So has anybody discussed the Adam God theory recently?

[Dan]

... 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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.......

[Dan]

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.

[MikeWaters]

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

[Dan]

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.

[MikeWaters]

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.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Dan

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.

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.

[Dan]

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.