So has anybody discussed the Adam God theory recently? - Page 4 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Dan · 08-15-2005, 06:26 AM

... Eugene England - BRM letter. BRM explicitly admits Brigham taught AG, and explicity claims BY was dead wrong on that issue.

http://www.myplanet.net/mike/LDS/McC...nd_letter.html

I am a little torn with how trite BRM makes the case against BY with all of his "which Brigham do we believe?" type rhetoric. He oversimplified BY's general theology. BY was a prophet (i.e., top dog) and BRM was 'only' of the Q12. These comments by BRM (an living apostle attempting to trump a dead prophet - now there is a mental tug-o-war in the mind of the average orthodox Mormon *grin*) were made a few years before SWK's open disavowal of AG. BRM is also, through his admission of BY teaching the AG concept, allowing us to beg the question ... which BRM should we believe when we read his works? The one who writes in Mormon Doctrine that it is a lie to claim BY taught Ag? Or the one who will admit he did teach it only in relative seclusion? I can understand why BRM would take the position he did, but it doesn't sit well with me to read his comments about which BY should we believe.

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 07:02 AM

I found this quote from BRM in his letter to Eugene England highly ironic, given how his own misnamed tome led many people astray with non-doctrine "doctrine":

"It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:16) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

SeattleUte · 08-15-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I found this quote from BRM in his letter to Eugene England highly ironic, given how his own misnamed tome led many people astray with non-doctrine "doctrine":

"It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:16) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

I agree wholeheartedly. I have discussed at length with thoughtful Mormons the whole business of whether the priesthood ban was "Mormon Doctrine" or "Mormon policy." The current consensus seems to be that McConkie and those that shared his views were just wrong, i.e., it was policy, and mis-guided policy at that (I'll withold my own view of this debate/issue). The most common explanation I have heard is that blacks were denied the priesthood because "the membership wasn't ready for this," i.e., the leaders pandering to the rank and file's racism.

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 05:04 PM

I think Blacks and the Priesthood was policy also, and not doctrine. There is a lot of evidence for this. After a time it became sort of a tradition, i.e. "Brigham Young said no, therefore that's how it should be." That's why there has never been an official explanation as to the policy.

I've heard that part of the problem was faithful church members in South America doing geneaology work and discovering they had black ancestors. Are they then relieved of their priesthood callings? It was a big conundrum.

Unfortunately this issue remains a stumbling block for many. I wrote an article about this for the Student Review. Back when they had a website, it was in their archive. The webmaster told me it was the most accessed article on their site. A real hunger out there for information and explanation.

SeattleUte · 08-15-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think Blacks and the Priesthood was policy also, and not doctrine. There is a lot of evidence for this. After a time it became sort of a tradition, i.e. "Brigham Young said no, therefore that's how it should be." That's why there has never been an official explanation as to the policy.

I've heard that part of the problem was faithful church members in South America doing geneaology work and discovering they had black ancestors. Are they then relieved of their priesthood callings? It was a big conundrum.

Unfortunately this issue remains a stumbling block for many. I wrote an article about this for the Student Review. Back when they had a website, it was in their archive. The webmaster told me it was the most accessed article on their site. A real hunger out there for information and explanation.

So what's stopping the Church from officially repudiating the "policy," saying, "we were wrong"?

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatBlue

So what's stopping the Church from officially repudiating the "policy," saying, "we were wrong"?

You are asking the wrong person.

fusnik11 · 08-15-2005, 05:44 PM

you rescind eternal priesthood from those that have already received it?

MikeWaters · 08-15-2005, 05:49 PM

that was the problem. My recollection is that a case like this came to the first pres/Q12's attention, and they told the Saint to continue on as he had before.

I dont' know for sure, but situations like this probably in part led to the prayerful consideration to rescind the policy.

Also my understanding is that many of the Q12 in David o. McKay's time were in favor of rescinding it (including DOM), but they were not unanimous.

fusnik11 · 08-15-2005, 05:51 PM

best friends is a black man who married a white lds girl...

he struggled with the blacks and priesthood issue for a couple of years before he finally, 'got over it....'

the only answer i could give him when he asked me was, its about timing.....but timing from what i could not answer....

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, 06:26 AM	#31
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Here is the ... ... Eugene England - BRM letter. BRM explicitly admits Brigham taught AG, and explicity claims BY was dead wrong on that issue. http://www.myplanet.net/mike/LDS/McC...nd_letter.html I am a little torn with how trite BRM makes the case against BY with all of his "which Brigham do we believe?" type rhetoric. He oversimplified BY's general theology. BY was a prophet (i.e., top dog) and BRM was 'only' of the Q12. These comments by BRM (an living apostle attempting to trump a dead prophet - now there is a mental tug-o-war in the mind of the average orthodox Mormon grin) were made a few years before SWK's open disavowal of AG. BRM is also, through his admission of BY teaching the AG concept, allowing us to beg the question ... which BRM should we believe when we read his works? The one who writes in Mormon Doctrine that it is a lie to claim BY taught Ag? Or the one who will admit he did teach it only in relative seclusion? I can understand why BRM would take the position he did, but it doesn't sit well with me to read his comments about which BY should we believe. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

08-15-2005, 05:44 PM	#37
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	how can... you rescind eternal priesthood from those that have already received it?

08-15-2005, 05:51 PM	#39
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	one of my... best friends is a black man who married a white lds girl... he struggled with the blacks and priesthood issue for a couple of years before he finally, 'got over it....' the only answer i could give him when he asked me was, its about timing.....but timing from what i could not answer....

08-15-2005, 07:02 AM	#32
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I found this quote from BRM in his letter to Eugene England highly ironic, given how his own misnamed tome led many people astray with non-doctrine "doctrine": "It is not in your province to set in order the Church or to determine what its doctrines shall be. It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:16) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent."

08-15-2005, 05:04 PM	#34
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	I think Blacks and the Priesthood was policy also, and not doctrine. There is a lot of evidence for this. After a time it became sort of a tradition, i.e. "Brigham Young said no, therefore that's how it should be." That's why there has never been an official explanation as to the policy. I've heard that part of the problem was faithful church members in South America doing geneaology work and discovering they had black ancestors. Are they then relieved of their priesthood callings? It was a big conundrum. Unfortunately this issue remains a stumbling block for many. I wrote an article about this for the Student Review. Back when they had a website, it was in their archive. The webmaster told me it was the most accessed article on their site. A real hunger out there for information and explanation.

08-15-2005, 05:49 PM	#38
MikeWaters Demiurge Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 36,365	that was the problem. My recollection is that a case like this came to the first pres/Q12's attention, and they told the Saint to continue on as he had before. I dont' know for sure, but situations like this probably in part led to the prayerful consideration to rescind the policy. Also my understanding is that many of the Q12 in David o. McKay's time were in favor of rescinding it (including DOM), but they were not unanimous.

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.