So has anybody discussed the Adam God theory recently?
 

What about evolution?

We need to get Dan over here. I know he has less time now. But even when he did have time he was constantly korihored.

agreed
 

He is insightful.

....
 

are you serious about discussing this topic?

Any thoughtful discussion
 

or thoughtless as long as it's not too tasteless, is fair game.

I just threw that one out there because it's an attention getter.

what exactly is the discussion?

This topic has never greatly grabbed my attention.

A different thing, that is not terribly important, but nonetheless is interesting to me is the scientific-view of religion.

Occasionally I have asked a person, would you be suprised if Jesus returned in a spaceship? Or would it be heresy to suggest that Jesus might employ far advanced technology?

This doesn't affect my day-to-day religious practice, but it's interesting how the worlds of science and religion connect. And I think Mormonism in some ways is the closest to that nexus in its theology.

Reminds me of the movie "Contact."

Technology
 

A God would use a mastery of the elements, and a God's technology would be efficient, sort of akin to the Liahona, don't you think?

Fascinating, but whether "technology" per se would be used is unknowable at this point in time.

I imagine Jesus would not need a spaceship having mastered the space-time contiuum by mastery still yet of infinite dimensions.

I mean the Liahona is a good example. For all we know the Liahona could have been a Casio digital watch or a PDA. Clearly God gave them some sort of advanced technology. It's funny how we eschew technology and magic, yet the idea of "spiritual power" is something we consider different.

Notice how Mormon mysticism
 

is dead now.

At one point, we saw quite a bit, now, being more "worldly" it seems mysticism in Mormonism is dead.

when someone would talk of something truly miraculous, it will always got my attention growing up. Like a woman testifying that during baptisms for the dead for an ancestor, a person showed up then suddenly disappeared (the person for whom the ordinance was performed)....things like that. Or casting out demons.

In church last week, a woman testified that when her granddaughter (like 3 years old) came across her husband, who had just died on the floor, she came up and told grandma "Grandpa is on the floor. The angels were there and told me he went to Heaven." Reminded me of things I had heard before.

Part of it is the whole pearls before swine thing. People may be having experiences, but they are not sharing them, because they don't feel it is necessarily appropriate. But that begs the question, in Joseph Smith's time what was appropriate to share or what one might be moved to share might be different than now...

thats....
 

an interesting question....

the miracles have become a family only idea.

we dont share the true miracles that happen but we share the fluff that happens to us in testimony meeting...

casting out demons, seeing spirits, visions, speaking in tongues, etc has all been grouped in a sort of cultish occurence that members of the church shy away from.....

well I haven't had those experiences
 

but I believe I would only share them with my kids cuz everybody else would think me nuts.

Adam God theory
 

I forgot what it is, and I would have told you I couldn't care less. But now you've kind of piqued my curiosity. What is it?

I have to agree.
 

Growing up in the church, testimony meeting and sacrament meetings in general were filled with miracle type stories. This just is no longer the case. At least not with the normal membership. I think for the most part it is due to the brethren making an effort to tell us not to share really spiritual experiences except with family etc...

Let's face it though, many of the folks who share these experiences nowadays are on the crazy side. Let me just share 2 such experiences that were told over the pulpit last Sunday. The first was a man who told us that he forgot to buy gas on Saturday and needed to drive 60 miles on Sunday. He said his tank was empty but he prayed and the Lord told him he'd make it. So he drove the 60 miles on nothing but spiritual gas. Then, (here's the kicker) he says he made it and "when I filled up, the tank held 2 more gallons than the book says it could, it was truly a miracle". It was all I could do to contain my laughter.

The next story was shared by a gentleman who has a penchant for dramatic testimonies. That, and he is certifiably insane. He got up to tell us that had the Lord not protected him when his tire blew at 60 mph his car would have flipped and all inside would have died. He said "I know that the Lord and Joseph Smith protected me that day." Bottom line, I think the Brethren are right on this issue. Better to keep your miraculous stories in the family.

Yup, it's funny how the crazies can take over. There was an older lady in one of my old wards (actually the mother of a famous BYU athlete). She was getting senile I think, and would make comments in Sunday School. At first she would be on topic, then suddenly she would be telling her life story, how she met her husband, how their lives went, how he died. She was loud, and never paused. So the teacher would just stand there sort of dumbfounded. I was cracking up.

I think there is a danger however in not sharing things, that eventually their existence sort of fades from institutional memory....

Evolution
 

Mike Waters wroteDan is awesome, I hope he makes it over here. The last evolution debate on cougarboard was hilarious to read because Dan just knows his history so well. When he told posters that there had been debate amongst some apostles on the subject, few posters could believe or accept it. It actually led to a Korihor. I just happened to be reading a book that made mention of the exact subject so I knew that Dan was correct.

We had some technical issues with Dan's account that I've finally sorted out. He emailed me today. I expect to see him here soon.

Hello guys, I made it over.
 

This board is sort of nice to be able to come over and discuss religious topics.

Catblue ... here is the readers digest version of the Adam-God concept (in general, those who believe it call it the "Adam-God Doctrine" and those who do not call it the "Adam-God Theory"). Notice, I call it the "Adam-God concept".

Begin summary:

The man Adam, from the garden, is Michael. Michael is our "Heavenly Father" (yes, with exactly the same meaning we have when we use the term). Adam was an exalted man from another, prior earth, and progressed to the point of becoming a God. "Adam" is more than a name with many meanings. It is also a title for a God ready to create earths and send his children thereto.

Adam was once like us. He progressed through multiple mortal probations and eternities until he was ready to act as THE only begotten son, the annointed one, IOW, the Christ, for the benefit of his other spirit brethren and children of Adam's father, Jehovah. Adam fulfilled his mission as the Christ, thereby becoming the spiritual father to his spiritual brethren for whom he performed his sacrifice. (Notice how Jesus Christ becomes our spiritual father and we are spiritually begotten by him when we accept his atonement in our life, and Jesus therefore, in scripture is called our father. Jesus is the father - to us, among other meanings - as well as the son - to his father, among other meanings.)

After one completes a mission successfully as a Christ, he is then able to act as "Adam" , or a "God the father" and create worlds and send his children there (those who were spiritually begotten or born to him while fulfilling his mission as Christ to his brethren). Adam then holds a council before the creation of the world where he will send his children and a Christ is chosen from his children for that world. Adam creates world after world any time one of his children is ready to serve as a Christ on such a new world.

Focusing on Adam's temporal existence, Jehovah was his Christ when adam was an unexalted mortal. Jehovah became an "Adam" and Adam was ready to become a Christ. Adam then served in that capacity after which he was advanced to an "Adam".

As an exalted God, Adam had power over death. Adam, like Jesus, has the power to lay down his life and take it up again. That is how Adam, as an exalted God and father to his children spiritually begotten to him, was able to condescend (or "fall"), willingly, from his exalted position to a mortal position, to also become the literal father of mankind in the flesh as well. When his time was at an end on earth, he left. He still had the power to lay down his life and take it up again.

The idea is that any one of us can progress to the point that we can be worthy of the calling of a Christ and then advance to the function of an "Adam". It would take a great many eternities and mortal probations to get to that point though.

The main problems LDS have with this concept are:
1. Belief that man only experiences ONE mortality and then are FOREVER consigned to an eternal kingdom.
2. The scriptural concept that is it appointed to man to die once, with body separated from spirit.

The conter arguments to these problems are that man only does die once in each eternal existence (with an eternal existence defined as one eternal round from a pre-existence to earth life to death and resurrection. The kingdom of glory becomes the pre-existence for one more eternal round). We then choose to "fall" in our next mortality and probation (it is always our choice to undertake a mortality to attempt to progress further).

In a nut shell, it is pure FACT that just about all of the brethren from Brigham (and quite possibly Joseph, too, IMO) through the Joseph F. Smith presidency believed in all or most of what I have explained above. Many still probably believed thereafter and do to this day, but you cannot voice belief in it if you are an influential member or leader or you will be excommunicated as the concept has been disavowed.

But that is a decent summary.

Wow!
 

A lot of that stuff I'd never heard before. Dan, I've always thought that the theory came from one obscure Brigham Young quote. Where else can I read about it?

Do not feel bad ...
 

... most think the same thing. It is purposefully obfuscated by the church so that people think the very same thing you just said you believed. It just isn't so. With the internet and advanced technology, it is too easy for too many people to look for and make the source material available. For someone who really has looked into the matter, when you hear disavowals of the concept, you can't help but shake your head and conclude the person is really just ignorant on this topic or the person is flat out lying.

Send me your email and I will be happy to flood you with a couple hundred pages of concise documentation. After about 10 pages you will realize there are no ifs ands or buts about what Brigham really taught.

I have to say for people reading this that i really am an active member of the church in good standing. i love the church. On this issue as well as some others, I think the leaders meant well by trying to cover up certain things so that people would not become perplexed. The problem is that when the information flows anyway, they metaphrically get egg on their faces. it is bound to happen here or there with such a history as the church has had. I think I would have done some things differently if I had power to direct things, but then again, maybe not. I really don't fault them for the decisions they made and the course they took and I sympathize with the painted in the corned posture they are now in for those who actually look into the issue.

what!? more mortal probations!??? That's like finding out there's another final exam after your last final exam.

The thing that interested me about the Adam-God thing is how it literally describes an advanced being (Adam/God) literally starting the human race, much as if we sent colonists to Mars. I like spinning the magical/mystical/spiritual into the tangible and imaginable.

But that's interesting Dan. It also makes my head hurt.

it just occurred to me Dan, that had you posted this on cougarboard, you probably would have been served with a year long suspension. :)

Some recruits mother might have read it, and canceled her son's recruiting trip.

I spoke with a friend at church about this subject. He's the most well-verse person I know, re: church history.

He says that Brigham Young continually "massaged" the Adam-God doctrine over the years, and never really settled on anything definitive or concrete. He also said that BY tried to get the 12 to unanimously approve it but they did not. Additionally Parley Pratt (?) was very much against it. He says it was taught by the 12 during BY's lifetime, but not much afterwards. Since then, during Joseph F or Fielding Smith's time, the first pres. and 12 issued a statement clarifying the godhead and basically disputing/rejecting the Adam-God theory/doctrine.......

Mike, your friend was pretty much right
 

It was Orson Pratt who would not bend to BY's teachings on AG (Adam God). Here is a book, called "Conflict in the Quorum", specifically about these controvercies.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...866933-7518306

The book is actually well done, but I was sort of disappointed with it as I would hoping there would be more I was not already aware of. But for someone who has little to no background on the subject, it would probably be an intruiging read.

The rest of the Q12 accepted AG. It was only Orson who was the outsider with regards to it. He almost got booted from the quorum because of it too. AG was taught and emphasised from about 1860 until the Joseph F. Smith presidency at the turn of the century. George Q. Cannon and the correlation committee recommended that it be deemphasised and the church focus on the basics (though the nature of God is, in a way, sort of a basic, fundamental cornerstone). That is what happened. But AG was taught in the temple (at the lecture at the veil) explicitly until, IIRC, around after the turn of the century (beginning the 1900s that is). Do a google search for the "John Nuttal" and "lecture at the veil" and "Adam-God", and I am sure you will find it without much difficulty. Nuttal was BY's secretary who recorded the lecture in his journal which was used in the temple.

I think people who are bewildered a bit by the AG concept, through a sort of cognitive dissonance, make comments that BY "massaged" it or contradicted on it. It is true that there are some contradictions in some of BY's discourses, but that is really expected when you consider how they were transcribed and then passed down over time. The editing process is not the same then as today. Plus, there are different levels of meaning involved that could look like contradictions though in the mind of the speaker they are not at all. Basically, if people think it is a false concept, they HAVE TO conclude that BY was sort of a bumbling fool on the issue. There is no way around it. Plus you would have to indict the rest of the Q12, minus Orson, as sort of weak-minded, follow your file leader mentalities.

The church never issued a formal statement defining the concept or repudiating it, until Spencer W. Kimball said it was a false doctrine at general conference. But, it is really unclear if SWK meant everything about it, or just some aspects of it. Still even if SWK was right, most of the pre-eminent leadersafter Joseph through the 1800s were, one would have to conclude, completely wrong regarding the identity of God. One thing I have found is that people today who know about the controversy often times actually believe it is a true doctrine (I am talking about orthodox members here).

It is a whole separate discussion as to the events that led to the de-emphasis and eventual denial of the concept.

Is there any evidence, Dan, that Joseph Smith taught AG?

Yes and no
 

It depends on the quality level of the evidence. If you are talking evidence that would stand up in a court of law, then no. The best evidence that Joseph believed this appears to come from 2 sources.

1. Brigham was emphatic that Joseph taught the concept to him and that he (Brigham) was only relaying Joseph's teachings. IIRC, Eliza Snow and maybe a couple others made vague comments about this as well, but I may be confusing it with what she said regarding Joseph's beliefs on multiple mortal probations. It has been a while since I dug through the sources.

2. Go read the Nauvoo Expositor first and only edition. You can find it easy enough doing a web search. It claims (through the Laws, the Fosters, etc.) that Joseph taught a theology secretly of a 'God who is liable to fall with his creations'. Most believe that could be a direct link to people who were Joseph's insiders and the AG concept. If so, this may be the earliest real mention of teachings related to AG. Even though the writers of the expositor were antagonistic, they were probably being truthful regarding Joseph's expounding of this idea.

The direct evidence tying Joseph in is scant to non-existent. But if you believe Brigham, well, he said it came straight from Joseph.

I emailed part of your post to a friend. He had an interesting reply. I've asked for his permission to post it here.

He tends towards the idea that it isn't doctrine and never was doctrine.

Re: Yes and no
 

Dan, what is the motivation for the Church disavowing the doctrine? The baptist charge that Mormons are polythists? Mormons have plenty of doctrines that are at odds with mainstream Christianity and they don't shy away from.

First off, I guess it is time to post a decent link to dozens and dozens of pages full of known AG quotes. I have the quotes in my files but this list appears to be in sync with mine. It is not totally complete, as I do not think it has the Nuttall information or the McConkie letter to Eugene England. But it may be in there and I missed them with my cursory view. After reading all of this, or just a small portion, it will become clear what was really being taught. People who try to disavow that AG was ever taught or believed (i.e., apologists) have to use the handy and selective trick of requiring first hand statements by Brigham himself and completely ignore all journal entries and other 2nd hand sources. But such apologists never have any problem using Wilford Woodruff's journal for other purposes regarding our history and teachings, but when it comes to AG they wave away Wilford and other such sources with a flick of the wrist.

http://www.ldshistory.net/adam-god/ag.html#1

Now, Cat-blue, to answer your question ... well I am not really going to answer your question in a satisfactory manner. It is just too long of a discussion. Suffice it to say that During the Joseph F. Smith era, the decision was made to tone down the deeper doctrinal outpourings to the masses as many were too perplexed by them. So they just stopped emphasising them. it was a conscious decision by the church leadership. Over the subsequent decades, generations arose who grew up in the era where the topics were not discussed. Many were adamant that AG was not talked about when someone would claim we believed Adam to be God our heavenly father. They would then deny it. The issue became a lightning rod for those who wanted to embarass the church. Instead of just admitting the truth, the church leaders apparently tried to deflect to discussion and be done with it in a way that the antagonists would not have fodder to later claim "see you Mormons, your leaders are confused on who God is. brigham taught this and now you are taught that". What really sort of caused this to backfire for the church was the internet and the rampant spread of information like this. There is much more involved. I am sure much more than I know. But there came a time when church leaders had to forcefully denounce the AG concept to try to further deflect the debate. Many of the debaters were from the LDS fundamentalist ranks who were well aware of what had been taught ... in the temple no less.

A funny irony is that (I believe it was in the same talk) in the talk where SWK denounced the AG theory, he referenced John Taylor receiving a visit from Jesus Christ. Well, that may not seem odd, and to the average lay-person, that would pass by without further scrutiny, but there is only ONE known visit that Taylor received from Jesus. that was the disputed 1886 visitation (google search it for more information). It was at the Wooley home. Oh, byt the way ... do you know what the W in SWK's name stands for? One guess ... yeah, that's right ...Wooley. The reason why that visitation is tremendously significant is because it revolved around polygamy. Fundamentalists cling to it. Church headquarters has Taylor's journal but a few pages are torn out in one specific place in the journal. Can you guess what may have been torn out? Yes, the visitation. It has more significance for fundamentalists than just regarding polygamy, but as AG is tied into fundamentalist theology and SWK was actually giving validity to this disputed visitation was pretty remarkable, IMO.

Here is the ...
 

... Eugene England - BRM letter. BRM explicitly admits Brigham taught AG, and explicity claims BY was dead wrong on that issue.

http://www.myplanet.net/mike/LDS/McC...nd_letter.html

I am a little torn with how trite BRM makes the case against BY with all of his "which Brigham do we believe?" type rhetoric. He oversimplified BY's general theology. BY was a prophet (i.e., top dog) and BRM was 'only' of the Q12. These comments by BRM (an living apostle attempting to trump a dead prophet - now there is a mental tug-o-war in the mind of the average orthodox Mormon *grin*) were made a few years before SWK's open disavowal of AG. BRM is also, through his admission of BY teaching the AG concept, allowing us to beg the question ... which BRM should we believe when we read his works? The one who writes in Mormon Doctrine that it is a lie to claim BY taught Ag? Or the one who will admit he did teach it only in relative seclusion? I can understand why BRM would take the position he did, but it doesn't sit well with me to read his comments about which BY should we believe.

I found this quote from BRM in his letter to Eugene England highly ironic, given how his own misnamed tome led many people astray with non-doctrine "doctrine":

"It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:16) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

McConkie quote indeed supremely ironic.
 

I agree wholeheartedly. I have discussed at length with thoughtful Mormons the whole business of whether the priesthood ban was "Mormon Doctrine" or "Mormon policy." The current consensus seems to be that McConkie and those that shared his views were just wrong, i.e., it was policy, and mis-guided policy at that (I'll withold my own view of this debate/issue). The most common explanation I have heard is that blacks were denied the priesthood because "the membership wasn't ready for this," i.e., the leaders pandering to the rank and file's racism.

I think Blacks and the Priesthood was policy also, and not doctrine. There is a lot of evidence for this. After a time it became sort of a tradition, i.e. "Brigham Young said no, therefore that's how it should be." That's why there has never been an official explanation as to the policy.

I've heard that part of the problem was faithful church members in South America doing geneaology work and discovering they had black ancestors. Are they then relieved of their priesthood callings? It was a big conundrum.

Unfortunately this issue remains a stumbling block for many. I wrote an article about this for the Student Review. Back when they had a website, it was in their archive. The webmaster told me it was the most accessed article on their site. A real hunger out there for information and explanation.

So what's stopping the Church from officially repudiating the "policy," saying, "we were wrong"?

You are asking the wrong person.

how can...
 

you rescind eternal priesthood from those that have already received it?

that was the problem. My recollection is that a case like this came to the first pres/Q12's attention, and they told the Saint to continue on as he had before.

I dont' know for sure, but situations like this probably in part led to the prayerful consideration to rescind the policy.

Also my understanding is that many of the Q12 in David o. McKay's time were in favor of rescinding it (including DOM), but they were not unanimous.

one of my...
 

best friends is a black man who married a white lds girl...

he struggled with the blacks and priesthood issue for a couple of years before he finally, 'got over it....'

the only answer i could give him when he asked me was, its about timing.....but timing from what i could not answer....

This is my friend's response to Dan's post that he sent me by email (after I emailed him Dan's post). He asks not to be identified by name on this board.
===========================

Just quickly (I would dispute some of his conclusions -- particularly the bumbling idiot comment -- has he never attempted to develop a theory and apply it in a particular field within a set of principles or doctrines-- it is not an easy task particularly given the magnitude of the attempt). Same with Orson Pratt's Great First Moving Cause (his attempt to explain where it all began). It is clear he was trying to fit it within the overall principles and doctrines propounded by Joseph. Also, the idea that BY's statements were largely consistent but the differences, as are recorded, are a result of the editorial process is the same argument used by Elder Mark E. Petersen in contending that BY never even advanced the theory. Interesting, that argument is now being advanced to complain about the consistency. If we can't trust the editors why not just go with Elder Petersen's contention and be done with the whole matter!!

Also, I am unaware of any evidence (other than hearsay) that Joseph Smith ever taught the doctrine. Moreover, the doctrine is losing influence by WW and LS. It was being taught in public with much less frequency. But as is indicated it was included in the instruction at the veil as Nutall wrote down what BY and WW hammered out as the instruction at the veil prior to the dedication of the St. George Temple. By the way, I've got Nutall's Journal if your interested in reading. It is an interesting read.

It is clear that Orson Pratt rejected the theory in total. Moreover, President Young could never get the entire Quorum to accept it. He tried too, but all I know is that they refused to propound it as an official church doctrine. Given Orson's acquiesce on other matters when he was the only member of the Quorum to have a contrary opinion (e.g. particularly the reorganization of the First Presidency and his back and forth acceptance and rejection of Brigham's claim that we worship the Father as an individual being for who he is as opposed to OP's contention that we worship his attributes), I strongly doubt that Elder Pratt was the only one who disagreed. Elder Pratt's disagreement with President Young over personality versus attributes almost got OP ousted from the 12 many more times than any other doctrinal matter (great discussion of the controversy is contained in the Conflict in the Quorum). I know BY chastised Pratt for his disagreement over the Adam God theory but it was not nearly so heated as their other doctrinal disagreement (this was largely because the other members of the Twelve basically sided with President Young). I suspect that OP was not the only hold out. I will ask get a copy of a master's thesis and check the line ups. If I remember correctly there were more but its been a while since I reviewed the primary sources.

Also, it is quite clear by the Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency of the Father and the Son of 1916 that the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve had rejected the theory by that time. For example, they make it very clear who is Eloheim, Jehovah, and Adam and their relationship to each other. Clearly, after this official pronouncement (one which BY could never get) it is absolutely clear that Eloheim is the Father of Jesus Christ and not Adam as contended by those adhering to the Adam God Theory. Moreover, it more fully defines their roles. The official pronouncement is completely contrary to the Adam God theory. One cannot accept Exposition and the Adam God Theory as propounded by President Young. They are completely inconsistent.

This confusion over who was who may have added or even been the genesis to BY's theory. Van Hale wrote a paper analyzing the use of names of Eloheim and Jehovah during the end of the 19th Century in general conference reports. What is clear is that OP and GQC (I believe but it was one other Apostle) were the only Brethren to consistently refer to Jehovah as the Son. We take it for granted today that we simply know the name titles for the deities but it is clear that up until the 1916 Declaration their was significant disagreement or misunderstanding about the situation. Also, people were being excommunicated and censured much earlier than President Kimball's era for teaching the Adam God Theory. Sometime between 1900-1910, a bishopric in Bunkerville NV was officially censured in front of the ward for teaching the doctrine. The action was taken after consultation with the Brethren in Salt Lake. The exchange of letters is quite interesting. In sum, the Church and Brethren as a whole, had moved away or at least largely moved away from the theory by the twentieth century.