cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - View Single Post - So has anybody discussed the Adam God theory recently?

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 08:26 PM

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.

08-15-2005, 08:26 PM	#40
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	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.