Adam - God Theory

[Snow]

Beyond having read some of the quotes I haven't much followed such debates. I think everyone is who aware of the issue understands that a number of statements were made, primarily by President Young, that some have interpreted to mean that President Young believed that Adam and God the Father were one in the same. But then I have seen some people say that if you look at the whole corpus of Brigham Young's discourse on the topic, in context, it is NOT that case that he equated Adam with God.

Of course my testimony does not hinge on what Brigham Young or anyone else may have thought about the matter, but I'd be interested in hearing from someone knowledgeable on the issue how BY's beliefs are distorted by assigning them to the Adam/God Theory bucket or how they can be reconciled to orthodox LDS beliefs.

I'm not interested in criticizing BY or criticizing anyone's beliefs on the matter - I just want to gain some understanding of how his beliefs can best be understood.

I purposely put this in the General Discussion room as, obviously, it is not a doctrinal matter.

If you want to try and blast BY or the Church, please save it for another thread.

[Guest Xzain]

I've wondered this myself. The only ones I've seen who initiate discussion about it anymore are anti-Mormons desperate for fodder- yet I'm sure many a worthy LSD apologist has spoken on the matter.

I'm interested to read what anyone has to say on the matter.

[GoodK]

I've wondered this myself. The only ones I've seen who initiate discussion about it anymore are anti-Mormons desperate for fodder- yet I'm sure many a worthy LSD apologist has spoken on the matter.

I'm interested to read what anyone has to say on the matter.

It's sad you think this way, really. There is nothing wrong with finding out answers. Not all the answers will come from a "worthy LSD apologist"

Or LDS apologists. I initiated the discussion regarding the Adam - God theory. Are you calling me an anti-Mormon? Being informed and frank regarding our church's past is anti-Mormon? I was using this "doctrine" to illustrate a point. No one here seems to want to acknowledge the point.

I suggest reading the Journal of Discourses to familiarize yourself with this theory. Adam-God theory is discussed at length, in about 20 different places. I'd say more, but I don't want you to call me an anti-Mormon. Give me a break folks! You are posting on a public forum for the world to see! If an investigator stumbled upon this thread, imagine what they might derive from these posts.

[Palerider]

for starters lets tone it down

[Snow]

Give me a break folks! You are posting on a public forum for the world to see! If an investigator stumbled upon this thread, imagine what they might derive from these posts.

Belittlement isn't really going to get you too far in this thread. I don't care what you want to argue about elsewhere but what I hoped to accomplish here was clear in the OP.

[skalenfehl]

GoodK, I don't believe you are anti-Mormon. This topic isn't new either. Every month or two we get a new thread asking the same big questions. There's nothing wrong with it, but it's easier to pick up an old discussion where most arguments have already been made.

Regards.

[WANDERER]

I'm also interested to read what anyone has to say on the matter.

[Snow]

I'm also interested to read what anyone has to say on the matter.

I've got long meeting tomorrow afternoon (that I won't pay attention to) after which time I should have the matter researched and I'll offer a report.

[mike_uk]

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

However, During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labeled Brigham's teaching "false doctrine." He 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). In light of all the evidence to the contrary, to say the Adam-God teaching was only alleged to have been taught causes tremendous credibility problems on the part of Kimball.

[KosherXMorg]

I don't even get into "Adam-God" discussions anymore. Anyone who can't see that it was taught is just in complete denial and can't be reasoned with. Even Bruce McConkie admitted it was taught.

[Hemidakota]

"Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

However, During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labeled Brigham's teaching "false doctrine." He 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). In light of all the evidence to the contrary, to say the Adam-God teaching was only alleged to have been taught causes tremendous credibility problems on the part of Kimball.

Mike here is the full article to President Kimball's remark: Church Publications (HTML)

and the Journal of Discourses link: The Journal of Discourses Go to volume 1, page 50

Edited June 12, 2008 by Hemidakota

[Hemidakota]

To add a counter-viewpoint from the Improvement Era, 1938:

What are the facts concerning the adam-god myth, so frequently mentioned by enemies of the Church?

THOSE who peddle the well-worn Adam-God myth, usually charge the Latter-day Saints with believing that: 1. Our Father in Heaven, the Supreme God, to whom we pray, is Adam, the first man; and 2. Adam was the father of Jesus Christ. A long series of absurd and false deductions are made from these propositions.

Those who spread this untruth about the Latter-day Saints go back for authority to a sermon delivered by President Brigham Young "in the tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 9th, 1852", (Journal of Discourses, Volume 1, page 50.) Certain statements there made are confusing if read superficially, but very clear if read with their context. Enemies of President Brigham Young and of the Church have taken advantage of the opportunity and have used these statements repeatedly and widely to do injury to the reputation of President Young and the Mormon people. An honest reading of this sermon and of other reported discourses of President Brigham Young proves that the great second President of the Church held no such views as have been put into his mouth in the form of the Adam-God myth.

In the discourse, upon which hangs the Adam-God myth, President Brigham Young discussed the earthly origin of Jesus Christ. He denied that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus Christ; and affirmed that the Savior was begotten by God the Father. He explained that "Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were or ever will be upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man." That is, every human being is in direct descent from God, the Father. In the course of his remarks President Young was led to discuss the high place of Adam among the generations of men, for Adam "helped to make and organize this world," and as first man, the father of us all, Adam stands at the head of the human race, and will ever be the representative of his children, before our Father in Heaven, the Father of our spirits. It was in connection with this thought that the oft-quoted statement was made about Adam, that "he is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

He spoke of Adam as the great Patriarch of the human race, a personage who had been privileged and able to assist in the creation of the earth, who would continue his efforts in behalf of the human family, and through whom many of our needs would be met. All this was in contradiction to the common doctrine the world over that Adam was a great sinner, and not to be held in affectionate remembrance. Nowhere is it suggested that Adam is God, the Father, whose child Adam himself was. On the contrary, in the sermon of April 9th, 1852, itself, there is a clear distinction made between Adam and God the Father, in the following words: "The earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael"—the last previously defined as Adam. There can be no confusion in this passage of the separate personalities of these three great beings. A discourse delivered August 8, 1852, within four months of the discourse in controversy (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 94) contains the following: "The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; and Noah received it from Methuselah; and Melchizedek administered to Abraham." Clearly, President Young here distinguishes between God, the Father, and Adam, the first man.

The sermon of April 9, 1852, also makes the statement that, "Jesus, our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." The dishonest inference has been drawn and advertised widely that President Young meant that Adam was the earthly father of Jesus Christ. This deduction cannot be made fairly, in view of the context or of his other published utterances on the subject. Adam and Eve were not the only persons in the Garden of Eden, for "They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (Genesis, Chapter 3, verse 8). President Young undoubtedly had this personage in mind, for he did not say Adam, but "our Father in Heaven."

In many discourses, President Young refers to Jesus as the Only Begotten of the Father, which would not have been true, had Adam been the earthly father of Jesus. At one time he declared (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 238) "I believe the Father came down from heaven, as the Apostles said he did, and begat the Savior of the World; for he is the Only Begotten of the Father, which could not be if the Father did not actually beget him in person." On another occasion (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 42) he said, "And what shall we say of our Heavenly Father? He is also a man in perfection, and the father of the man Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits." It seems unnecessary to offer more evidence that Brigham Young held the accepted doctrine of the Church, that God, the Father, and not Adam, is the earthly father of Jesus.

In all this, President Young merely followed the established doctrine of the Church. Joseph Smith the Prophet, in discussing the Priesthood, touched upon the position of Adam.

[The Priesthood] commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the "Ancient of Days", or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i. e., the dispensation of all the times that have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed.... This then is the nature of the Priesthood; every man holding the Presidency of his dispensation, and one man holding the Presidency of them all, even Adam. [History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 207.]

On another occasion the Prophet Joseph Smith stated further:

The Priesthood was first given to Adam; he obtained the First Presidency, and held the keys of it from generation to generation. He obtained it in the Creation, before the world was formed, as in Genesis 1:26, 27, 28. He had dominion given him over every living creature.... Our Father Adam, Michael, will call his children together and prepare them for the coming of the son of man. He (Adam) is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council.... The Son of man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ. (History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 385.)

The perspective of years brings out the remarkable fact, that, though the enemies of the Latter-day Saints have had access, in printed form, to the hundreds of discourses of Brigham Young, only half a dozen statements have been useful to the calumniators of the founder of Utah. Of these, the sermon of April 9, 1852, which has been quoted most frequently, presents no errors of fact or doctrine if read understandingly and honestly.

—J. A. W.

[KosherXMorg]

Do they/you think we are so brainless to believe that it was only taught once in 1852? It is DOCUMENTED that he taught it over and over and over again. It is recorded in journals, minutes of priesthood meetings, editorials by BY to Deseret News, and in the original Lecture at the Veil. To try to imply that the Adam-God idea came from one misinterpreted speech in 1852 is VERY disingenuous at best and insults the intelligence of anyone with a brain.

[Hemidakota]

Stephen E. Robinson quote:

For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and-like the chemist who can neither explain nor reproduce her results-the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.

Nevertheless anti-Mormon critics have not only interpreted Brigham Young's remarks; they have also elevated their own interpretation, the "Adam-God theory," to the status of official LDS doctrine. Once again our theology is being dictated to us by our critics. According to them Brigham Young taught that Adam, the husband of Eve and father of Cain, is identical to that Elohim who is God, the Father of spirits and the Father of Jesus Christ. But for Latter-day Saints this interpretation has always been simply impossible. It contradicts the LDS scriptures; it contradicts the teachings of Joseph Smith; it contradicts other statements by Brigham Young made during the same period of time; it contradicts the teachings of all the prophets since Brigham Young; and it contradicts the sacred ordinances of the LDS temples, with which Brigham Young was intimately familiar.

The point is that while anti-Mormons can believe whatever they want, the Latter-day Saints have never believed that Brigham Young taught the "Adam-God theory" as explained in anti-Mormon literature, and that whether Brigham Young believed it or not, the "Adam-God theory" as proposed and interpreted by non-Mormons simply cannot be found in the theology of the Latter-day Saints. I do not believe it; my parents do not believe it; and neither did their parents before them. Yet there are few anti-Mormon publications that do not present this "Adam-God theory," the doctrinal creation of our opponents, as one of the most characteristic doctrines of the Latter-day Saints. This is certainly misrepresentation; I believe it is also dishonest; and when used to justify a charge that Latter-day Saints aren't Christians, it is another example of condemning the Latter-day Saints for things they do not believe or teach.

[GoodK]

Straw man. I never said that this is official church doctrine. I said that it is something taught by a prophet (Brigham Young, no less) that is NOT considered doctrine now. I have a hard time understanding why articles are being posted concerning "anti-Mormons" and "enemies" of the church try and accuse the church of believing this doctrine. It clearly isn't doctrine.

[KosherXMorg]

Notice how these apologists keeping pointing to "anti-mormon" literature, knowing the mere mention of "anti-mormon" will put a bad taste in people's mouths? I learned about Adam-God not from anti-mormons but from very believing sources. I have lost much respect for Mr. Robinson at this point and feel inclined to never spend my money purchasing one of his books.

[GoodK]

Notice how these apologists keeping pointing to "anti-mormon" literature, knowing the mere mention of "anti-mormon" will put a bad taste in people's mouths? I learned about Adam-God not from anti-mormons but from very believing sources. I have lost much respect for Mr. Robinson at this point and feel inclined to never spend my money purchasing one of his books.

Persecution complex.

[Hemidakota]

Kosher, now, do you still believe that President Young was indeed a prophet and was called of GOD?

[KosherXMorg]

Kosher, now, do you still believe that President Young was indeed a prophet and was called of GOD?

Not particularly. And if I did I would listen to him, over men 150+ years removed from Joseph Smith.

[tubaloth]

Beyond having read some of the quotes I haven't much followed such debates.

Good! It doesn’t go anywhere.

But then I have seen some people say that if you look at the whole corpus of Brigham Young's discourse on the topic, in context, it is NOT that case that he equated Adam with God.

This is true. Looking at more from the LDS view point you realize more what Brigham Young was teaching. From “outsiders” it appears (with smaller understand of our Doctrine) that Brigham young was taking about God, he wasn’t in the full sense.

President Brigham Young is quoted-in all probability the sermon was erroneously transcribed!-as having said: "Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, about whom holy men have written and spoken-He is our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do."

If the enemies of the Church who quote this wished to be honest, they could not help seeing that President Brigham Young definitely declares that Adam is Michael, the Archangel, the Ancient of Days, which indicates definitely that Adam is not Elohim, or the God whom we worship, who is the Father of Jesus Christ.

Further, they could see that President Young declared that Adam helped to make the earth. If he helped then he was subordinate to someone who was superior. In another paragraph in that same discourse, President Young said: "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael." Here he places Adam, or Michael, third in the list, and hence the least important of the three mentioned, and this President Young understood perfectly. We believe that Adam, known as Michael, had authority in the heavens before the world was framed. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son and was subject to their direction as the scriptures plainly indicate.

When President Young says that Adam came here with a celestial body, he speaks the truth. We teach that Adam or Michael had authority in heaven. He dwelt in the presence of the Father and the Son, hence he came from a celestial world. If so, then did he not have a celestial body? I think the same can be said of all of us, if we accept the teachings of the Lord-for we all came from the presence of God, hence had celestial bodies, even if they were spirit bodies, as was Adam's.

Again in this discourse President Young said: "Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man. We were made first spiritual [i.e, in heaven] and afterwards temporal [i.e, on this earth.]" Now what man was organized first by the Lord? Naturally, it was Adam, and so President Young taught in this very same discourse. There are Gods above Adam, even the Father and the Son.

The expression that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do, has caused great discussion and the question naturally arises, do we not have to do with Jesus Christ and his Father? Certainly we do, and we are taught to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son, and all that we do is to be done in the name of the Son. To make clear what President Young had in mind, I will give this illustration:

The army is composed of a great number of privates and officers of various ranks. The private in the army is, of course, under the captain, and the captain is under the colonel who receives instructions from his superior officers. In other words the only person with whom the private has to do is his captain. This illustration may seem rather crude, but I think it will convey the thought.

President Brigham Young was thoroughly acquainted with the doctrine of the Church. He studied the Doctrine and Covenants and many times quoted from it the particular passages concerning the relationship of Adam to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam was subordinate and obedient to Jesus Christ. He knew perfectly that Adam had been placed at the head of the human family by commandment of the Father, and this doctrine he taught during the many years of his ministry. When he said Adam was the only god with whom we have to do, he evidently had in mind this passage given by revelation through Joseph Smith:

"That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion [i.e. Jesus Christ], who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman; Who hath appointed Michael [Adam] your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days and end of life."

This doctrine was also taught by Joseph Smith, who said: "The Priesthood was first given to Adam…. He obtained it in the creation, before the world was formed…. He had dominion given him over every living creature. He is Michael the Archangel, spoken of in the scriptures…. The Priesthood is an everlasting principle, and existed with God from eternity, and will to eternity, without beginning of days or end of years. The keys have to be brought from heaven whenever the gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adam's authority…. Christ is the Great High Priest, Adam next."

If the keys of salvation have been committed to the hands of Adam, under the direction of Jesus Christ, then is there anything out of place for President Brigham Young to declare that it is Adam with whom we have to do? And yet here is the acknowledgment of the superiority of Jesus Christ. This being true, then the human family is immediately subject to Adam and he to the Redeemer of the world.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 1: 99.)

[tubaloth]

Just to drive the point home. LDS teaching is this: (which was quoted above)

(Doctrine and Covenants 78:15-16.)

15 That you may come up unto the crown prepared for you, and be made rulers over many kingdoms, saith the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, who hath established the foundations of Adam-ondi-Ahman;

16 Who hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life.

How would any of you teach this idea? I’m sure as you taught it, I could in some way make it seem you thought Adam higher then he really is. That’s all this was.

Commentary: This so-called Adam-God theory is false. We are bound by the truths set forth in the Standard Works, and the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price sets forth the true and proper relationship between Elohim (the Father), Jehovah (the Son), and Michael, who is Adam. Truly, "the Lord God, the Holy One of Zion, . . . hath appointed Michael your prince, and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given unto him the keys of salvation under the counsel and direction of the Holy One, who is without beginning of days or end of life." (D&C 78:15-16.)

(Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], 103.)

[GoodK]

This is true. Looking at more from the LDS view point you realize more what Brigham Young was teaching. From “outsiders” it appears (with smaller understand of our Doctrine) that Brigham young was taking about God, he wasn’t in the full sense.

Nonsense. If Brigham didn't teach it, why would McConkie and SWK correct him?

[KosherXMorg]

Shall I link to Craig Tholson's book again?

Denying that Adam-God was taught is like denying the sun is in the sky. Unbelievable. It would be cool with me if LDS people just admitted that and moved on. But to sit and deny it is pure insanity and makes them look silly to educated investigators.

[Guest Xzain]

Denying that Adam-God was taught is like denying the sun is in the sky. Unbelievable. It would be cool with me if LDS people just admitted that and moved on. But to sit and deny it is pure insanity and makes them look silly to educated investigators.

I believe Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory. He may not have- I'd like to believe he didn't- but I think he believed it, and taught it occassionally.

To be a prophet of the Lord, exact doctrinal comprehension is not required. As Professor Robinson points out, it was never a doctrine that was set before the general body and voted on- which is the perscribed course of accepting new revelation as official and binding. Brigham Young taught it in sermons- sermons are not meant to establish official doctrine, but to give listeners sufficient material to ponder so that the Holy Ghost can work in their minds and hearts.

Men must learn 'line upon line, precept on precept'- this is true as the Church as a whole as well. The crucibles of time and the Holy Ghost have weeded the Adam-God theory out of existence- I assume that means it is false.

To assume everything a servant of God has said, at any time, is undiluted truth sent from Heaven is to do violence to our own beliefs and understanding of scripture and revelation.

[VisionOfLehi]

D&C 107:

81 There is not any person belonging to the church who is exempt from this council of the church.

82 And inasmuch as a President of the High Priesthood shall transgress, he shall be had in remembrance before the common council of the church, who shall be assisted by twelve counselors of the High Priesthood;

83 And their decision upon his head shall be an end of controversy concerning him.

84 Thus, none shall be exempted from the justice and the laws of God, that all things may be done in order and in solemnity before him, according to truth and righteousness.

Presidents of the Church are not perfect.