Adam-God Doctrine

[InquisitiveSoul]

When I was investigating the church, I ran across a number of people who were eager to tell me about the Adam-God Doctrine and claimed it was proof of Brigham Young being a fraud.

These claims of course came from Anti Mormon people and have never bothered me. As I was going through some older notes I made while investigating, I saw a few notes on this idea and was reminded of it. Clearly the church doesn't teach this, but does anyone know the real story on Adam-God Doctrine? I suspect it is much like other issues Anti Mormons talk about where the remarks are taken out of context and ultimately twisted, but what's the LDS side?

[Vanhin]

Brigham Young did teach on only a very few occasions the doctrine called Adam-God. He seemed to believe that he was onto something. However, it was not scriptural then, nor is it now, and it never became the official doctrine of the Church and represents his own personal opinion and speculation. The Church has repudiated the doctrine.

One of the earliest statements from the Church rejecting Adam-God teachings was made by Charles W. Penrose in 1902:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.[5]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

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 of the 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.[6]

Source

For more on the matter see Church doctrine/Repudiated concepts/Adam-God - FAIRMormon.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Vanhin]

There is a chance that we simply do not understand what Brigham Young actually meant, and he is not here to explain himself. At the same time he gave countless sermons where he taught the proper understanding and doctrine of God the Father. So, why he ever taught Adam-God is just a mystery. :) We can ask him about it later.

Vanhin

[Hemidakota]

"There is a chance that we simply do not understand what Brigham Young actually meant"

Thank you Vanhin.! I am the same with added grammar problems and usage of placing content in clear manner for others to understand. I suspect, if I stood in that meeting, I would be able to walk away with either questioning it or at least, the Spirit would convey what I need to grasp what is being stated.

There are merits to President Young pronunciation concerning Adam\Michael role prior and when he became Adam in mortality. Years ago, being just President Young, I just took it tongue and cheek on what was being presented. Now, this has changed for me. The more we add truths or knowledge to our basic foundation; our own eyes begin to open to other venues that were even not considered. We simply need to ponder about it and when the person is ready; the Spirit will be the instructor on what is being conveyed.

[Vanhin]

I agree Hemidakota. I think there is actually something to the doctrine, but not as it is understood on the surface.

Vanhin

[Just_A_Guy]

Short story:

Brigham Young thought it was right, and he claimed he learned it from Joseph Smith. He (arguably) tried to get aspects of it into the temple liturgy, but if it was done at all it was removed soon after his death.

Orson Pratt thought it was nonsense all along.

Wilford Woodruff thought it was probably right, but counseled church members not to dwell on it.

Joseph F. Smith thought it was right when he was young, but came out against it in his later years.

Spencer W. Kimball flatly rejected it.

---

I'm inclined to agree with Hemi and Vanhin: I think President Young was scratching the surface of something that none of us are able/ready to fully comprehend.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Vanhin]

Then you have wording in the Family proclamation like this:

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents..." (LDS.org - Family Chapter Detail - The Family:A Proclamation to the World)

We are referred to as sons of Adam and daughters of Eve when we make some of our most sacret covenants.

Just something to think about.

Regards,

Vanhin

[mrmarklin]

When I was investigating the church, I ran across a number of people who were eager to tell me about the Adam-God Doctrine and claimed it was proof of Brigham Young being a fraud.

These claims of course came from Anti Mormon people and have never bothered me. As I was going through some older notes I made while investigating, I saw a few notes on this idea and was reminded of it. Clearly the church doesn't teach this, but does anyone know the real story on Adam-God Doctrine? I suspect it is much like other issues Anti Mormons talk about where the remarks are taken out of context and ultimately twisted, but what's the LDS side?

Most of the Anti stuff is taken 'way out of context. I have read some of the speeches in entirety and properly understood, there is no "Adam is God" theory per se.

Also remember that transcription back in those days is not what it is now, and may have been subject to error.

[Moksha]

Orson Hyde disagreed with this teaching from the start and maintained his position. If memory serves, this teaching was taken out of the Temple Ceremony when a Bishop from Nevada refused to support this idea. He won his disciplinary case and the Adam-God idea lost its grip. It is no longer taught and its memory and hope live on only through the power of peculiarity.

[Just_A_Guy]

A poster by the name of Gaia over at Beliefnet was very big on this idea. If I remember her posts correctly, though, the bishop was actually disciplined (lightly) for vocally rejecting Adam-God (this was during Woodruff's administration) and President Woodruff basically concluded the matter by telling everyone to calm down.

It's not 100% certain that Adam-God was ever in the temple ceremony. Brigham Young preached a sermon mentioning Adam-God in the St. George Temple in February of 1877, which was recorded by his secretary L. John Nuttall in Nuttall's journal. Some have said that this sermon was actually Young setting forth a part of the temple ceremony known as the "lecture at the veil", but I haven't seen anyone cite a primary source for this assertion. Nuttall's journal itself doesn't support the notion (though it doesn't disprove it either).

[Justice]

I agree Hemidakota. I think there is actually something to the doctrine, but not as it is understood on the surface.

Vanhin

Agreed.

[HiJolly]

Both the Jewish Kabbalists and the Islamic Sufis teach of Adam Kadmon (Adam Qalb (I think) in the case of the Sufis). He is fairly well enough "God", IMO, in terms of being the father of our spirits.

HiJolly

[mikbone]

Who is 'Father Adam'?

I believe that this one misunderstanding causes much of the discord concerning the AGT

[Suzie]

That's one of the problems I have about consistency. By one hand, we say it was Brigham Young's opinion on the matter when we quote him from the JOD with regards to this issue, men living in the moon and sun, etc but then from the same sources they quote him in so many others non-controversial issues. So when was exactly his opinion and when it wasn't? So it sounds to me that as long as what he said isn't controversial, is good enough to quote but when it isn't...then is simply labeled as his opinion.

[Guest mormonmusic]

That's one of the problems I have about consistency. By one hand, we say it was Brigham Young's opinion on the matter when we quote him from the JOD with regards to this issue, men living in the moon and sun, etc but then from the same sources they quote him in so many others non-controversial issues. So when was exactly his opinion and when it wasn't? So it sounds to me that as long as what he said isn't controversial, is good enough to quote but when it isn't...then is simply labeled as his opinion.

Until what they say is accepted a scripture or formal Church doctrine, it's all opinion in my view.

I disagree with the harshness of President Kimball's "Miracle of Forgiveness" in spots. I think preaching Adam-God theory and blood-atonement was a mistake on Brigham Young's part. And the way Gordon B. Hinckley answered Larry King's question about our belief in "As man is, God once was" represents a mistake on his part. I also think Marion G. Romney's statement that Gifts of the Spirit are predicated by the Gift of the Holy Ghost is flawed.

But it doesn't destroy my faith any. I'm not perfect, and I think it's unreasonable to expect these men to always be correct is unrealistic (not that you think that Suzie).

For me, whether what they said is worth accepting depends on how the words resonate with my own mind and spirit.

By the way, you've made a lot of really good comments since you've been here Suzie. Keep it up...:)

[Suzie]

But it doesn't destroy my faith any. I'm not perfect, and I think it's unreasonable to expect these men to always be correct is unrealistic (not that you think that Suzie).

I agree 100%. My issue though is the picking and choosing. If most of the stuff for example coming out from the JOD isn't considered doctrinal because the JOD isn't "doctrine" according to the Church then why quote extracts from it in church magazines and other publications? We can't have it both ways in my view. It sounds odd to say "Brigham Young said...such and such" and then when we mention his view on Blacks or his views about Aliens we suddenly brushed it off and say it was HIS opinion just because what he said is controversial.

I agree with you, I am not expecting for these men to be correct in all things. Actually I am in the group who thinks prophets and GA are just men with the same strengths and weaknesses than we have. Definitely I don't believe in their infallibility neither I am in the worship-wagon of them. I respect them, I believe that a lot of the things they said is inspired and I pray to receive answer and confirmation of their words.

My issue isn't really about the mistakes of these men (if there were mistakes) but the way the issue of quoting the things they said is handled.

[hordak]

That's one of the problems I have about consistency. By one hand, we say it was Brigham Young's opinion on the matter when we quote him from the JOD with regards to this issue, men living in the moon and sun, etc but then from the same sources they quote him in so many others non-controversial issues. So when was exactly his opinion and when it wasn't? So it sounds to me that as long as what he said isn't controversial, is good enough to quote but when it isn't...then is simply labeled as his opinion.

Said Brigham Young, “I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture.”

Of course it's from the JoD (Journal of Discourses, 13:95.) so maybe it's opinion:conscience:

I think it just shows the importance of personal confirmation/revelation. I believe it was coincidentally Brigham Young who said (and i'm paraphrasing here)

I fear some members have such faith in their leaders they would follow them without seeking the truth for themselves (or something to that effect.)

[Suzie]

I think it just shows the importance of personal confirmation/revelation. I believe it was coincidentally Brigham Young who said (and i'm paraphrasing here)

I fear some members have such faith in their leaders they would follow them without seeking the truth for themselves (or something to that effect.)

I think this is the quote:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135).

[Guest mormonmusic]

I agree 100%. My issue though is the picking and choosing. If most of the stuff for example coming out from the JOD isn't considered doctrinal because the JOD isn't "doctrine" according to the Church then why quote extracts from it in church magazines and other publications? We can't have it both ways in my view. It sounds odd to say "Brigham Young said...such and such" and then when we mention his view on Blacks or his views about Aliens we suddenly brushed it off and say it was HIS opinion just because what he said is controversial.

I agree with you, I am not expecting for these men to be correct in all things. Actually I am in the group who thinks prophets and GA are just men with the same strengths and weaknesses than we have. Definitely I don't believe in their infallibility neither I am in the worship-wagon of them. I respect them, I believe that a lot of the things they said is inspired and I pray to receive answer and confirmation of their words.

My issue isn't really about the mistakes of these men (if there were mistakes) but the way the issue of quoting the things they said is handled.

This reminds me of a poster that was on the door of one of my Statistics professors in university. It was a manager sitting behind his desk, passing a piece of paper to his assistant. The managers says "That's what I want to say, now, get me the statistics to back it up".

So often people have an agenda they want to further. Perhaps its to just give a compelling speech. Or maybe it's to make a certain point emphatically.

They will quote from whatever Church source that seems to have authority to back up their statements. If that means taking something Brigham Young said that shores up their case, they will use it. If it doesn't (such as Adam God Theory, or Blood Atonement) they leave it alone.

[Suzie]

This reminds me of a poster that was on the door of one of my Statistics professors in university. It was a manager sitting behind his desk, passing a piece of paper to his assistant. The managers says "That's what I want to say, now, get me the statistics to back it up".

So often people have an agenda they want to further. Perhaps its to just give a compelling speech. Or maybe it's to make a certain point emphatically.

They will quote from whatever Church source that seems to have authority to back up their statements. If that means taking something Brigham Young said that shores up their case, they will use it. If it doesn't (such as Adam God Theory, or Blood Atonement) they leave it alone.

Including the Church?

[Moksha]

A poster by the name of Gaia over at Beliefnet was very big on this idea.

Gaia is quite a scriptorian and Church historian. If memory once again serves, I think she was a researcher for Truman Madsen for a number of years.

[Intrigued]

Including the Church?

Including everyone. The LDS Church is no different.. a beautiful example would be the 'white washing' of Joseph Smith.

What's wrong with putting on nice clothes for an interview?

[Guest mormonmusic]

Including the Church?

Define Church -- to me it's the whole experience. General Authorities might quote Brigham Young in their talks at conference, and that's the Church. Individuals might quote him in their talks. Authors in their books, etcetera. Anyone who is a member and has to share knowledge contributes to our Church experience.

And they will use whatever Brigham Young said to shore up their case, just as they will use scriptures in or out of context to get their point across.

In a way, it's a bit sad that we aren't more aware of our History. I remember the first time I heard about the Mountain Meadow Massacre. I had been a member of the Church for three years, and had just started my mission. Someone mentioned it to me at the door during tracting, and I was totally bewildered about what they were talking about. I asked my zone leader about it and he gave me the most shallow overview and dismissed it.

I only really knew what it was all about years later, and how it's definitely a questionable part of our history. Again, nothing that's going to make me less active, but I sure would've liked to have known about it. All those Sunday lessons and it didn't even come up once, and wasn't in Truth Restored either.

So, this tendency to gloss over the questionable and accentuate the positive is all part of our Church experience.

I take comfort in the fact that the Catholic church has its own skeletons in the closet. We are not alone.

Edited June 10, 2010 by mormonmusic

[FunkyTown]

In a way, it's a bit sad that we aren't more aware of our History. I remember the first time I heard about the Mountain Meadow Massacre. I had been a member of the Church for three years, and had just started my mission. Someone mentioned it to me at the door during tracting, and I was totally bewildered about what they were talking about. I asked my zone leader about it and he gave me the most shallow overview and dismissed it.

I would disagree that the Massacre is something we should talk about in church.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about Helmuth Hubener in church?

When was the last time someone spoke about Jack Dempsey in church?

Helmuth Hubener was the youngest person executed for political crimes in Nazi Germany.

Jack Dempsey was arguably the greatest boxer of all time and a very famous 'Jack Mormon'.

Both are parts of our history, but we don't talk about it because it's not part of the faith. It's not being hidden. It's just not important to who we are, now.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I would disagree that the Massacre is something we should talk about in church.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about Helmuth Hubener in church?

When was the last time someone spoke about Jack Dempsey in church?

Helmuth Hubener was the youngest person executed for political crimes in Nazi Germany.

Jack Dempsey was arguably the greatest boxer of all time and a very famous 'Jack Mormon'.

Both are parts of our history, but we don't talk about it because it's not part of the faith. It's not being hidden. It's just not important to who we are, now.

But doesn't it stink a bit to be blindsided about the history of the Church when you're out there acting as a representative for it? To only learn about the organization you hold dear by people who don't believe in it?

My lack of knowledge probably only reinforced this non-member's erroneous belief that us Mormon's are hoodwinked by our leaders. Imagine what this n/m person probably said to his wife: "I mentioned MMM to a couple Mormon elders and they had absolutely no clue about what I was talking about!!!". Nor did he leave our conversation with his concern resolved in any way because I had no clue about what the MMM even meant, and was therefore ill-prepared to answer the question.

Now, I don't advocate tearing down people's faith, or FOCUSING on faith-detracting experiences at Church, but I believe that at some point in my journey from non-member to in-the-field missionary there should have been some up-front-ness about the actual history of the organization I was representing. As well as some coaching on how to deal with it.

Not a big point with me, but something I've reflected on now and then. I still believe in the Church and am active, and as a SS teacher, I too steer clear of controversy.

For me, I wish we could go back in time and erase plural marriage, MMM, Adam-God Theory, Blood-Atonement, the peep stones, and all that stuff that puts out on the fringe to so many people. It detracts from their acceptance of the truth at times, and those teachings don't seem to add much positive life advice to help you get through the challenges of our day.

But they exist, and one should be aware of them, deal with them, and learn to accept them.

Edited June 10, 2010 by mormonmusic