Adam/God

[SteveVH]

Just wondering if I can get some help here on what I believe is a Mormon doctrine. I was discussing the Adam/God position and was told that the Mormon belief is as follows:

Heavenly Father became the Archangel Michael, who then came to earth with his wife Eve and became Adam which is why we are literal sons and daughters of God. First of all, I would like to make sure that this is LDS understanding.

If so, then these questions immediately jump out at me:

1. If Adam was God, then it follows that since Adam sinned, that God also sinned. How is this reconciled?

2. When Adam disobeyed God who was he disobeying since he, himself was God?

I will not be debating the answers to these questions as this is not the correct forum in which to do so. I am simply interested in your responses so that I can relay them to the party with which I am having the discussion.

Thank you all.

[Guest]

This is not a Mormon doctrine. Even if you believe it to be so. It's just not.

[Guest]

And it's funny, all of your arguments there for Adam not being God (which we don't believe him to be) are the same reasons that the Trinity being one person baffles me.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Heavenly Father became the Archangel Michael, who then came to earth with his wife Eve and became Adam which is why we are literal sons and daughters of God. First of all, I would like to make sure that this is LDS understanding.

FWIW, in 34 yrs in the church, I have never heard that taught in any class, Sacrament meeting, seminary or institute. I have heard that there is this "Adam-God" theory that Brigham Young spoke of, but it is NOT considered doctrine.

So no this is not my understanding at all.

[estradling75]

Heavenly Father became the Archangel Michael, who then came to earth with his wife Eve and became Adam which is why we are literal sons and daughters of God. First of all, I would like to make sure that this is LDS understanding.

I've been a member all my life and I have never heard that taught. In any Sunday school class, from the pulpit or in any general conference. But I have heard that the Father and Adam are very much separate, to the point that I would state it as doctrine.

So I have to say that it is not in any way the LDS understanding how things are/were. Further more I would say whomever is telling you this is either flat out lying to you about us or is very confused. With my bet being more on the later then the former

[kapikui]

As near as I can tell, the whole Adam/God thing came about because of something that Brigham Young was talking about, and ONE of the people recording it (by writing it down since we were a few years from developing sound recording technology) wrote something to that effect. Others didn't, and there was only the one source. It is almost certainly some type of error or deliberate mis-characterization of what was said.

[SteveVH]

This is not a Mormon doctrine. Even if you believe it to be so. It's just not.

Thanks, which is why I asked first of all if this was LDS understanding.

[Anddenex]

Just wondering if I can get some help here on what I believe is a Mormon doctrine.

Best answer, as others have shared, this isn't Mormon doctrine. If you are discussing this theory with other people, then you should mention that this isn't Mormon doctrine.

This is very similar when people try to use the book "Mormon Doctrine" to highlight doctrines which are not doctrines of our Church.

[SteveVH]

And it's funny, all of your arguments there for Adam not being God (which we don't believe him to be) are the same reasons that the Trinity being one person baffles me.

If I was allowed to debate, I would.

[SteveVH]

Thanks to all who responded. I think you have made it very clear that this is certainly not believed by Mormons today which is the message I will relay. Thanks again.

[SteveVH]

Best answer, as others have shared, this isn't Mormon doctrine. If you are discussing this theory with other people, then you should mention that this isn't Mormon doctrine.

This is very similar when people try to use the book "Mormon Doctrine" to highlight doctrines which are not doctrines of our Church.

Just so you know, the evidence that was given to me were Brigham Young's own words, as transcribed, as well as excerpts from the Journal of Discourses which seems to support it. In looking futher I saw where it had actually been denounced as a false teaching by Spencer W. Kimball in 1976. I would say that it must be true that Brigham Young said it or it would not have to be denounced. Brigham Young also said "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 13:95)., yet this is exactly what he was doing when he gave the Adam-God sermon. I only mention this so that you don't think that there wasn't any basis for the question other than heresay.

Edited March 11, 2013 by StephenVH

[Anddenex]

Just so you know, the evidence that was given to me were Brigham Young's own words, as transcribed, as well as excerpts from the Journal of Discourses which seems to support it. In looking futher I saw where it had actually been denounced as a false teaching by Spencer W. Kimball in 1976. I would say that it must be true that Brigham Young said it or it would not have to be denounced. Brigham Young also said "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 13:95)., yet this is exactly what he was doing when he gave the Adam-God sermon. I only mention this so that you don't think that there was not any basis for the question other than heresay.

I am familiar with the Adam/God Theory given by Brigham Young. I am also familiar with the twist people put on Brigham's words also, as provided in this statement, "yet this is exactly what he was doing when he gave the Adam-God sermon."

Were you there to know that this is exactly what he was doing? Have you ever been in a position where people put words into your mouth by quoting an exact statement from you? Brigham was a man of many thoughts and opinions. It was denounced earlier than 1976 as being false doctrine, and solely Brigham's opinion.

You will notice the link I attached to my response which highlights the emphasis in italics provided in this response. Journal of Discourses, from any past leader, are not Mormon doctrine, however we do find many things which are doctrine within them and which greatly enhance our understanding of the doctrines of the Church.

[SteveVH]

I am familiar with the Adam/God Theory given by Brigham Young. I am also familiar with the twist people put on Brigham's words also, as provided in this statement, "yet this is exactly what he was doing when he gave the Adam-God sermon."

Were you there to know that this is exactly what he was doing? Have you ever been in a position where people put words into your mouth by quoting an exact statement from you? Brigham was a man of many thoughts and opinions. It was denounced earlier than 1976 as being false doctrine, and solely Brigham's opinion.

You will notice the link I attached to my response which highlights the emphasis in italics provided in this response. Journal of Discourses, from any past leader, are not Mormon doctrine, however we do find many things which are doctrine within them and which greatly enhance our understanding of the doctrines of the Church.

You had mentioned the book "Mormon Doctrine" as an example of a source that distorts Mormon belief. My only point was that it was a sermon by which the Adam-God "theory" was delivered and he said that anything given in his sermons could be considered "scripture". In other words, it did not come from some anti-Mormon source.

In any event, I was only trying to let you know how one on the outside, putting these two things together, could conclude that this is Mormon doctrine. You and everyone else have made it abundantly clear that this is not considered Mormon doctrine and I take your word for it.

Edited March 11, 2013 by StephenVH

[Maureen]

And it's funny, all of your arguments there for Adam not being God (which we don't believe him to be) are the same reasons that the Trinity being one person baffles me.

Well we have something in common, you (LDS) don't believe that Adam was God and we (Trinitarians) don't believe that the Trinity is one person.

M.

[Guest]

Well we have something in common, you (LDS) don't believe that Adam was God and we (Trinitarians) don't believe that the Trinity is one person.

M.

As you know, I meant 3 people.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just wondering if I can get some help here on what I believe is a Mormon doctrine. I was discussing the Adam/God position and was told that the Mormon belief is as follows:

Stephen, I'll take a slightly different tack; because I do think that with Adam/God Brigham Young (and Eliza R. Snow) (and Heber C. Kimball) (and, in his youth, Joseph F. Smith) were not merely misquoted; but were explaining the eternities as they understood them. Of course, it's important to bear in mind that the Church as a whole never accepted the doctrine; and even in his own time Young had significant opposition to this and other teachings in the form of apostle Orson Pratt. Moreover, Young's statement (which you quote) about everything he spoke being scripture, is in direct contradiction to other statements of Young to the effect that the Saints could and should compare his teachings to scripture and the whisperings of the Holy Spirit. In short Young's statements--like the man himself, and like all of us to some degree--are a study in contradiction.

Heavenly Father became the Archangel Michael, who then came to earth with his wife Eve and became Adam which is why we are literal sons and daughters of God. First of all, I would like to make sure that this is LDS understanding.

Young did make statements more or less to that effect--which again, contradict other statements Young himself made about the relationship between God and man, between man and Jesus, and between Adam/Michael and Jesus. (You see elements of the Mormon idea that Jehovah and Jesus are one and the same Being very early in LDS history, but it's not universally adopted until the early 20th century.)

If so, then these questions immediately jump out at me:

1. If Adam was God, then it follows that since Adam sinned, that God also sinned. How is this reconciled?

Mormon thought has always rejected the notion of original sin, and carefully draws distinctions between "sin" versus "transgression". Since we're not at all sure that Adam's decision in the garden was really a "sin", the notion of God Himself partaking of the forbidden fruit isn't the deal-killer for us that I presume it would be for you, as a Catholic. (That's not to say that we think everything's hunky-dory with the idea of Adam/God; but our discomfort with it doesn't really stem from the notion of God, in the form of Adam, being tempted in the garden.)

2. When Adam disobeyed God who was he disobeying since he, himself was God?

Young also refers in some of his sermons to Adam's "father", so there would theoretically have been at least one being greater than this hypothetical Adam/God himself, giving Adam/God instruction in the garden and thereafter.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[selek]

You had mentioned the book "Mormon Doctrine" as an example of a source that distorts Mormon belief. My only point was that it was a sermon by which the Adam-God "theory" was delivered and he said that anything given in his sermons could be considered "scripture". In other words, it did not come from some anti-Mormon source.

This is false on two fronts.

First, "even the devil can quote scripture to his advantage." Just because something was recorded by an LDS source does NOT mean that the argument is being made in good faith.

Anti-Mormons and other "counter-cultists" have made a cottage industry out of manipulating quotes and sources from the targets of their ire. (As a Catholic, you should be well aware of this tactic being used by anti-Catholics over the last two centuries).

This, of course, leads us to the second point: you are (either deliberately or because you were misinformed) abusing Brigham Young's statement.

He neither said nor implied that any of his sermons was automagically doctrine as the words fell from his lips.

The quote used to justify that line of logic was his alleged statement, "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture."

Critics of the Church love to abuse that statement (usually for polemical value or to advance false arguments), but they all too often omit the second part, which read: "Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (Emphasis mine).

Note the qualifying statement: before Brigham's words could be considered authoritative, he required "the privilege of correcting a sermon"- meaning the opportunity to double check it against- and revise it as necessary- to match extant doctrine, the Gospel, and Church law.

Mormonism and doctrine/Statements by past prophets - FAIRMormon

As others have noted above (and provided solid links for additional reading) both the "Adam-God sermon" and the Journal of Discourses fails this test- and fail it badly.

The Journal of Discourses was not- and never has been- an authoritative source of Church doctrine.

It was published in England of all places, and was neither reviewed nor corrected by the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve before publication.

Brigham Young did not have "the privilege of correcting [those sermons]"- and they are not, therefore, "scripture" even under the somewhat eccentric definition being used.

In any event, I was only trying to let you know how one on the outside, putting these two things together, could conclude that this is Mormon doctrine.

Yes- but once one has ALL the pieces, then the puzzle takes on a starkly different picture than the glossy one offered by counter-cult ministries and by people with an axe to grind.

In this instance, you hit on a particularly classic- and egregious- example of how those who do not argue in good faith will distort the truth in order to misrepresent and demonize our faith.

Thank you for not swallowing the bait hook, line, and sinker.

[Tough Grits]

Just wondering if I can get some help here on what I believe is a Mormon doctrine. I was discussing the Adam/God position and was told that the Mormon belief is as follows:

Heavenly Father became the Archangel Michael, who then came to earth with his wife Eve and became Adam which is why we are literal sons and daughters of God. First of all, I would like to make sure that this is LDS understanding.

If so, then these questions immediately jump out at me:

1. If Adam was God, then it follows that since Adam sinned, that God also sinned. How is this reconciled?

2. When Adam disobeyed God who was he disobeying since he, himself was God?

I will not be debating the answers to these questions as this is not the correct forum in which to do so. I am simply interested in your responses so that I can relay them to the party with which I am having the discussion.

Thank you all.

I have some sincere questions that I would like to ask you, if you do not wish to answer, I will not take offense.

• Have you visited LDS.org or Mormon.org? These sites have a wealth of resources for those with curiosity about our religion.
• Have you read the Gospel Principles? https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng There is a chapter titled The Creation and one titled The Fall of Adam and Eve.

Not that anybody on this site would lead you astray, but wouldn't you rather read it plain and straight from Church approved material?

I had debated religion all my life with those who wanted to debate, or who belittled me for being an atheist. I never attacked anybody or sought out reasons to debate, just for the sake of debate. I was just never that person. I am not saying that you are, I am merely clarifying who I used to be. But when I actually wanted to know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was truly about, I read it first-hand from the Gospel Principles.

Just curious.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Tough Grits
TYPO

[Backroads]

Oh, I suppose the Adam/God debate is a fun thing to research if you're looking at it merely as an historical here's-what-was-said bit.

But as doctrine? I believe we would have heard a heck of a lot more about it by now.

[Maureen]

Just_A_Guy, can you explain why you laughed at Post #14?

M.

[SteveVH]

I have some sincere questions that I would like to ask you, if you do not wish to answer, I will not take offense.

• Have you visited LDS.org or Mormon.org? These sites have a wealth of resources for those with curiosity about our religion.
• Have you read the Gospel Principles? https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles?lang=eng There is a chapter titled The Creation and one titled The Fall of Adam and Eve.

Not that anybody on this site would lead you astray, but wouldn't you rather read it plain and straight from Church approved material?

I had debated religion all my life with those who wanted to debate, or who belittled me for being an atheist. I never attacked anybody or sought out reasons to debate, just for the sake of debate. I was just never that person. I am not saying that you are, I am merely clarifying who I used to be. But when I actually wanted to know what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was truly about, I read it first-hand from the Gospel Principles.

Just curious.

You make a good point and yes, I have read official statements from Mormon sources on this matter. But when I see contradictions in official statements (at least from my point of view) I come to forums, such as these, in order to discern what is believed by the Mormon faithful. I will not get into those issues here because I am not here to debate anyone on this particular forum (General Discussion). I have asked the question, received the answer and I accept and respect the answers given.

Edited March 11, 2013 by StephenVH

[SanctitasDeo]

While there are people who set out to mislead, I totally understand the confusion people sometime feel when it comes to Mormon doctrine. There is a core of easy to categorize stuff, then there is a fuzzy fringe that we don't talk about much but is technically doctrine and then teachings that never were doctrine but looked like it. I am pretty sure that even some Mormons never quite figure it out (in terms of cultural versus doctrinal/speculation/stuff Joseph Smith was reported to have said. Kinda fun.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just_A_Guy, can you explain why you laughed at Post #14?

M.

I sincerely thought you were joking--or at least speaking with your tongue partially in cheek. Apologies if my misinterpretation gave offense.

[bytebear]

The problem with quoting Brigham Young on Adam/God is that you can find dozens of quotes that contradict his own quotes, which means he either was very confused about doctrine, or we're missing something. I choose to believe the latter, and have no issues with the concepts Young was trying to convey.

I find this kind of questioning and accusations of changing or denying past doctrines than to make an attempt to understand the nature of God, our life's purpose and potential, and how Adam fits into it all. However, I don't think you can really understand it without a testimony and preparation for higher levels of learning. You certainly cannot learn when your intentions appear to be to show that Mormons are inconsistent or in denial about their past teachings, neither of which are true.

[talisyn]

I love the early days of the restored church! There was so much going on, and such an amazing amount of revelation, like a river of knowledge pouring upon the Saints. I've wondered how much knowledge was given and then taken away for a time and then restored (like priesthood for all worthy men), and what hasn't come back yet (like plural marriage).