Adam-God...misunderstood?

[LDSChristian]

I've read up on this subject and it seems nearly everyone has misunderstood what Brigham Young said about Adam.

1 Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

According to these verses, another name for Jesus, the Lord from heaven, is Adam. I believe Brigham was talking about two different people in his message.

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body"

"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."

You notice how in quote one Brigham has "he" yet in quote two he has "-He" with the "h" capitalized in the way some people capitalize He for Christ or God the Father. The "-" before the "He" usually indicates a change in a statement so it seems like Brigham was referring to Adam of the garden before the "-" and Christ from "He" until "later". The "He is Michael" is after a period which is why that "he" is capitalized.

The first Adam was earthly, the one from the Garden of Eden. The second "Adam", the spiritual, is Jesus Christ. I do believe Brigham was referring to Christ when he said "Adam is our God". You also notice how Brigham said "our God" the same way the Bible references to Christ sometimes as "our Lord our God". Also:

Matthew 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Brigham could have referred to the way Jesus Christ called His followers His brother, sister, and mother by saying "He is our Father."

[Backroads]

Sounds fair enough. The focus on the grammatics makes sense.

To be perfectly honest, this is a debate I've never much paid attention to. Are there any other Brigham Young quotes on the subject.

[LDSChristian]

Sounds fair enough. The focus on the grammatics makes sense.

To be perfectly honest, this is a debate I've never much paid attention to. Are there any other Brigham Young quotes on the subject.

"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. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal." -Brigham Young

[Backroads]

Thank-you much!

[Suzie]

I think I'm probably one of the few who think that Brigham Young taught and believed Adam is in fact Heavenly Father and he said in more than one occasion that he was aware of the fact that this was something very hard for the Saints to understand. Orson Pratt (along with other apostles) was vehemently opposed to this idea and argued against it.

President Hinckley said in an interview with the New Yorker:

In the Mormon scheme, every person is a potential divinity. The adage "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be" expresses the Mormon belief that God was once a human being, with a wife and children. But Hinckley did not seem interested in discussing matters of theology. When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied, "We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that." Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about what he said about those things."

In the "Lecture at the Veil" prepared by Brigham Young and written by his secretary for the opening of the St. George Temple, it was very clear to me that he indeed taught that Adam is Elohim (see "Lecture at the veil" Diary of L. John Nuttall) and the fact that President Joseph F. Smith had the Lecture at the Veil removed from the Temple gives you the idea of the kind of implications on this issue. For me, there is no doubt he believed it and taught it.

[Just_A_Guy]

Much as I would like to, I can't accept the interpretation in the OP for the following reasons:

1) President Young knows he's speaking something that conventional Christians would deem heresy--he says so later in that same sermon.

2) President Young was many great things. He was not, however, a great grammarian; nor can I visualize him poring over George Watt's transcriptions making sure that the right H's were capitalized.

3) The sermon you cite is the most famous one where the idea comes up, but it isn't the only one of Young's. Other early Mormons expounded on the idea (Heber Kimball, Eliza Snow, Wilford Woodruff, and even Joseph F. Smith in his earlier years).

Unfortunately, Adam-God cannot be reduced to mis-transcriptions of Brigham Young playing rhetorical games with Paul's epistles.

On the other hand: Susie, Nuttall transcribes President Young's sermon in the St. George temple in February of 1877 but does not characterize it as a "lecture at the veil" or as any other sort of temple liturgy--I think it was Buerger who made that inference, and if he had any evidence for doing so I'm not aware that it's currently available for public scrutiny. Also, my understanding is that the temple liturgy could vary somewhat from temple to temple up through the early 20th century, so it seems a bit facile to assume that whatever Joseph F. Smith ordered was intended solely to excise Adam-God from the ceremony. From what I understand, there's nothing besides the ambiguous Nuttall diary placing Adam-God in the endowment in the first place. (Would love to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, though.)

Edited February 13, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[HiJolly]

Much as I would like to, I can't accept the interpretation in the OP for the following reasons:

1) President Young knows he's speaking something that conventional Christians would deem heresy--he says so later in that same sermon.

2) President Young was many great things. He was not, however, a great grammarian; nor can I visualize him poring over George Watt's transcriptions making sure that the right H's were capitalized.

3) The sermon you cite is the most famous one where the idea comes up, but it isn't the only one of Young's. Other early Mormons expounded on the idea (Heber Kimball, Eliza Snow, Wilford Woodruff, and even Joseph F. Smith in his earlier years).

Unfortunately, Adam-God cannot be reduced to mis-transcriptions of Brigham Young playing rhetorical games with Paul's epistles.

On the other hand: Susie, Nuttall transcribes President Young's sermon in the St. George temple in February of 1877 but does not characterize it as a "lecture at the veil" or as any other sort of temple liturgy--I think it was Buerger who made that inference, and if he had any evidence for doing so I'm not aware that it's currently available for public scrutiny. Also, my understanding is that the temple liturgy could vary somewhat from temple to temple up through the early 20th century, so it seems a bit facile to assume that whatever Joseph F. Smith ordered was intended solely to excise Adam-God from the ceremony. From what I understand, there's nothing besides the ambiguous Nuttall diary placing Adam-God in the endowment in the first place. (Would love to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, though.)

Great comments, JAG.

I have Buerger's "Mysteries of Godliness", FYI. :)

Sorry LDSChristian, I'm not on board with your ideas, either. My view is aimed more towards Adam Kadmon.

Anyone read this:

THE POSITION OF ADAM

IN LATTER-DAY SAINT SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGY

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE

FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF RELIGION

OF

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

OF

MASTER OF ARTS

by

RODNEY TURNER August, 1953

?

HiJolly

[volgadon]

LDSC, what grammatical rules are you using?

[Suzie]

On the other hand: Susie, Nuttall transcribes President Young's sermon in the St. George temple in February of 1877 but does not characterize it as a "lecture at the veil" or as any other sort of temple liturgy.I think it was Buerger who made that inference, and if he had any evidence for doing so I'm not aware that it's currently available for public scrutiny.

President Wilford Woodruff wrote in his diary that he spent the evening with President Young and that Brigham Young requested of Young (junior) and him to write the ceremony of the endowment from beginning to end. Brigham Young Jr. said Elder Nuttall was also helping in this whole project. Nuttall wrote on a letter (dated June 1892) to the First Presidency:

" In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.

Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J.D.T McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form, and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it [he] said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple."

Also, my understanding is that the temple liturgy could vary somewhat from temple to temple up through the early 20th century, so it seems a bit facile to assume that whatever Joseph F. Smith ordered was intended solely to excise Adam-God from the ceremony.

Of course we cannot judge intention however just like Orson Pratt was very opposed to the idea, other Apostles were also against it. It is not far-fetched to me and yes, it is just my personal view.

From what I understand, there's nothing besides the ambiguous Nuttall diary placing Adam-God in the endowment in the first place. (Would love to be corrected on this if I'm wrong, though.)

What's ambiguous about Nuttall's diary?

Edited February 13, 2011 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

It was about five years ago that I really dug into this, Susie, but as I recall the diary entry itself is dated February 8 and presents the material as a sermon Young gave in the St. George temple. (I was interested in this enough that I ran down to BYU Special Collections and looked at a typescript of the Nuttall journal that they had down there). Woodruff's and Nuttall's later statement certainly provide context and make the lecture-at-the-veil theory plausible, but the diary itself does not affirmatively state that "this is the lecture at the veil that Brigham Young told me and Elder McAllister to write down". It just says "we were in the temple, and Brigham Young taught us such-and-such".

I agree with you both that Brigham taught the idea and that some apostles (including, of course, the redoubtable Elder Pratt) opposed it; though I'm about 95% sure that Joseph F. Smith is on-record as initially supporting the idea. I'll have to look over my notes (read: I have to do a Google search) and get back to you.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[JThimm88]

I'm curious, what is the Church's official stance on this subject? I've heard of this concept (and what I had heard was just the opinions of members, obviously) but never really thought much about it as I've always had other things on my mind. :)

[JThimm88]

I'm curious, what is the Church's current stance on this subject, if they even have one? Or is this idea still up for speculation either way in general? I've seen members write about it numerous times, heard members talk about it as well, but it I'm curious if the First Presidency were asked about this subject, what they might say.

[prophetofdoom]

I think Bruce R. McConkie spoke on the subject and said it was heresy to believe that Adam was God.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yup. President Hinckley has already been cited, in this thread, as basically saying "we don't know"--which might be perceived as a softening of President Kimballs' and Elder McConkie's statements of the 1970s and 1980s.

But it's certainly not something you'll want to bring up in your Gospel Doctrine class.

[HiJolly]

BTW, if anyone wants bro. Turner's masters thesis (mentioned by me earlier in this thread), just PM me & I'll send you my electronic copy, as I got if from the Harold B. Lee library.

HiJolly

[Hartman]

Here's an interesting case regarding the Lecture at the Veil.

This is a letter that L. John Nuttall submitted to the First Presidency in preparation for a Church court trying Bishop Bunker of the Bunkerville ward.

"In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing. Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elders J. D. T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple. A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation & c."[signed] L. John Nuttall For Presidents:W. Woodruff Geo. Q. Cannon Jos. F. Smith June 3, 1892 Salt Lake City (L. John Nuttall Papers, 4:290)

Bishop Bunker, and his father, didn't believe in the doctrine contained in the Lecture at the Veil. This is from the stake high council minutes:

"High Council of St. George Stake met in St. George Tabernacle. President Ivins stated that he had learned that Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville, in this Stake, had been teaching that some of the ceremonies at the Temple were wrong, and erroneous teaching was given in the Lecture at the Veil. As Elder Myron Abbot, 1st Counselor to the Bishop at Bunkerville had given some information on this matter, it was decided to learn from him, more definitely in relation to this matter." (St. George Historical Record, November 8, 1890, Church Archives)

On December 13, 1890, the Bunkerville Ward Bishopric were invited to come before the Stake Presidency to voice their differences:

"High Council of St. George Stake met at St. George Tabernacle.

In response to invitation of the Presidency of the Stake, Bishop Edward Bunker Junr. and Elders Myron Abbott and Joseph I. Earl were present. President McArthur invited the brethren named to express themselves on the views said to have been expressed in Bunkerville Ward and which are considered by some to be unsound doctrine. Myron Abbott, counselor to Bishop Edward Bunker, Junr., stated that for a number of years, questions on Church teachings had been agitated in Bunkerville Ward. Bishop Bunker had stated he did not believe Adam was our God and bishop Bunker had expressed his opinion that some teachings in the temples were wrong, -- notably -- part of the Lecture at the vail -- That Father Bunker had the same views. Father Bunker stated to him (Bro. Abbott) a number of years ago that Adoption would be of no avail as administered in the Temple. All such work would have to be done over again. Bp. Edward Bunker, Junr. among other things said: "In regard to the lecture at the vail in the Temple, it is certainly wrong. It teaches that Eve was an immortal being and was brought here by Adam." Did not believe this. "Thought that Adam was not a resurrected being." In answering question of councilor Cannon, expressed his belief that Adam was the Archangel and that Jehovah and Michael were persons of Spirit; that Eloheim was a person of Tabernacle; and the Head of all. After a prolonged second session of the Council Bishop Bunker and his Counselor, Myron Abbott felt they had done wrong in contending on the subjects referred to. (Ibid., December 13, 1890)

The St. George Stake High Council Minutes for this meeting reveal some of the proceedings. Councilor Cannon read the "Lecture at the Veil" (the same one Brigham Young dictated) and stated: ... the lecture says Adam was an immortal being and Eve the Mother of all living bore those spirits in the Celestial World and Adam and Eve came here to form Tabernacles for them to dwell in. (High Council Minutes, December 1-3, 1890, Church Archives)

Eventually, the First Presidency felt the need to get involved in this conflict. Since it was the Lecture at the Veil that was at issue, the First Presidency made the following statement:

"Prest. Young was so careful that he would not allow Bro. Cannon or anyone else to quote it, but had it written down to be read at the veil. Councilor Cannon said the Endowments were organized in Joseph's brick store in Nauvoo. Prest. Young said he wanted to deliver the Lecture at the veil and 4 men were writing [it down]. And after they had got through, the memos were given to Prest. Young to revise and as he revised it, Prest. George Q. Cannon wrote it very slowly and after Prest. Young's death it was sent for by the Twelve Apostles and closely scrutinized and there was only one thing changed in it and then accepted by them and no man has any right to say anything against it." (St. George High Council Minutes of the Trial of Edward Bunker, Sr., June 11, 1892, Church Archives)

President George Q. Cannon went on to say: "Adam was created like we are." (Ibid.) He further testified: "... in the name of Jesus Christ that Adam was born just as we are born. The lecture at the veil is true ... procreation is the gift of eternal lives, and if we are faithful we shall create worlds and people them just as Adam has done." (Ibid.)

[Just_A_Guy]

Thanks, Hartman. Are you quoting a secondary source that sums all of this up?

[Hartman]

Thanks, Hartman. Are you quoting a secondary source that sums all of this up?

You can find the complete account of the Bunkerville problem in Craig Tholson's book "Adam-God". It's kind of hard to find, but you should be able to get it through inter-library loan. I also have an e-file that I could send you.

[GeneC]

I can't see Adam-God or any God coming down to Earth to sin. I don't think that would be possible. Also Brigham Young stated (incorrectly) "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

The greatest interest in this theory came after his death. Most Church authorities contemporary with President Young had little or nothing to say on the subject. The two best-known exceptions were Heber C. Kimball, who mentioned it in several sermons, and Apostle Orson Pratt, who openly voiced his rejection of the concept. Following President Young's death, with the exception of several obscure statements, no Church authority has advocated the idea.

During the last decade of the 19th Century, interest in the subject elicited response from such authorities as Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith. These men acknowledged that they were personally familiar with President Young's theory but discouraged teaching and speculating upon the subject. The status of the "Adam-God theory" was summed up in 1897 in a private letter outlined by President Wilford Woodruff and written by Apostle Joseph F. Smith:

President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the Church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church.

[Backroads]

Yup. President Hinckley has already been cited, in this thread, as basically saying "we don't know"--which might be perceived as a softening of President Kimballs' and Elder McConkie's statements of the 1970s and 1980s.

But it's certainly not something you'll want to bring up in your Gospel Doctrine class.

Darn. And here I am enjoying reading this thread.

[Hartman]

I can't see Adam-God or any God coming down to Earth to sin. I don't think that would be possible. Also Brigham Young stated (incorrectly) "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."

Here's what the Prophet Joseph's wife, the Prophetess and High Priestess Eliza R. snow, had to say on this subject.

"Eve -- immortal Eve -- came down to earth to become the Mother of a race.

How become the Mother of a world of mortals except by herself again becoming mortal? How become mortal only by transgressing the laws of immortality? How only by "eating of the forbidden fruit" by partaking of the elements of a mortal earth, in which the seed of death was everywhere scattered?

All orthodox theologians believe Adam and Eve to have been at first immortal, and all acknowledge the great command, "Be fruitful and multiply."

That they were not about to become the parents of a world of immortals is evident, for they were on a mortal earth. That the earth was mortal all nature here to-day shows. The earth was to be subdued by teeming millions of mankind -- the dying earth actually eaten, in a sense, a score of times, by the children of these grand parents.

The fall is simple. Our immortal parents came down to fall; came down to transgress the laws of immortality came down to give birth to mortal tabernacles for a world of spirits.

The "forbidden tree," says Brigham, contained in its fruit the elements of death, or the elements of mortality. By eating of it, blood was again infused into the tabernacles of beings who had become immortal. The basis of mortal generation is blood. Without blood no mortal can be born. Even could immortals have been conceived on earth, the trees of life had made but the paradise of a few; but a mortal world was the object of creation then.

Eve, then, came down to be the Mother of a world.

Glorious Mother, capable of dying at the very beginning to give life to her offspring, that through mortality the eternal life of the Gods might be given to her sons and daughters.

Motherhood the same from the beginning even to the end! The love of motherhood passing all understanding! Thus read our Mormon sisters the fall of their Mother.

And the serpent tempted the woman with the forbidden fruit.

Did woman hesitate a moment then? Did motherhood refuse the cup for her own sake, or did she with infinite love, take it and drink for her children's sake? The Mother had plunged down, from the pinnacle of her celestial throne, to earth, to taste of death that her children might have everlasting life.

What! should Eve ask Adam to partake of the elements of death first, in such a sacrament! 'Twould have outraged motherhood! Eve partook of that supper of the Lord's death first. She ate of that body and drank of that blood.

Be it to Adam's eternal credit that he stood by and let our Mother -- our ever blessed Mother Eve partake of the sacrifice before himself. Adam followed the Mother's example, for he was great and grand -- a Father worthy indeed of a world. He was wise, too; for the blood of life is the stream of mortality.

What a psalm of everlasting praise to woman, that Eve fell first! A Goddess came down from her mansions of glory to bring the spirits of her children down after her, in their myriads of branches and their hundreds of generations! She was again a mortal Mother now. The first person in the trinity of Mothers.

The Mormon sisterhood take up their themes of religion with their Mother Eve, and consent with her, at the very threshold of the temple, to bear the cross. Eve is ever with her daughters in the temple of the Lord their God. The Mormon daughters of Eve have also in this eleventh hour come down to earth, like her, to magnify the divine office of motherhood. She came down from her resurrected, they from their spirit, estate. Here, with her, in the divine providence of maternity, they begin to ascend the ladder to heaven, and to their exaltation in the courts of their Father and Mother God.

Who shall number the blasphemies of the sectarian churches against our first grand parents? Ten thousand priests of the serpent have thundered anathemas upon the head of "accursed Adam." Appalling, oftentimes, their pious rage. And Eve -- the holiest, grandest of Mothers -- has been made a very by-word to offset the frailties of the most wicked and abandoned.

Very different is Mormon theology! The Mormons exalt the grand parents of our race. Not even is the name of Christ more sacred to them than the names of Adam and Eve. It was to them the poetess and high priestess addressed her hymn of invocation; and Brigham's proclamation that Adam is our Father and God is like a hallelujah chorus to their everlasting names. The very earth shall yet take it up; all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve shall yet shout it for joy, to the ends of the earth, in every tongue!" (The Women of Mormondom, pp. 196-200)

[Backroads]

'K, can someone give me a good idiot's guide summary of the whole history and notion of this theory? As I said, this is one thing that never really captured my interest and yet I find myself reading this thread in fascination and my church history-savvy twin is off in the woods without texting.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hartman, aren't you quoting verbatim from a book by Fred Collier, a follower of the LeBarons?

There's much in there to agree with; and who knows? Maybe there's some truth in Adam-God. But I have a real problem with Collier's assertion that "Not even is the name of Christ more sacred to them than the names of Adam and Eve." We are the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Church of Adam. Nephi's version of the condescension of God involved God descending to become Jesus, not God descending to become Adam. Moroni dedicated the Book of Mormon to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus, not Adam, is the Eternal God.

I'm not comfortable with all the historical analysis of this article, but I think the scriptural analysis is spot-on. I don't see how one can square Adam-God with that.

Backroads: Wikipedia's sum-up isn't too bad, I think.

[Hartman]

Hartman, aren't you quoting verbatim from a book by Fred Collier, a follower of the LeBarons?

There's much in there to agree with; and who knows? Maybe there's some truth in Adam-God. But I have a real problem with Collier's assertion that "Not even is the name of Christ more sacred to them than the names of Adam and Eve." We are the Church of Jesus Christ, not the Church of Adam. Nephi's version of the condescension of God involved God descending to become Jesus, not God descending to become Adam. Moroni dedicated the Book of Mormon to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus, not Adam, is the Eternal God.

I'm not comfortable with all the historical analysis of this article, but I think the scriptural analysis is spot-on. I don't see how one can square Adam-God with that.

Backroads: Wikipedia's sum-up isn't too bad, I think.

I've never read any of Fred Collier's books. The passage I posted was from "The Women of Mormondom", which is a collection of the writings of many of the leading women who were familiar with the Prophet Joseph and were personally acquainted with his teachings. The passage you attributed to Collier was actually a passage written by Eliza R. Snow, which she claimed was taught to her by the Prophet Joseph.

Eliza R. Snow was one of the main contributors to this book. In 1876, Augusta Joyce Crocheron wrote, in reference to Eliza R. Snow's writings in The Women Of Mormondom, "During this year she prepared her second volume of poems for the press, also assisted in selecting and preparing the manuscript for the "Women Of Mormondom," and in raising funds for its publication, and not least of all, gave the proof her attention. Also still continued her labors in the House of the Lord. (Representative Women of Deseret, p. 6)

Brigham Young's daughter, Susa Young Gates, in her biography of her father, states: "After prayers that evening he [brigham] sat in council with aunt Eliza R. Snow in the prayer room. Edward Tullidge had compiled a story on the Women of Mormondom which contained some interesting biography on the leading women to the Church and had an account of the heroic struggle of those early years. Aunt Eliza and some of her associates thought it might be proper and advisable to send a group of women out into the world to give lectures on Mormonism and to dispose of the woman's book. Two of the daughters of Brigham Young were included in the list of women who were to go. "It is an experiment -- but one that I should like to see tried," said Brigham Young to Sister Snow at the close of the discussion. (Life Story of Brigham Young, pp. 360-361)

The Women of Mormondom was a missionary tool to help show the world the divine nature of women in Mormon theology, and to put to rest this idea that Mormon women were nothing but mindless slaves.

You mentioned that we are the church of Jesus Christ, and not the church of Adam. In reality, there are two churches. The Church of Jesus Christ, and the Church of the Firstborn, which is the Church of God the Father. This is from Heber C. Kimball:

"Let me explain what the Church of the First Born is. It is the first Church that ever was raised up upon this earth; that is, the first born Church. That is what I mean; and when God our Father organized that Church, He organized it just as His Father organized the Church on the earth where He dwelt; and that same order is organized here in the City of Great Salt Lake; and it is that order that Joseph Smith the Prophet of God organized in the beginning in Kirtland, Ohio. Brother Brigham Young, myself, and others were present when that was done; and when those officers received their endowments, they were together in one place. They were organized, and received their endowments and blessings, and those keys were placed upon them, and that kingdom will stand for ever. . . ." (J.D. 5:130-131)

You also have Abraham 1:3, "It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me."

Sister Eliza, having received her second anointings and being a member of the Church of the Firstborn, would probably write from that perspective.

[GeneC]

Here's what the Prophet Joseph's wife, the Prophetess and High Priestess Eliza R. snow, had to say on this subject.

"Eve -- immortal Eve -- came down to earth to become the Mother of a race.

How become the Mother of a world of mortals except by herself again becoming mortal? How become mortal only by transgressing the laws of immortality? How only by "eating of the forbidden fruit" by partaking of the elements of a mortal earth, in which the seed of death was everywhere scattered?

All orthodox theologians believe Adam and Eve to have been at first immortal, and all acknowledge the great command, "Be fruitful and multiply."

That they were not about to become the parents of a world of immortals is evident, for they were on a mortal earth. That the earth was mortal all nature here to-day shows. The earth was to be subdued by teeming millions of mankind -- the dying earth actually eaten, in a sense, a score of times, by the children of these grand parents.

The fall is simple. Our immortal parents came down to fall; came down to transgress the laws of immortality came down to give birth to mortal tabernacles for a world of spirits.

The "forbidden tree," says Brigham, contained in its fruit the elements of death, or the elements of mortality. By eating of it, blood was again infused into the tabernacles of beings who had become immortal. The basis of mortal generation is blood. Without blood no mortal can be born. Even could immortals have been conceived on earth, the trees of life had made but the paradise of a few; but a mortal world was the object of creation then.

Eve, then, came down to be the Mother of a world.

Glorious Mother, capable of dying at the very beginning to give life to her offspring, that through mortality the eternal life of the Gods might be given to her sons and daughters.

Motherhood the same from the beginning even to the end! The love of motherhood passing all understanding! Thus read our Mormon sisters the fall of their Mother.

And the serpent tempted the woman with the forbidden fruit.

Did woman hesitate a moment then? Did motherhood refuse the cup for her own sake, or did she with infinite love, take it and drink for her children's sake? The Mother had plunged down, from the pinnacle of her celestial throne, to earth, to taste of death that her children might have everlasting life.

What! should Eve ask Adam to partake of the elements of death first, in such a sacrament! 'Twould have outraged motherhood! Eve partook of that supper of the Lord's death first. She ate of that body and drank of that blood.

Be it to Adam's eternal credit that he stood by and let our Mother -- our ever blessed Mother Eve partake of the sacrifice before himself. Adam followed the Mother's example, for he was great and grand -- a Father worthy indeed of a world. He was wise, too; for the blood of life is the stream of mortality.

What a psalm of everlasting praise to woman, that Eve fell first! A Goddess came down from her mansions of glory to bring the spirits of her children down after her, in their myriads of branches and their hundreds of generations! She was again a mortal Mother now. The first person in the trinity of Mothers.

The Mormon sisterhood take up their themes of religion with their Mother Eve, and consent with her, at the very threshold of the temple, to bear the cross. Eve is ever with her daughters in the temple of the Lord their God. The Mormon daughters of Eve have also in this eleventh hour come down to earth, like her, to magnify the divine office of motherhood. She came down from her resurrected, they from their spirit, estate. Here, with her, in the divine providence of maternity, they begin to ascend the ladder to heaven, and to their exaltation in the courts of their Father and Mother God.

Who shall number the blasphemies of the sectarian churches against our first grand parents? Ten thousand priests of the serpent have thundered anathemas upon the head of "accursed Adam." Appalling, oftentimes, their pious rage. And Eve -- the holiest, grandest of Mothers -- has been made a very by-word to offset the frailties of the most wicked and abandoned.

Very different is Mormon theology! The Mormons exalt the grand parents of our race. Not even is the name of Christ more sacred to them than the names of Adam and Eve. It was to them the poetess and high priestess addressed her hymn of invocation; and Brigham's proclamation that Adam is our Father and God is like a hallelujah chorus to their everlasting names. The very earth shall yet take it up; all the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve shall yet shout it for joy, to the ends of the earth, in every tongue!" (The Women of Mormondom, pp. 196-200)

I'm not sure I get your point! Mine was that Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael are not Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What was quoted has been debunked and denied/not accepted certainly Christ's name is revered (more sacred than) over Adam's or Eve's.