Adam-God Theory

[_BenBritton]

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next. (HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)

We have discussed this quote a lot already. I don't like your interpretation of this, and I don't think Grindeal would either. I think the Peter, James, and John is instead a reference by Joseph to the restoration of the priesthood to Joseph and Oliver.

Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my father. The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others .... The keys have to brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adams authority. (HC 3:386,387; not only does this infer The Father (of spirits) is Adam, but it explicity says he's THE HEAD and whenever keys are revealed from heaven, it's by HIS authority, not Christ's.)

We haven't discussed this quote, however I don't find that it supports your position. "The Father" in this quote appears, to me, to be a separate and more authoritative figure in Adam. I see Joseph implying that the Father is the one telling Adam to multiply and giving him keys.

Here is another clarifying teaching from Joseph, "And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?""

I think we can consistently find Adam as the head and set there by Jesus Christ.

What I'm saying with all this, is that Joseph's public discourses probably shouldn't be interpreted as Adam-God doctrine, at least not in a way the places Michael above Jesus Christ. Joseph clarifies many times that he put's Christ above Michael. I'm also saying what Brigham taught was a radical departure from the established priesthood order. If Joseph taught it, and we have been acknowledging that possibility, I do not believed he would have upset his well established priesthood doctrine, and if he did it would also have been a radical departure for him to make as well.

[_BenBritton]

I want to publicly thank Grindael for his sharing his insight on Adam-God (I'm not being sarcastic). I learned a lot and I saw some new sources that I might not have seen otherwise, so thank you. My views on the subject haven't changed however, though I have seen where some of my views needed adjustment (particularly in the case of Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith). Unless someone has something significantly new to add to the conversation, I probably won't respond to it.

Grindael, if you'd like to continue our debate/discussion via email, I'd look forward to it. I'll send you a PM.

[_grindael]

I think this is the point where we agree to disagree. I see in one of those hundred quotes above that Adam received his authority from Christ, and from another quote that it was in the creation (before the fall). I see your position too. Brigham said Joseph said it, and you also have your own interpretation of our many quotes.

Actually, I have the "interpretation" of those like Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Fred Collier, who understand what Joseph said. I didn't see you address the Expositor quote. Joseph progressively changed his theology. But there is no discussion of this. It is not a surprise then, that some statements Joseph made would "conflict" with others. Are we to then accept Joseph's early theology from the Lectures on Faith and say that D&C 132 is in error. There is no way to reconcile those two theologies. Many Mormons will just deny that there is any problem. Brigham Young had "inside" knowledge about what Joseph taught. Why? Because Joseph kept a lot of things secret. But there is evidence that Joseph taught the rudiments of Adam God, and so Brigham carried on with those concepts.

[_Fence Sitter]

Ben.

It seems you are trying to show that BY came up with Adam God on his own and also trying to establish that Joseph Smith did not teach Adam God, correct me if I am wrong. I think if you are correct, then it calls into question other aspects of BY's leadership. Are you willing to apply that same approach to the succession crisis? The methodology these men used to support BY in Adam God is the same they used to support BY taking over the Church itself after Joseph Smith died.

[_grindael]

(HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)

I don't see (that quote) that way, Iamse7en.

That progression would be Adam - others like Moses - Elijah (etc) - Christ - P, J, J, - Joseph Smith, (the earthly line of the Priesthood).

Joseph was fleshing out his new theology from 1838 -1844 (the rudiments of it developed in 1836) not long after the Lectures on Faith were published. This came about from his study of Hebrew, which he then applied to the Book of Abraham (his interpretation of the translation of elohim). Why, in 1839 would he write,

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;
27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;
28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

He says right there explicitly that there was a time to come when nothing would be "withheld", whether there be one God or many gods. This was in 1839! On June 16, 1844 he says,

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!

Really? Now we know that isn't true. It just isn't. So Joseph contradicted Joseph. There is no way to draw a line and say that Joseph taught this, which led to this, which led to this... without seeing contradictions. This is true, and what is really important:

Clearly, Joseph did not always teach that Adam was subservient to Christ.

[_Uncle Ed]

God has never been Consiglieri.


Trust me on this.

And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...

[_grindael]

I thought that Buerger had given the Expositor quote, and he did. I missed it, since I have a digital data base and the notes are in pop ups. Here is what Buerger wrote,

First and foremost in the quote above,

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.

He then says, (the rest of the quote above) then,

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.

48 Warsaw Message, February 4, 1844. One additional source is occasionally cited as further evidence of Joseph teaching Adam-God: this is a brief passage in the "anti-Mormon" Nauvoo Expositor (vol. I [June 7, 1844], no. 1, p. 2) where it mentions God's "liability to fall with all his creations", the assumption is that this is an allusion to Brigham's belief that Adam "decelestialized" himself upon coming to this earth. The context of this passage, however, clearly shows that God will "fall" if he "varies from the law unto which he is subjected," a Mormon belief which has nothing to do with the Adam-God doctrine.

Buerger does not ascribe this to Adam god, but I disagree with his interpretation, as do many others. But there is that other quote by Law that Buerger gives... How it "falls short" of a positive link between Joseph and Adam God is really not proven by Buerger. The entire passage reads,

Resolved 2nd, Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty inclumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humbility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood, by a perversion of their priestly authority and thereby forfeiting the holy priesthood,

according to the word of Jesus; "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." St. John, xv.6. "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son; if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that abideth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds;" we therefore are constrained to denounce them as apostates from the pure and holy doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Law's quotation from the Bible is not just applied to the teaching of "falling with all of his creations" it was applied to ALL of the teachings mentioned, including polygamy, therefore Buerger applying it to only that portion of Joseph's teaching doesn't work as an adequate rebuttal. Law here is not rebutting directly the line "his ability to fall with all of his creations", but he is saying that ALL these doctrines are not the doctrine of Christ and he who does not abide in them (the established doctrines of Christ) has not the Father and the Son. The doctrine that God will "fall" if he "varies from the law unto which he is subjected," cannot be what is spoken of here, for the very sentence after it refutes it, because it says that Joseph taught also "the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life", so how could God or any future gods "fall" when he was "unconditionally sealed up to eternal life unless it were voluntarily?

[_consiglieri]

God has never been Consiglieri.


Trust me on this.

And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...

Just personal experience, my friend.

[_Uncle Ed]

Trust me on this.

And your logical deduction for this is what exactly?...

Just personal experience, my friend.

I am always interested in others' personal experiences. Such a conclusion as you make here is inconceivable to me. (I do know what that word means.) Never at any time have I been able to wrap my mind around existence and explain it with anything other than "God". So how could you possibly be anything else but "God manifesting"?...

[_Fence Sitter]

Just personal experience, my friend.

I am always interested in others' personal experiences. Such a conclusion as you make here is inconceivable to me. (I do know what that word means.) Never at any time have I been able to wrap my mind around existence and explain it with anything other than "God". So how could you possibly be anything else but "God manifesting"?...

I am always interested in other people's non sequiturs. Maybe you could help me by explaining why what Consiglieri thinks has anything to do with your inabilities?