So has anybody discussed the Adam God theory recently? - Page 7 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SteelBlue · 08-18-2005, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so have we officially beat this one to death yet?

I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread! However it has become very esoteric and I can barely hang.

Dan · 08-18-2005, 06:32 AM

Tell your friend thanks for the dialogue. I too just don't have time to keep up with lengthy discussions.

I will end with just a couple clarifying points. First, I think a bit of a strawman was put up for me regarding the phase out of AG. I do not feel like I have anything to defend. I readily admit it was phased out after BY's death, but exactly when is hard to say. It was not openly taught much after BY's death ... except for in the temple, in the lecture at the veil, until into the JFS presidency. So though there are no known journal quotes, etc. propunding it, it was taught in the most sacred churchwide place of learning. That has to count for some tacit approval of it.

You know, I will just leave it at that. Most of what I would say would echo my previous comments, just couched a little different to clarify.

I would like you, Mike, to ask your friend to forward any quotes, if any, that he finds of evidence that any other apostles other than Orson P., did not go along with AG. Friend's hesitation makes me think he is maybe thinking of Amasa Lyman, who had some issues about theology in general and was excommunicated. Anyway, if he runs into anything, ask him to let us know.

Thanks.

Dan · 08-18-2005, 07:00 PM

There is a reference I want to point out ...

In 1896, Edward Stevenson, one of the Seven Presidents of Seventy, had "a deep talk" with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God concept. Afterwards, Stevenson wrote in his diary concerning the temple creation gods: "Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd Jehovah, 3rd Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come."

This is not the only place where the Elohim-Jehovah-Adam-Jesus heirarchy pops up in our LDS past. It has been over a hundred years since any semblence of it has been moved away from, but it is out there none the less, and if it were to be true, such a heirarchy clears up a lot of 'problems' with a number of contradictory quotes, etc.

ute4ever · 08-20-2005, 04:18 AM

Going back to the first page of posts on this thread, a choice sister in Zion recently cast this pearl before the swine in her singles ward testimony meeting:

"I was going to a pot-luck and decided to take seven-layer dip. But at the supermarket, as I put each ingredient into my basket, I kept having feelings that I should not take seven-layer dip. So I took something else instead.

"When I got to the pot-luck, two others had already brought seven-layer dip! I'm so thankful for the Holy Ghost looking out for me."

SoCalCoug · 08-20-2005, 04:26 AM

Of the seven layers of gospel knowledge and understanding, I'd say she's at the shallowest.

Dan · 08-22-2005, 03:52 AM

... about something related to this thread that I wish I had recalled earlier in this thread before it died down.

The term "man" in the Bible means "Adam". It is often translated as "man" instead of as "Adam" because th context is quite clear if mankind is being discussed, as opposed to a particular historical individual. Well, anytime you see that inquisitive term "Son of Man", as a description of Jesus, or as one of his titles, guess how it can be translated? Yep, that is right ... either "Son of Man" or "Son of Adam". Translaters have not thought about using the latter at it is totally outside their paradigms, but it is just as valid. Paul also describes Jesus as the second Adam.

Just an interesting side note to the discussion that I thought I would throw in.

MikeWaters · 08-22-2005, 03:56 AM

another one from "Friend":
===============================
There are some others recorded by Stevenson in his diary. I would like to see the entire quote from Stevenson's diary. The quote I have contains the listing but not much about any conversation. Also, as with the GQC quote it is private. Also, from the quote I have and the one he posted it is not clear that LS told him the order.

ute4ever · 09-06-2005, 03:13 AM

Without rereading the entire thread, I don't recall if this has been brought up already....but back in the 1800's, talks and lectures were not recorded and mass produced like the Ensigns of today; rather they were handwritten by scribes as fast as they could keep up with the speaker.

It is very possible that the whole "Adam God" issue was written out of context.

Realize that no apostle since Brigham Young has elaborated on the theory; that alone should be concrete evidence that nobody agrees with it.

SoCalCoug · 09-06-2005, 05:39 AM

I was poking around the internet on this subject, and I ran across an article by an Elden Watson, in which he sets out to harmonize Brigham Young's teachings with other LDS teachings.

He purports to have had personal discussions with, among others, President Kimball and Elder McConkie on the subject, and the article seems to be well-researched and reasonable.

In essence, he says that the difficulty in understanding what Brigham Young was teaching is that there is confusion between the person he identifies as Father Adam (God the Father) and Adam. My reading of this is that the stress is on the relationship between Adam and God the Father, which is why it was presented as Father Adam and Adam.

http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/7AdamGod.htm

It certainly does seem to me to harmonize the Adam-God theory with other LDS teachings and doctrine, and with the response to the interpretation by subsquent church leaders.

Dan · 09-06-2005, 05:35 PM

... that guys like Watson 'harmonize' by really only looking at selected resources (such as Deseret News or Journal of Discourses excerpts). They completely disregard the flood of 'less reliable' sources such as journals of Wilford Woodruff and other apostles, etc. **sarcastic mode on** Sure, those resources are fantastic for any non-controvercial aspect of church history, but anytime you come across an issue that is meant to be whitewashed those sources aren't reliable. **sarcastic mode off** Let alone the fact that guys like Watson will not talk about the Lecture at the veil. In any of these sources there is no doubt about who BY is referring to. It is only when people focus on selected excerpts that allows for any wiggle room in trying to differentiate terms like "Father Adam" and the man "Adam".

Watson is a fine apologist and has some good stuff on the first vision, but he is flat wrong here. In almost every case where apologists are concerned, they fall flat when history is not on their side. They mentally contort evidence to try to fit their paradigm instead of allowing the evidence to speak for itself and then form their paradigm accordingly.

08-18-2005, 06:32 AM	#62
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Mike ... Tell your friend thanks for the dialogue. I too just don't have time to keep up with lengthy discussions. I will end with just a couple clarifying points. First, I think a bit of a strawman was put up for me regarding the phase out of AG. I do not feel like I have anything to defend. I readily admit it was phased out after BY's death, but exactly when is hard to say. It was not openly taught much after BY's death ... except for in the temple, in the lecture at the veil, until into the JFS presidency. So though there are no known journal quotes, etc. propunding it, it was taught in the most sacred churchwide place of learning. That has to count for some tacit approval of it. You know, I will just leave it at that. Most of what I would say would echo my previous comments, just couched a little different to clarify. I would like you, Mike, to ask your friend to forward any quotes, if any, that he finds of evidence that any other apostles other than Orson P., did not go along with AG. Friend's hesitation makes me think he is maybe thinking of Amasa Lyman, who had some issues about theology in general and was excommunicated. Anyway, if he runs into anything, ask him to let us know. Thanks. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

08-18-2005, 07:00 PM	#63
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	One final, final note ... There is a reference I want to point out ... In 1896, Edward Stevenson, one of the Seven Presidents of Seventy, had "a deep talk" with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God concept. Afterwards, Stevenson wrote in his diary concerning the temple creation gods: "Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd Jehovah, 3rd Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come." This is not the only place where the Elohim-Jehovah-Adam-Jesus heirarchy pops up in our LDS past. It has been over a hundred years since any semblence of it has been moved away from, but it is out there none the less, and if it were to be true, such a heirarchy clears up a lot of 'problems' with a number of contradictory quotes, etc. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

08-20-2005, 04:18 AM	#64
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Side note Going back to the first page of posts on this thread, a choice sister in Zion recently cast this pearl before the swine in her singles ward testimony meeting: "I was going to a pot-luck and decided to take seven-layer dip. But at the supermarket, as I put each ingredient into my basket, I kept having feelings that I should not take seven-layer dip. So I took something else instead. "When I got to the pot-luck, two others had already brought seven-layer dip! I'm so thankful for the Holy Ghost looking out for me."

08-20-2005, 04:26 AM	#65
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	Of the seven layers of gospel knowledge and understanding, I'd say she's at the shallowest. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

08-22-2005, 03:52 AM	#66
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Today at church I was thinking ... ... about something related to this thread that I wish I had recalled earlier in this thread before it died down. The term "man" in the Bible means "Adam". It is often translated as "man" instead of as "Adam" because th context is quite clear if mankind is being discussed, as opposed to a particular historical individual. Well, anytime you see that inquisitive term "Son of Man", as a description of Jesus, or as one of his titles, guess how it can be translated? Yep, that is right ... either "Son of Man" or "Son of Adam". Translaters have not thought about using the latter at it is totally outside their paradigms, but it is just as valid. Paul also describes Jesus as the second Adam. Just an interesting side note to the discussion that I thought I would throw in. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

08-22-2005, 03:56 AM	#67
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	another one from "Friend": =============================== There are some others recorded by Stevenson in his diary. I would like to see the entire quote from Stevenson's diary. The quote I have contains the listing but not much about any conversation. Also, as with the GQC quote it is private. Also, from the quote I have and the one he posted it is not clear that LS told him the order.

09-06-2005, 03:13 AM	#68
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	Without rereading the entire thread, I don't recall if this has been brought up already....but back in the 1800's, talks and lectures were not recorded and mass produced like the Ensigns of today; rather they were handwritten by scribes as fast as they could keep up with the speaker. It is very possible that the whole "Adam God" issue was written out of context. Realize that no apostle since Brigham Young has elaborated on the theory; that alone should be concrete evidence that nobody agrees with it.

09-06-2005, 05:39 AM	#69
SoCalCoug Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Orange County, California Posts: 3,059	I was poking around the internet on this subject, and I ran across an article by an Elden Watson, in which he sets out to harmonize Brigham Young's teachings with other LDS teachings. He purports to have had personal discussions with, among others, President Kimball and Elder McConkie on the subject, and the article seems to be well-researched and reasonable. In essence, he says that the difficulty in understanding what Brigham Young was teaching is that there is confusion between the person he identifies as Father Adam (God the Father) and Adam. My reading of this is that the stress is on the relationship between Adam and God the Father, which is why it was presented as Father Adam and Adam. http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/7AdamGod.htm It certainly does seem to me to harmonize the Adam-God theory with other LDS teachings and doctrine, and with the response to the interpretation by subsquent church leaders. __________________ Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt! "Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper "If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug

09-06-2005, 05:35 PM	#70
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	The problem is ... ... that guys like Watson 'harmonize' by really only looking at selected resources (such as Deseret News or Journal of Discourses excerpts). They completely disregard the flood of 'less reliable' sources such as journals of Wilford Woodruff and other apostles, etc. sarcastic mode on Sure, those resources are fantastic for any non-controvercial aspect of church history, but anytime you come across an issue that is meant to be whitewashed those sources aren't reliable. sarcastic mode off Let alone the fact that guys like Watson will not talk about the Lecture at the veil. In any of these sources there is no doubt about who BY is referring to. It is only when people focus on selected excerpts that allows for any wiggle room in trying to differentiate terms like "Father Adam" and the man "Adam". Watson is a fine apologist and has some good stuff on the first vision, but he is flat wrong here. In almost every case where apologists are concerned, they fall flat when history is not on their side. They mentally contort evidence to try to fit their paradigm instead of allowing the evidence to speak for itself and then form their paradigm accordingly. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"