Adam-God Theory

[Black Diamond Bay]

God is perfect, he doesn't sin. Adam was a mortal that was baptized, repented of sins/trangressions, and was forgiven. Jesus Christ did not make God perfect, he already was.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

God is perfect, he doesn't sin. Adam was a mortal that was baptized, repented of sins/trangressions, and was forgiven. Jesus Christ did not make God perfect, he already was.

Was God always perfect.... no, he became perfect the same way that we hope to become perfect.

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Snow

[All-American]

I took the initiative myself:

During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball stated: "We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine" (Church News, 10/9/76).

So, I see three options:

A). Brigham Young is wrong.
B). Spencer W. Kimball is wrong.
C). Some sort of mental gymnastics well beyond what I'm capable of doing reconciles the two.

Any takers?

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by All-American

I took the initiative myself:

During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball stated: "We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine" (Church News, 10/9/76).

So, I see three options:

A). Brigham Young is wrong.
B). Spencer W. Kimball is wrong.
C). Some sort of mental gymnastics well beyond what I'm capable of doing reconciles the two.

Any takers?

Brigham Young didn't teach AG theory in a lot of depth. There is a lot of speculation and guess work that has been added on to it that has some glaring errors. It is now a corrupt mixture of truth and error.

Thats at least my personal theory.

[Dan]

... but let me interject a bit here and get back up to speed on this discussion.

AA said (responding to my comment that we never affirmed atonement and other doctrines in confernece):

There have been votes to accept the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and covenants, etc., as official and binding doctrine, and the atonement is discussed in detail in those books. Whenever changes have been made to the "canonical" works, the church votes to accept them.

Me:

Ok, true, but accepting books of scripture is a FAR cry from beiong able to claim that by accepting the scriptures in general we specifically have approved by common consent of specific doctrines. I think the stretch is apparent and I needn't belabor the point further.

AA said:

By allowing it [ AG] to simply fade away without a peep indicates either a), it was official, but bringing it up would create embarrasing discussion, b) it was not ever official, or c) it's actually true doctrine and we just don't want to admit it. To me, after examining everything I know and admitting it is but a portion of what is available, b makes the most sense. (Dan, are you arguing A or C?)

Me:

Yes, A or C. It is undeniable that it was totally pervasive. There is no reason to assume something has to be "official" (at least the way you define the word in this case) before comments of renouncement or otherwise may or can be made. If it had to be, well, then show me exactly where the church accepted polygamy and the policy re blacks and priesthood (so that it can be deemed "official" under your definition). Otherwise, under your standard the official declarations would not have been produced, no? BY and the Q12 accepted AG. Though Pratt did not personally agree with it, he acquiesced to it and therefore, the Q12 was united.

Non-Sequitur said:

How do you know God has promised that the leaders won't lead us astray?

Me:

Quite true. We do not know. Said men are imperfect beings and therefore are liable to make mistakes and fall from their position.

BDB:

I read through some/most of the material you posted (admittedly not all) and I have yet to find a satisfactory answer to my first question. How could a perfect God come to earth as a mortal and sin, and still claim to be perfect?

Me:

I will say it again BDB ... your answer is not satisfactory because you are locked into looking at the issue through your paradigm. Ok, let me expound a bit more. First of all, I have been careful to note that Adam did not sin, he transgressed. Though whether he sinned or not, I think, is beside the point anyway. The problem here, to begin with, is how you view "perfection." Note, I am not saying you do not have the correct view of perfection, but what I will say is abundantly clear is that BY and the early brethren had a different view of it than what you seem to be expressing and what most LDS believe today. This is what I mean by having to understand their paradigms (i.e., their understandings of perfection, among other things) before you see how the question you posed poses no problem logically or otherwise for BY et al. Let me give you a suggestion, check out the book "Conflicts in the Quorum" (I think the author was Gary Berguera - sp?). You will get a very clear view of AG and how the leaders viewed perfection. In a nutshell, they believed God is ever increasing in knowledge and experience in a dynamic and expansive manner. They did not believe, as most now do, that God knows absolutely everything. If God's work is to bring to pass the immortality and exaltation of man, is it that hard to believe that God himself would be willing to "fall" from his exalted position to mortality so that he could lead the charge of bringing his children into mortality? His fall did nessecitate a redeemer (Jesus) to restore Him to his exalted position, but He had his own power to raise himself again through resurrection. The more you see how BY et al viewed simple concepts such as perfection, afterlife progression, eternal life, etc, and how they at times and in different was differ from the way you and most LDS interpret them, you will begin to understand how easily your question becomes a non-issue under their paradigm.

BDB said:

God is perfect, he doesn't sin. Adam was a mortal that was baptized, repented of sins/trangressions, and was forgiven. Jesus Christ did not make God perfect, he already was.

Me:

BDB, you made this comment towards the end of the discussion thread, as it exists currently, at least. This is what I am talking about. You have your fixed paradigm and it appears to me you have a tough time removing yourself, at least artificially, from that for a bit to try to explore the paradigm of those who did not see these concerns as being concerns at all. The assumptions you have about perfection, sin, transgression, forgiveness, the nature of God before and after this life, etc. are different than yours. I am not saying you need to change your paradimgs. I am not saying they are not correct. What I am saying is to see why these questions of yours are not logical absurdities for AG you will have to be able to stop demanding that AG force fit through paradigms such as you quote immediately above to be able to understand your answers.

BDB said:

The attitude I perceive here is disturbing to me, in that it's one that I would generally associate with an anti, apostate, not the upstanding church member that you are. I take issue with your assumption that I have taken a close-minded, resentful approach to this topic and therefore have suffered an inability to truly understand...unlike yourself.

Me:

I can understand how you are interpreting things that way, but that is not my intention. First off, this is not the first time nor the last that I will be associated with an apostate spirit, so that does not bother me. Please do not look at me as pointing a finger towards you with my own nose lifted up in the air. What I am trying to explain is that you have certain assumptions through which you unconsciously interpret things, whether those things are read from scripture, when you ponder words of past prophets, etc. I am further trying to explain that it appears quite apparent that your lens through which you see these issues is not the same as the lens that BY et al had regarding AG. If you could see the issue through their lens (with all of their assumptions regarding what it means to be perfect, eternal, etc., for example) your understanding will exand and you will be able to see the answers to your questions more readily. Again I am not criticizing you for this, as I myself have my own lenses to deal with. But I do try to expand my mind as best I can with topics such as these and try to understand how they perceieved the issues based on their paradigms, not on how they perceived the issues through my paradigms.

BDB said:

No, my reasoning is very much in line with SWK, a consecrated prophet.

Me:

Ok, some irony here now. Let's first put aside the reality that SWK's comment about AG in passing quite possibly were not meant as most thought they were. AG is so complex with so many differnet variations and distinctions (though we are sort of discussing it here in general as if it is just one concept) that most people I discuss this with do not believe he meant what most think he did. Add that to the delicious fact that he also referred to John Taylor's visit by the savior, which most do not even realize that the only time that ws ever understood to have happened was in the scandalous incident at the Wooley residence. If people are not familiar with that, well, it is a thread all unto its own and some web research will quickly start uncovering info and get you partially up to speed at least. And if you are doing the research, don't forget SWK's namesake middle name and lineage ... Wooley.

But for the sake of argument, let's just assume SWK was denouncing all things AG. Very well. Under AA's and BDB's standard, SWK's comments do NOT qualify as an official denouncement of the practice, so we cannot claim AG has been done away with. Ironic, I know. So we have a battle of dead prophets going on with an ambiguous comment by SWK, once, and hundreds of specific exegetical pronouncements by another. Which is correct? Honestly, I do not know. As I have said all along, I am not an adherent to AG. It could be true, but I am just pointing out the troubling aspects of it here (that is how I really got involved in this thread in the first place). We know how you, BDB, fall out on this battle of dead prophets. You go with the "consecrated" SWK. Ok. Others go with the "consecrated" BY. Others (myself included) are undecided. One piece of documentation that I will ABSOLUTELY NOT share with anyone - SO DO NOT ASK ME - is documentation in letter form wherein Harold B. Lee shows his belief in AG. I received this document under heavy promise that I will not proliferate copies in any way. In fact I never comment on it in discussions like these as I am not able to share the docuemnt and I do not want to tell people to "trust me" on it. So please disregard that if you'd like.

Alkili said:

Brigham Young didn't teach AG theory in a lot of depth.

Me:

I beg to differ. BY was quite specific. There are even more sources than the ones I could provide easily by link here. He was definitely clear and repetetive with it, even if you only consider the lecture at the veil.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Dan

Alkili said:

Brigham Young didn't teach AG theory in a lot of depth.

Me:

I beg to differ. BY was quite specific. There are even more sources than the ones I could provide easily by link here. He was definitely clear and repetetive with it, even if you only consider the lecture at the veil.

Poor choice of words, what i intended to say was that it is very confusing and at times seemingly contradictory.

[Dan]

... it is confusing as it is very complex, but I think the contradictions are more based on (oh dear, BDB is NOT going to like me saying this at all ...) our looking at the issue with different paradigms than them. But BY also expounded quite a bit on the theme that we can all personally be Adams and Eves, and so there are other layers of discussion going on that can create paradoxes as well.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Dan

... it is confusing as it is very complex, but I think the contradictions are more based on (oh dear, BDB is NOT going to like me saying this at all ...) our looking at the issue with different paradigms than them. But BY also expounded quite a bit on the theme that we can all personally be Adams and Eves, and so there are other layers of discussion going on that can create paradoxes as well.

That SWK did not need an "official" declaration to do away with AG is indicative of its "unofficial" status in the first place. You can't undo a constitutional amendment with a supreme court ruling, but you can undo a supreme court ruling with a supreme court ruling.

As for the paradigm idea: I understand how they would think what they did, which is the foundation for my argument: Brigham Young put two and two together and got five. Ultimately, the basic idea that the intelligent entity known as God was the same intelligent entity known as Adam is either true or false. Other layers of meaning and interpretation can be valuable and profitable in learning about God's origin and Man's destiny, but the actual identification of God=Adam is what is being called into question. This, and correct me if I'm wrong, is what Brigham Young taught as true and what Spencer W. Kimball taught as false. Who's right?

[Dan]

AA said:

That SWK did not need an "official" declaration to do away with AG is indicative of its "unofficial" status in the first place. You can't undo a constitutional amendment with a supreme court ruling, but you can undo a supreme court ruling with a supreme court ruling.

Me:

Alright, I am ready to leave the dead horse where it sits. I think I have made my point multiple times that the extent and pervasive nature of diffusion of AG made it more than official. You desire/require something to be formally put forth in general conference with sustaining member vote for "official" status. Let us agree to disagree on that from this point on.

AA:

As for the paradigm idea: I understand how they would think what they did, which is the foundation for my argument: Brigham Young put two and two together and got five.

Me:

Yes and no. You are making a lot of assumptions (BIG ones) in stating BY was just plain confused on the issue. My view is that even though it is very complex, I am not making assumptions (or rather at least not making any BIG assumptions) in taking BY at his word that he understood what he was told by Joseph AND that he received knowledge of the trust of AG by direct revelation from God. My only assumption is that he understood Joseph and his revelation he received. In the traditional and current LDS model, it is much more conservative and proper to ere on the side of believing the prophet when he was as adamant as BY, speaking in the name of the Lord, structuring temple ceremonies, etc. The complexity of it is what gives some credence to the possibilities of your assumption, but still your view is really complete speculation regarding BY's understanding. I do not care how complex it is, my speculation relates only to the assumption that BY knew what he was talking about and that he was not confused when he cites multiple witnesses as his teachers (Joseph and God). I don not think BY was confused. But that does not mean I believe he was correct. It is still possible that BY could have gotten things wrong, that is why I maintain that I have not taken a solid position one way or another. My only point is that the concept was official position and the fact that it is apparently disavowed and hidden and lied about to this day are or should be sort of troubling to the LDS thinker.

AA:

Ultimately, the basic idea that the intelligent entity known as God was the same intelligent entity known as Adam is either true or false.

Me:

But stop right there. What do you mean by "God"? An individual God, or collective God Elohim? In AG Adam was God Michael, a part of God Elohim. God Michael condescended to fall to mortality and was then known to us in scripture as Adam. In the early temple the characters we had were Elohim, then Jehovah, then Michael, AND then Jesus Christ. Michael became Adam, and yes, "Adam" means "Man". Therefore it is not suprising that a title for Jesus Chirst is "Son of Man", or just as correct, "Son of Adam." But yes, whether Michael God was the same as Adam is either true or correct.

AA said:

Other layers of meaning and interpretation can be valuable and profitable in learning about God's origin and Man's destiny, but the actual identification of God=Adam is what is being called into question.

Me:

BY was adamant (no pun intended) that Michael God was Adam. BY was adamant that Michael God was God our Father. Jehovah was Michael God's Father. Today the paradigm is that Elohim is our God the Father (though that creates the paradox that we realize Elohim is plural, and so we therefore, further make assumptions that God the Father Elohim is still named Elohim and is called such because he is a part of the Elohim). Further, today's paradigm is that Jehovah is one and the same as Jesus Christ, higher in authority than Michael. Today's paradigm just was not the case back then. It wasn't until Talmage made connections with Jehovah-Jesus that that theory becan to take hold. One thing to remember is that these are all name titles, and Jehovah can be applied to Jesus in many circumstances, just as Elohim can be applied to Michael, for example.


AA said:

This, and correct me if I'm wrong, is what Brigham Young taught as true and what Spencer W. Kimball taught as false. Who's right?

Me:

Maybe, maybe not. I am far from convinced that SWK intended to do what most passingly assume he did. But if he was intending to disavow AG, then yes, either BY or SWK was wrong. But still, there is always the argument that even if SWK meant this, was he pronouncing this as a prophetic utterance, claiming divine revelation and speaking in the name of the Lord. Probably not, IMO. But there is no doubt that BY did.

[All-American]

Well, I gambled in using "God" instead of "Heavenly Father."

When I said "God," I meant "Heavenly Father," as in the one I talk to when I pray.

I don't argue that Michael was Adam. I don't even argue over using the term "Michael God" (cf. Psalms 82:6). When I used the word "God" in my previous post, I referred to the individual we identify as the Father.

So, after reading Dan's last post, three questions come to mind:

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.

Assuming that my understanding was correct:

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

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

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. 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.