods) crystallized ideas on the eternal evolution of mankind. God himself, the Prophet taught, was once a mortal man who had experienced a similar existence to our own. Indeed, both Joseph and
Hyrum Smith preached an eternal patriarchal lineage of gods; as there never was a son without a father, so also the God of this earth has a father, as does
his father ad infinitum.47

While stopping well short of an "Adam-God doctrine," such ideas clearly were necessary precursors to the notions advanced by Brigham. The one
fragment of evidence that Smith may have carried this at least a step further is found in a poem by apostate Mormon William Law, recently of the First
Presidency, published in the Warsaw Message in February 1844. Entitled "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," this poem satirically spoke
of the "greater" glory a man could have in the hereafter if he had plural wives; "Creating worlds so fair; At least a world for ever wife That you take with you there."48 (Emphasis in original.) While this notion does presage yet another aspect of Brigham Young's teachings, it obviously still falls well short of a positive link between the Adam-God doctrine and Joseph Smith.

At least as relevant as the foregoing in evaluating Joseph's possible views, is the total absence in any of his known sermons or writings, or in that of any other Mormon leader before 1852, of anything like the fully developed Adam-God doctrine. Instead, statements such as that found in John Taylor's 1852 publication, The Government of God, actually suggest that the antithesis of Adam-God was then held to be true: " . . . when God made man, he made him of the dust of the earth . . .," and "Adam is the father of our bodies, and God is the father of our spirits." Orson Pratt's 1848 discussion of "The Kingdom of God" involved analysis of the nature of God; but nothing could be cited from it which would support Adam-God in any way. Another early Mormon favorite—A Voice of Warning—first published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt, did cover the scriptural account of Adam's creation; yet he too did not deviate from Joseph Smith's expositions cited above.49 Additionally, while Orson Pratt may have been alone in speaking out against the doctrine after 1852, it is notable that no other Mormon leader—aside from Young—seemed willing to ascribe it to Smith, even after 1852.50 The one other apostle to volunteer a source, Heber C. Kimball, seems to ascribe it to himself. In April 1862, Kimball—long an advocate of the doctrine—testified, "[T]he Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth." Orson Pratt, as noted below, also inferred that the doctrine originated with Kimball, and T. B. H. Stenhouse, after leaving the Church, made this claim as well, in Rocky Mountain Saints (1873).51

The fact that Brigham Young claimed at least three times that Smith was the originator of Adam-God nonetheless strongly suggests that Brigham thought Smith taught something related to this doctrine. As illustrated above, this indeed is the case. Possibly Young misconstrued or misremembered what he heard (or heard something no one else did?). Whatever the explanation, it can safely be said that with our current understanding it is a very big step from what is known of Joseph Smith's teachings on Adam to those later articulated by Brigham Young.
Post Reply