Adam-God...misunderstood?

[Hartman]

In a word, no.

Yes, some leaders at the time taught it and held it up as truth, and I don't doubt that some portions of the idea may be true, but the concept was never really given a definitive structure or form. It was and is difficult for most lay people in and out of the Church to understand or even quantify. Ultimately, it has never been brought before the body of the church and presented to it for consideration or a vote to be considered doctrine and binding on the Church. It is not contained in our scriptures, although some portions may seem to be supported by certain passages of scripture. There is much we don't know about the theory, and much that was not understood fully. It was never really fleshed out to make a coherent understanding of the idea.

Perhaps Brigham was just leading the people astray by claiming it was doctrine, and the even more serious offense of teaching false doctrine in the Temple ceremony. If you guys are right, Brigham is in a heap of trouble.

Anyways, this has been a fun discussion. Unfortunately, I have to go back to my home in the boonies, where internet is as scarce as the hair on my head. Later!

[Just_A_Guy]

It may very well be that Jesus and the Father are both the "Firstborn". I guess it depends on your perspective. One thing is for certain, the Father was born before the Son.

Sure, but we were talking about this "Church of the Firstborn" business. I've already provided a quote where Brigham Young indicates that "Firstborn", in this context, refers to Jesus. George Q. Cannon does likewise:

Should not our hearts be full of thanksgiving to Almighty God, that, however humble and obscure and illiterate, however contemptible in the minds of the children of men, our doctrines, lives and characters may be, our names are numbered with the holiest, the best and the greatest that have ever trod the footstool of God, that our names are numbered with Jesus the firstborn, the Son of God, . . .

JD 18:351

Is "Firstborn" a name or a title, and can that title apply to both the Father and the Son? When Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor used the title "Jehovah" they were generally referring to God the Father. That's no longer the case today.

Naturally "firstborn" can be a title. But if Jesus isn't Jehovah, then presenting "Jehovah" as an office/title and then inserting Adam into that role is problematic as well. For we know that Adam is Michael (see, e.g., TPJS 38, 168; JD 1:51; 21:361-362) and Brigham Young refers to Michael and Jehovah as separate personages (JD 1:51).

That's why we get this idea from Adam-God apologists about "Elohim", "Jehovah" and "Michael" being titles rather than proper names, and the individual Adam as having shifted from the role of "Jehovah" to "Michael" and back. But I'm not aware that even President Young, Sister Snow, or any other early Adam-God proponent ever directly said "yes, these are titles or offices, and various individuals have served in those capacities throughout the history of Creation". As it stands, my impression is that this "titles" business was a later interpolation inserted by people who recognized that President Young was contradicting himself and were trying to find a way to harmonize it all.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[volgadon]

"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 problem is that page 50 of vol. 1 of the JoD doesn't use quotation marks. Journal of discourses - Google Books

Nor is it in a different paragraph.

[Blackmarch]

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."

this seems very reasonable.. thank you for pointing it out.

[FlaviusHambonius]

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.

Brigham Young preached it -- Spencer W. Kimball denounced it -- Bruce R. McConkie called it heresy -- and Gordon B. Hinkley said "we don't know" .......alrighty then, it's all cleared up!