Adam-God Theory

[UtahDan]

Dan, forgive me if you have already commented on this but I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:

There is certainly no shortage of doctrines believed by members and espoused by current leadership that are not only strange to other christians but sometimes strange to the membership as a whole. That leads me to discount the idea that this doctrine fell from favor, if you will, because it was too far out there (I don't think you suggested this, I am just trying to reason through why it went away).

Our conception of the atonement, and particularly the idea that it happened at least in part in Gethsemane, as well as how we access it (is there a unified doctrine on that point?) is pretty unique and also fairly complex, for example. In other words, while everything you are talking about realtive to AG is counter intuitive and strange to me on my first encounter, I have little doubt that if it had remained a cornerstone of what is taught I would have over the course of my life have a very well developed understanding of it.

So what did cause it to "fade away" I wonder. I just have a hard time swallowing any explanation that includes that some how a bad appearance was created or that the membership was ot ready for it. Maybe I'm wrong but those things ring hollow to me.

Of course this brings about the interesting paradox that I think it the thrust of what a lot of your comments is: that there is no easy way to reconcile this past doctrine with its current abandonment.

This is a long way of getting around to the question of, practically speaking, how did the dissapearance of this come about? It seems to me that it has to be the case the later leaders began more and more to reject it. Many of these people would have to be much more proximate in time to AG teachings and pronouncements than we are, so they must have had some rationale for the rejection. I think that most of the post hoc rationales that you commonly hear are pretty facile and don't hold up to much scrutiny, nevertheless, at some point leaders concluded that they could and should reject AG. Is there any evidence out there of either what prompted this or how any of these past leaders may have justified the departure.

Thanks in advance.

-PL

[Dan]

AA said:

1.) Is the AG theory that Adam is the same as God the Father, or merely that a) Adam is a god, and b) we, as his descendents, are his subordinates? My understanding was that the AG claimed Adam=God, the father.

Me:

In AG, Adam is our God the Father, and is "the only God with whom we have to do." But Adam is also "a God" in that there were many beofre him. The Elohim is innumerable, and Adam is one of the Elohim, or Council of the Gods. But to us, Adam is our Father and our God because he spiritually begot us (well, he also physically begot us by starting off the family on earth as well). We were spiritually begotten to him through our acceptance of him as our God and our allying ourselves in allegance to him. We became his disciples spiritually in the same way we, in this life have become the begotten children of Christ. There is another paradox which makes perfect sense in AG, with Christ being our Father. Christ is our Father in that we agree to take upon us His name. We did that previously with Adam when we followed him. Adam is a more exalted position than a Christ. When a Christ fills his role, the Christ advances to the position of Adam, with the Christ taking all of the spiritually begotten children with him that had agreed to follow Christ. This does not mean that Christ's Father (i.e., Christ's Adam) loses his spirit children to his son, the Christ. No, rather it furthers the work of God, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, by allowing his spirit children further opportunity for growth. Just because Christ is our new spirit father, that does not mean Adam ceases to also be our spirit father. Not at all, Adam retains that role over us as well. That is why Adam is our "father" and Jesus is also called our "father".

AA:

2.) Was Brigham Young teaching something that was absolutely true and later driven underground, or something that was realized to be false and disavowed?

Me:

I do not know if it is true or not. But the record appears to be clear that after Brigham's death the concept along with others that were considered deep doctrine were purposefully withheld from general teaching (beginning with Cannon's recommendations). There was a merked shift over to really the basics, such as repentance, etc. As new generations arose who were not familiar with it, many thought it was an absurd concept and did not know the history behind it. The leadership found it relatively easy to deflect discussion on it (trying to avoid having some members become perplexed with it all) by either denying it period, or stating that BY and others made comments that meants something else and had been taken out of context. That worked really well for decades. But then after Arrington opened up the church archives and source documentation was uncovered aplenty, and the information age took off where information could spread like wildfire, the truth that the teaching became painfully clear. Other than SWK, there hasn't been anything close to an official denial, and there is reason for that. How would it look if they formally denied it. Can you imagine the stir it would create. It would make national news within a short period of time with all of the old quotes and sources being brought up, etc. Therefore the church presidencey left it to a few individuals or an apostle here or there to deal with it by denial. Mark Petersen and BRM were flat out caught lying. JFS was clearly flat out lying. There were other examples. But I STRONGLY suspect they kept this away from top leadership comment for a reason. But whether it is true or not is another story.

AA said:

3.) Which is more likely: Spencer W. Kimball being wrong in his statement, or deliberately lying in order to cover up true doctrine?

Me:

Wow. Do you want my honest opinion? That is a tough one. BTW - when I mention these people lied, I mean that nicely. They were doing what they thought was best for the church and its members and I really do not fault them for doing what they did. I am just trying to speak frankly about it all. The documentation clearly shows all of this stuff. As for an answer, I say it is a toss up. I can see SWK being wrong or I can see him just trying to skim over the issue in a way to stop discussion on it. You have to realize, at the time SWK made this comment, they had guys going into headquarters almost daily trying to explain to the 1stP that AG really was taught and believed. These people honestly thought the leadership didn't know that it was and these people were taking all of the recently acquired docuemtnation to headquarters to inform the leaders. Well, the leaders knew and then funneled such people right over to the office of one of the apostles or other selected to deal with it and tell the individuals to clam up about it. If you want one example of this, read Boyd Kirtland's (Kirkland's?) detail of his visit like that.

AA said:

As for your last point, I can see why Adam-God theory doesn't get that much publicity. It seems to me that it is inconsistent with what light and knowledge we have since acquired, such as the further definition of the roles and members of the Godhead. As you said, we have since resolved the idea that Jehovah=Jesus and that Michael (Adam) is his subordinate.

Me:

Well, now there is a whole other new can of worms. The Jehovah-Jesus doctrinal development was a product of the early years just after the correlation committee's recommendation to stop discussing these matters. The Jesus-Jehovah connections were made (although in scripture there are a number of instances where Jesus-Jehovah are clearly not the same person) and the next couple generations that rose up had the heirarchy of Elohim-Jehovah/Jesus-Michael, instead of the prior Elohim-Jehovah-Michael-Jesus rank and file. So when AG would be discussed here and there it seemed immediately impossible to many people. At the same time you had Widtsoe and JFS purposefully obfuscating the issue by (knowingly and falsely) claiming BY did not really mean Adam/Michael was God our father. Maybe they really believe Adam/Michael was not God our Father. Maybe their belief was correct, but there is no doubt they blatantly lied about what BY actually taught. Later Mark E. Petersen was caught falsifying evidence to support his claims against BY teaching AG, and BRM admitted to lying himself in the Eugene England letter.

AA said:

Nevertheless, there is so much that is so difficult to interpret and understand, less damage would be done by letting lying dogs lie rather than try to pin it all down.

Me:

EXACLTY!!!!!!! And for that very reason I do not fault the leadership for choosing that course of action in dealing with the matter. Nevertheless it is a bit disturbing that you have current leadership sliughing off a prior prophet who spoke in the name of the Lord on the topic and claimed revelation as his guide.

[Dan]

UtahDan:

So what did cause it to "fade away" I wonder. I just have a hard time swallowing any explanation that includes that some how a bad appearance was created or that the membership was ot ready for it. Maybe I'm wrong but those things ring hollow to me.

Of course this brings about the interesting paradox that I think it the thrust of what a lot of your comments is: that there is no easy way to reconcile this past doctrine with its current abandonment.

Me:

Do you want to know what the real problem is with the concept, and why I think it ultimately fell out of favor publically and was quashed? ... The concept is NOT SCRIPTURAL. A careful study of the scriptures makes it appear false, requiring you to make assumptions that the scriptures, in part, are inaccurate. This is THE reason why Orson Pratt could not believe it. I do not thinkk LDS have a problem with saying "the scriptures are not perfect", but to prove AG scripturally, you would have to claim certain things as currently written are not true. After AG picked up steam it was apparent it was becoming a hinderance to greater converts joining (well, that and polygamy). It is hard to try to teach someone a principle if it apprears the bible teaches something else. Non-members are not quite going to buy the comment that we have a living prophet who says the bible is wrong right there. Same thing with multiple mortal probations. When polygamy was finally being snuffed out, it was at the same time that the correlation committee suggested that the deeper doctrines not be taught or emphasized. The problem was that shortly thereafter when the church tried to deflect discussion away from the topic, you had a couple vocal apostles making statements in their writings that BY never taught the principle (this was before the 1stP had to approve all books). So then you have generations of members not familiar with the teaching, who are familiar with the general scripture stories and then who read what Widtsoe and JFS are saying. Things start to cement a little bit over time after that. A whole other generation came up after that and before more information became available through the opening up of the church archives and compiling of other sources. Then when it is clear what BY really taught you still have BRM claiming, in his humbly title "Mormon Doctrine", that BY was misquoted and purposefully twisted by other claiming BY believe Adam weas God. The Eugene England tried to inform BRM to retract and provided evidence that BY really did teach AG. England was being polite and was trying to keep BRM from being embarrassed later. Well BRM took it the wrong way and told England he knew well enough what BY taught and that BY spoke falsely. This stuff has just snowballed to the point where you cannot realistically expect the church to touch that issue anymore. If it is a true doctrine and people are searching for truth, they will find it when they are ready for it. The church will just keep on teaching the basics. Hard to argue with that, IMO.

[MikeWaters]

I've read almost none of this thread. I'm scared to dive in.

[All-American]

Okay, after all of this discussion I think I am ready to modify my stance.

Brigham did not put two and two together and get five; he put 15,206 and 86,683 together and got 101,886. In an era where the nature of God was still being figured out, I still think he made one connection too many.

The argument for it is, essentially, how could he say he was so certain, having received the knowledge from Joseph Smith and God, and be so wrong? The converse is more troubling to me: how could we have truth in its pure and simple form and then corrupt it so terribly?

Dan, you asked me how I could have faith in a prophet if I am so willing to shrug off Brigham's adamant teachings. To me, the more important question is how I could have faith in a prophet if he leads the church away from the truth. There is a definite change in thinking, and we're either getting closer to the truth, being guided by a prophet of God, or we're getting farther from the truth.

I don't believe AG because, whether you like the tactics or not, our most recent prophets have guided us away from it. I have faith that they do so with our best interest in mind.

[SoCalCoug]

You know, I lie to my son all the time: about how Santa Claus comes down the chimney to deliver presents, how the Easter Bunny comes in the middle of the night and hides the eggs he colored, and how the tooth fairy takes his teeth from under his pillow and replaces them with money. I deceive him in these things because I think it's good for him to believe this way, for now.

It doesn't change the truth of things - just because I want him to believe one way doesn't change the nature of the truth.

Perhaps it's that way with the Adam-God doctrine. Perhaps the current prophets don't want us to dwell on it. It doesn't necessarily mean it's not truth.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by Elder McConkie

Heresy #6: There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures. Anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, and who yet believes the "Adam-God Theory" does not deserve to saved. Those ensnared by it reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet commenced.

Elder McConkie's talk The Seven Deadly Heresies.

Talk given at Brigham Young University, Marriott Center, June 1, 1980

[SteelBlue]

[quote="JohnnyLingo"]

Originally Posted by Elder McConkie

Anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment, and who yet believes the "Adam-God Theory" does not deserve to saved.

Ouch! Poor Brigham.

Originally Posted by Elder McConkie

Those ensnared by it reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

That's a very interesting statement. I've never tied the two (AG Theory/Polygamy) together.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Elder McConkie's talk The Seven Deadly Heresies.

Talk given at Brigham Young University, Marriott Center, June 1, 1980

Hey Johnnyvine or Grapelingo, what is the purpose in posting this? Need somebody post showing you that McConkie lied concerning the Adam/God theory? Need somebody post the many quotes of a President of the church?