Questions Re "adam-god"

[Gaia]

In another thread, MOksha raised some questions about the "Adam-God" docttrine, and i thought it deserved its own thread --

As i said, Moksha, yes indeed, what is now referred to as the "Adam-God" doctrine or theory, certainly was taught -- not just by Brigham Young, nor just a couple of times;

- It was taught over a period of between 25-35+ years, by nearly all the General Authorities of the period, (with the notable exception of Apostle Orson Pratt, who ran afoul of Brigham for disagreeing with him on it), both here and abroad, over the pulpit in official meetings -- including General Conferences and Priesthood Conferences;

- It was taught in official publications of the Church -- including the Deseret News, the Millennial Star, The Women's Exponent, The Juvenile Instructor, the Elders' Journal and the Hymnbook;

- It was taught in the Temple as part of the "Veil Lecure" throughout the presidences of FOUR presidents of the Church, including Brigham Young, JOhn Taylor, Lorenzo Snow and Wilford Woodruff;

- There were people brought up on charges before High Council Church courts for REFUSING to accept/ beleive in it.

- The fact that it was taught in such (official) publications as the Juvenile INstructor and the Millennial Star indicate that it was considered appropriate material / doctrine for children, investigators, and new members.

- There are strong hints that Joseph Smith himself was planning to introduce the doctrine into the

Church, as Brigham Young claimed.

WHAT IS THE "ADAM-GOD DOCTRINE"?

We should probably define just what is meant by the "Adam-God Docttrine", and perhaps the best way to do that is to quote some of the statements that referred to it and introduced it to the Saints:

Brigham Young, 1854:

"He is the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, both body and spirit: and he is the father of our spirits, and the father of our flesh in the beginning. You will not dispute the words of an Apostle, that he is actually the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I tell you simply he is our father; the God and father of our Lords Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits . . . I say he was not made of the dust of the ground of this earth, but he was made of the dust of the earth where he lived, where he honored his calling, believed in his Savior, or elder brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed and got a glorious resurrection . . .

Our spirits and the spirts of all the human family were begotten by Adam and born of Eve . . . I tell you, when you see your Father in heaven, you will see Adam; when you see your mother that bore your spirit, you will see mother Eve. "

(Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1854)

"Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth. He had lived on an earth similar to ours. He had received the priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things, and had gained his

resurrection, and his exaltation and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods, for such he became through his faithfulness.

(Brigham Young quoted in the Journal of L. John Nuttall, Feb 7, 1887)

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.

When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects and

therefore their offspring were mortal. When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his Father in heaven . . .

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. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

(Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51 1854)

Who did beget him? His Father, and his father is our God, and the father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael: The Ancient of Days.

(Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young Feb 19, 1854)

Prior to 1900, the LDS temple ceremony taught this doctine in explicit terms. If the endowment recipient had not received this knowledge in symbolic form by the time s/he reached the veil, it was given in the "lecture before the veil." That lecture was introduced by Brigham Young on February 1, 1877, in the St. George temple and was intended to be the pattern for all lectures before the veil.

L. John Nuttall, acting as the temple recorder under Brigham Young's direction, recorded and helped prepare its final form. The following is taken from his journal and represents the substance of the lecture:

"In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness....

. . . Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth; he had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and gained his

resurrection and his exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness. And had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth.

And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celstial world. And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is Adam our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression. Consequently they came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in. And when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom, our earth, he came to it, and slept and forgot all and

became like an infant child . . .

. . . Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground their bodies became changed from immortal to mortal beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life. . .

Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Savior), who is the heir of the family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in the spriit to Mary and she conceived.) For when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came." (Diary of L. John Nuttall, Feb. 7, 1877)

This lecture *remained* part of the temple ceremony under the direction of Presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff and Lorenzo Snow.

This may sound pretty far-out to those who either have never heard of it, or have only heard it negatively spoken of; but many feel there are doctrinal, scriptural supports for this doctrine, for example:

ADAM-GOD REFERENCES:

From STandard Works:

Jesus says to the brother of Jared: “Never have I showed myself unto man whom I created”.

Did Adam see Jesus?

Daniel 7:9-10; 13-14

9 I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.

10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. ...

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

Daniel 2:44

44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

1 Corinthians 15:24

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

In Daniel 2, who was it that set up the kingdom? God [Elohim]. In Corinthians, who shall "put down all rule"? God [the Father]. And in DANIEL 7, who was it? The Ancient of Days [Adam].

Consider in the following who will be taking over whose throne, and compare that with Dan. 7:9,13-14.

Acts 2:30

30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

In describing God's throne Ezekiel uses the exact same imagery to describe it (burning fire with lightening and and especially intricate description of the wheels) as Daniel describes the throne of the ancient of Days.

All of these verses fit very well with statements made by the Prophet

Brigham Young:

Brigham Young, JD 13:327, Feb 10, 1867 (emphasis mine)

So it was with Israel, in the days of their obedience they were commanded to take partners in their own families; but Israel was finally divided up into twelve parts, and they will be brought up so.

They will come up tribe by tribe, and the ANCIENT OF DAYS, HE WHO LED ABRAHAM, and talked to NOAH, ENOCH, ISAAC, and JACOB, that VERY BEING will come and judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Conclusion:

Adam, the Ancient of Days, is one and the same Being as the God whom we worship.

There are so many more quotes over the period of quarter-century or more that this doctrine was taught, that it would be impossible to list all the quotes/ references. Here are just a few refrences from the JD:

ADAM-GOD REFERENCES, From JOurnal of Discourses

(PLease note, the JD is NOT currently considered official doctrine )

JD 1:50 Adam ... came into [Garden] with a celestial body

JD 1:50 Adam ... brought Eve, one of his wives, with him[which]

JD 1:50 Adam ... is our GOD and the only one with which WE have do

JD 1:50 Adam ... [is the Father of the child Jesus, not Holy Ghost

JD 1:51 who is the Father? He is the first of the human family

JD 2:6 if Adam was made out of clay, he would be an adobe to this day

JD 3:90 Adam and his wife Eve came here upon this planet

JD 3:319 Adam was made out of dust, but it was dust from anotherworld

JD 3:319 Adam helped make the world and was the chief manager of it

JD 3:319 Adam brought the seeds and animals to earth

JD 3:319 Adam brought his wife to earth

JD 3:319 Adam was made as you and I are made

JD 3:344 Adam and Eve were immortal, same as resurrected beings (OP)

JD 4:1 God is the "first man", "first man" sent his Son Jesus (HCK)

JD 4:215 God is the Father of our spirits and our bodies

JD 4:218 Father ... partook of elements until his system was changed

JD 4:218 Man created precisely as we all are created

JD 4:271 we will get the privilege of being an Adam on earth

JD 5:331 I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam.

JD 5:331 There are many that know that Adam being our God is true

JD 5:332 glad to see the white locks of Father Adam ... only true God

JD 6:31 Father of our spirits, is the Father of our bodies

JD 6:101 Did God produce us. ... upon same principle that we produce

JD 6:275 Gods create spirits, then become Adams&Eves,

JD 6:275 All Adams and Eve's have celestialized bodies

JD 7:285 Adam being made of the dust is but an idle tale

JD 7:288 Adam & Eve came from another planet

JD 7:290 Adam & Eve parents of our flesh and our spirits

JD 8:208 Faithful women to become Eves to worlds in hereafter

JD 8:152 God is our Father, the offspring of Adam are our siblings.

JD 11:81 We are sons of God through generation same as our children from us

JD 11:122 God created man as we created our children

JD 11:122 As Paul said we are the offspring of God

JD 11:327 Ancient of Days led Abraham, talked to Noah,Enoch,Isaac, Jacob

JD 12:97 Women, if righteous, may be Eves to their own worlds someday

JD 13:187 Some angels are Gods,still possess lower office of angel

JD 13:187 Adam is called an Archangel, yet he is a God.

JD 13:263 Father Adam gave up considerable knowledge to come to earth

JD 13:263 Adam reduced himself to the capacity of corruptable being

JD 14:111 we are children of the Almighty, or Adam/Eve

JD 16:167 No doubt but that Adam left many wives in heaven

ORSON PRATT'S DISPUTE OVER ADAM-GOD:

Orson Pratt, LDS apostle, steadfastly refused to accept the doctrine, and carried on a running dispute with Brigham Young over the course of many years. In 1875, about two years before Brigham Young's death, he rearranged the seniority in the Quorum of the Twelve, placing three others before Orson Pratt. Pratt did not succeed to the presidency as would have otherwise occurred without the change.

In 1860, the Quorum of the twelve met to consider Pratt's opposition to Brigham Young's teachings:

O. Pratt: In regard to Adam being our Father and our God; I have not published it, although I frankly say I have no confidence in it, although advocated by Bro. Kimball in the stand, and afterwards affirmed by Bro. Brigham. I have heard Brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our Spirits and he came here with a resurrected body to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to an endless number of falls, which leads to sorrow and death; that is revolting to my feelings . . .

O. Hyde: (President of the Quorum): To acknowledge that this is the Kingdom of God and that there is a presiding power, and to admit that he can advance incorrect doctrine is to lay the ax at the root of the tree. ...

Bro. Brigham may err in the price of a horse or a house and lot, but in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given thus saith the Lord when it was not so? I cannot find one instance.

Who is our Heavenly Father? I would as soon it was Father Adam or any other good and lawful being. I shall see him sometime, if I do right.

J. Taylor: When Bro. Brigham tells me a thing, I receive it as revelation. Some things may be apparently contradictory but are not really contradictory.

G. A. Smith: [it is] for him [Orson] to acknowledge Brigham Young as President of the Church, in the exercise of his calling, but he [Orson] only acknowledges him as a poor driveling fool, he [Orson]

preaches doctrines opposed to Joseph, and all other revelations.

OTHER RESOURCES:

There is an excellent book available (the best, most thorough and complete resource i've ever found on it) for anyone who might be interested --

"_Adam-God : Doctrines Of The Restorations Volume I_" by Craig L. Tholson;

Publishment: P.O. Box 151, Payson, UT 84651-0151

However, please note, i in no way portray or suggest that this book is official LDS Doctrine; i present it as information for those interested in exploring this very interesting issue in LDS history and doctrine, only:

MOKSHA's QUESTION:

Now, your question MOksha, was:

However, this was in vogue for a lot of years. How does this stuff get winnowed out from better doctrine? Is it by continuing revelation?

I guess i have to say that there are many people today -- and not all of them are "apostates" or "Fundamentalists" *g* -- who believe that it IS "good" doctrine; that it is quite consistent with several other important doctrines of the Gospel, and that it was set aside because:

1. some of the members of the Church just couldn't handle it;

2. The "gentile world" was so aghast at this doctrine that they would have made even more trouble for the church. By that time the church was fighting for its life over polygamy; the leaders had to make decisons about whether it was better to hold to these strange, even troubling doctrines and perhaps be destroyed, or to set them aside and (hopefully) ensure the continuation of the Church;

3. There are many who feel that this and related doctrines in fact belong NOT to the "LDS Church", but to the "Church of the Firstborn" -- (Hebrews 12:23, D&C 76:67, D&C 77, D&C 78:21, ) -- those who have made their Calling and Election to Eternal Life SURE, and have received the Second Comforter.....

AT any rate, it was gradually phased out, denied, and then eventually was labelled heresy. (One might be forgiven for wondering how the Prophet Brigham Young could call it "one of the most glorious revealments ever given to men" while later prophets could call it "heresy"....)

(Gaia ducks and waits for the explosion that is sure to come.....*g*

[Doctor Steuss]

Where things get sticky with this subject is that it was evident that Brigham did not equate Adam with Eloheim (nor YHWH).

[Moksha]

Where things get sticky with this subject is that it was evident that Brigham did not equate Adam with Eloheim (nor YHWH).

Do you mean he thought Adam was a heretofore undisclosed God?

[Doctor Steuss]

<div class='quotemain'>

Where things get sticky with this subject is that it was evident that Brigham did not equate Adam with Eloheim (nor YHWH).

Do you mean he thought Adam was a heretofore undisclosed God?

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what he was teaching, and I doubt I'll ever really figure it out. There are too many little pieces that never really seem to fit for me. That's why I usually try to be sure to always refer to it as the Adam-God Theory. BCSpace and John W. were discussing their different interpretations over on MA&D about it. I wish I could remember the thread...

[edited for typing error]

[checkerboy]

(Gaia ducks and waits for the explosion that is sure to come.....*g*

If you are posting things with the surety that an explosion is coming then I think you are posting for the wrong reasons.

[BenRaines]

I guess that is why we don't call a Prophet infallible. Not perfect. From what I have read Brigham Young was a man of strong opinion and that point being taught, even as doctrine at the time, would not lead to someone violating even the most basic of commandments regarding obedience and what we must do to return to our Heavenly Father's presence.

In my not so humble opinion.

Ben Raines

[a-train]

The Doc is right. In almost every instance of speech feasibly attributable to the advancement of the so called 'Adam-God Theory', The Father of Jesus of Nazareth is NOT to be confused with the first man Adam. Most of the more prominent quotes from President Brigham Young highlighted by advocates of 'Adam-God Theory' teaching, contain language setting The Father apart from Adam directly in his speech.

I think we are automatically stepping onto thin ice in attempting to define the 'Adam-God Theory' in the first place. There is more than one tenable interpretation of any collection of President Young's teachings considered to be on the subject.

I personally doubt that President Young's thoughts were so seemingly divergent from known doctrine as many suppose. For some reason, even in light of the context of his quotes, there are many who continue to use snippets from President Young's teachings to perpetualize the ever-changing notion of the 'Adam-God Theory'.

It seems to me that interpretations cohesive with the Gospel as we know it are the most likely to be what was in the mind of President Young.

-a-train

PS, I want to add that the label of 'heresy' has NOT been applied to Brigham Young's teachings, but to interpretations thereof known to be not only incompatable with the Restored Gospel, but also with the teachings of Brigham Young themselves.

[antispatula]

I don't even get the Adam-God theory. Can someone explain it in easy terms? Is it the idea that God is also Adam? That's impossible, methinks.

Anyways, just found this:

Spencer W. Kimball, “Our Own Liahona,” Ensign, Nov 1976, 77

"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. "

[Traveler]

The problem lies in not understanding covenants and the role Adam had in bringing covenants associated with the fall. He that initiates a covenant is often refered to as the "Father" of the covenant - along the same line as the thinking that George Washington is the/a father of the USA.

It is also thought that those that follow are the children of the covenant or in the case of Adam and Eve - Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve. Those that have read CS. Lewis's Book or saw the movie the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe realize that this concept of covenant is not unique to LDS thinking.

The Traveler

[a-train]

antispatula,

Although it sounds ridiculous (because it is), there are some who believe that God the Father (Yes, the Father of Jesus Christ) is Adam. They hold that He came to the earth and partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and fell. They affirm that Adam is God the Father. They take certain teachings of Brigham Young out of context to assert their opinion. There have been (or are) many different subtle and intricate versions of this teaching in circulation. The notion in it's variations has been given the appelation of 'Adam-God Theory' or 'Adam-God Doctrine'. The definition of which is therefore as sketchy as those who peddle it.

The vast majority of those who circulate the idea aren't even subcribers to it at all, but they are anti-mormons who assert that Brigham Young taught this notion and that it was later abandonded by the Church. What doesn't help, is the fact that various LDS persons have subscribed to the idea at times. Some have held the idea so vehemently that they have left the Church over it.

The truth is that it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the precise phrases from Brigham Young supposedly teaching 'Adam-God', unequivically demonstrate that he subscribed to the idea as understood by those who do so.

My personal opinion is that Brigham did NOT believe Adam and the Father of Jesus are the same Being, but that Adam does hold the title of 'God' over this earth and his Priesthood and Patriarchal position as such is of singular and spectacular importance. However, Adam is not only in subjection to the Father, but is also in subjection to Jesus Christ as clearly demonstrated by the scriptures, the temple, and for that matter, the teachings of Brigham Young as well.

Teachings of Brigham Young in connection with this are notions such as Adam and Eve coming to this earth having been born on another by the same means of a mother and father as we are. Brigham taught that the forming of Adam's body from the dusts of the earth and Eve's from a rib was symbolic and not literal. He further stated that the bodies of Adam and Eve were Celestial and for that matter so was the earth until the partaking of the fruit and the subsequent fall, wherein they and the whole earth became telestial. However, these teachings could easily be true without necessity of Adam being the Father of Jesus Christ.

Denunciations of 'Adam-God' such as the one you quoted from President Kimball should NOT be understood as denunciations of Brigham Young or his teachings, but of the various contemplations and suggestions upheld to have origin in Brigham Young's teachings which, as I said before, are contrary to not only the Gospel, but to the teachings of Brigham Young also.

-a-train

[a-train]

No disrespect, but the OP has some out-of-context mis-quotes in it. President Young's talk at the Tabernacle on April, 9 1852 (JofD 1:49, read the whole sermon here!) has been altered in a fashion popular among the antis.

The antis ALWAYS change 'He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.' to 'He was not begotten of the Holy Ghost.' They then use it to attempt to show that Brigham contradicted the words of the angel to Joseph in Matthew 1:20: 'that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost'.

They take the whole thing out of context. Look at the talk! He is saying that Heavenly Father has a tangible body of flesh and bone and is the Father of Jesus. Jesus' Father is not the Holy Ghost, but the Father. He was repudiating ideas popular at that time. He goes on in a lighter fashion to tell of a joke that if the Holy Ghost makes a woman pregnant, then the elders must be careful in conferring the gift thereof for fear of unwanted pregnancies.

A more popular change to the text here is the ommission of the statement: '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.' with the good ol' dot-dot-dot.

They conveniently leave that out and then go on to quote a following statement in his discourse: '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.' Now clearly he had just mentioned 'Eloheim' in the quorum that organized the earth only three sentences earlier. They want us to think he is referring to Michael, but it is more plausible that he is referring to 'Eloheim'.

Further, if Eloheim is Michael, why does Brigham make any distinction? He said they were 'three distinct characters' The antis ALWAYS therefore leave that sentence out because it ruins their whole assertion.

Can we please try to make sure these anti-tactics are NOT perpetuated here?

-a-train

[Gaia]

GAIA:

Well, here's how i would explain it, and address some of the objections to it:

ADAM-GOD Explanations & Rationales:

Here are a couple of HINTS that some people use, for solving some of the problems, dilemmas, confusions and contradictions often raised around this doctrine:

1. Confusion around the terms, Michael-Adam, Elohim, Gods, etc:

The term "Elohim" is actually a plural which means literally "Gods" and it's frequently used that way in LDS theology; so it is a term which, precisely speaking, refers NOT to an individual, but to an OFFICE or to a plurality. It is also occasionally used in general LDS discussion to refer to God the Father.

b. 'Michael-Adam' is a term that refers to an OFFICE in the Priesthood, although it (or its constituent parts "Michael" and "Adam") are often used as proper names, they are NOT.

"Adam" means literally, "red clay" or "red earth." "Michael" means literally, "who is like God".

IN LDS doctrine, "Michael" refers to that pre-mortal being who assists the Elohim (or "Gods" in creation.

In LDs theology, the term "Gods" can apply to those "noble and great" pre-mortal spirits; they were considered "Gods".)

In LDS doctrine, "Adam" refers to that being who enters the Garden of Eden and *becomes* mortal, in order to open up mortality and earth life in general, for all.

2. LDS doctrine as taught by Joseph Smith, says that even the Earth itself is enduring a "probationary period" -- it has obeyed the Law of Sacrifice, it has been baptized, it will eventually be sanctified, glorified and exalted. Therefore, Adam's "fall" referred not just to human beings, but to the Earth itself as well. (More on this if anybody wishes)

3. The terms "Elohim" "Michael-Adam", "Jehovah", and "Christ" are all PRIESTHOOD OFFICES , not proper names of people.

This is important to keep straight because in LDS practice, one single person may hold many different Priesthood offices; or an office may be filled by different people at different times.

So according to the Adam-God doctrine, The being we refer to as Heavenly Father participated in the Creation and in the early establishment of this earth, in MORE THAN ONE WAY, and in more than one office --

It's a bit like saying,

"Brother Smith participated in General Conference in three different contexts and roles:

1) as an individual (giving the opening prayer or sustaining the authorities),

2) as an Apostle, (giving an address), and finally

3) as a father, (bringing his family and taking the baby out to be changed when necessary).

However, "father", "Apostle" and "Brother Smith" are all very *different* things, with different roles, responsibilities, obligations, authorities, power, roles, etc.

It would be as wrong to say that "Father" is an apostle, as it would be to say that "father runs the church", or "apostle" changes diapers as part of his official responsibilities.

Thus, it is NOT (doctrinally) correct to say that "Adam is God," or that "LDS worship Adam" --

So Brigham and other GA's could very truthfully deny that "Adam is God" (as they did) withOUT negating the principles of the so-called "Adam-God" doctrine.

3. Regarding Adam's supposed "death" :

First, while the scriptures use the words "Adam died"

(Genesis 5:5) we don't really know exactly what they might mean by this.

The scriptures (Deut. 34:1-8) also refer to the "death" of Moses, yet according to LDS doctrine he did NOT die, but was translated, in order to appear on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus:

(Robert J. Matthews, Behold the Messiah :

"Although it is recorded in Deuteronomy that Moses died and supposedly was buried by the hand of the Lord (Deut. 34:1-8), it is certain that he did not die but was translated. If it were not so he could not have appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration to lay on hands and bestow keys of the holy priesthood. Since this event took place before the resurrection of Jesus, and since Moses had lived thirteen centuries before Christ, it follows that in A.D. 33 Moses was a translated being, even as Elijah. Perhaps this is why "no man knoweth of his sepulchre" and why it was assumed that he "was buried by the hand of the Lord" in Moab (Deut. 34:5-6; Alma 45:19) for since he was translated, there was no place of burial."

(Robert J. Matthews, Behold the Messiah [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1994], 245.)

Thus, scripture has elsewhere reported the "death" of someone when in fact, we know differently.

4. The being who fufilled the OFFICE of "Michael-Adam" would have returned from Whence he came, but the responsibilities of the Office have not yet been completed.

Eventually Michael-Adam, as the head of all dispensations, will gather the keys of each dispensation from each leader, then, we're told scripturally and doctrinally, Adam-Michael will turn over the keys to Jesus, who will present the completed Work of 'an Eternity' to his Father, God the Father -- another example of someone participating in something in multiple ways, roles, and Offices.

5. "Adam walked in the Garden with the Father..."

This brings up another question regarding statements like, "Adam walked in the Garden with the Father".....

There are several possibilities to explain this:

1) Jesus is often referred to as the Father by virtue of His position as the "Father" of those who are born again.

2) But many people feel that a more likely explanation is found in the scripture:

(Revelation 1:5-6.)

... Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen."

God the Father has a Father, Who has a Father, Who has a Father.....and so on. Adam may well have been walking and talking with HIS father -- our "Grandfather", so to speak.

It's important to realize that LDS doctrine affirms the unending line of Exalted Beings --

As the hymn, "If you could Hie to Kolob" says:

If you could hie to Kolob,

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward,

With that same speed to fly,

D'ye think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be ?

Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend ?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end ?

Me thinks the Spirit whispers,

"No man has found 'pure space,'

"Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place.

The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter,

There is no end to space,

There is no end to spirit,

There is no end to race."

- We have not merely a Heavenly Father and Mother, but a Heavenly Grandfather and Grandmother, and so on back, and back and back -- no end to Heavenly parents who can "stand-in" for each other, if necessary, in various contexts.

6. Also -- remember, "Adam" is NOT "the God that we worship" even according to the Adam-God doctrine --

any more than "Home Teacher" is head of the Elder's Quorum --

But Elder Smith may fill both positions at the same (or different) time(s).

Here's a poem from one of my favorite poets -- Eliza R Snow Smith -- a plural wife of Joseph, who was known as "Zion's High Priestess", "Zion's Poetess" and "Presidentess Snow" most of her life --

THE ULTIMATUM OF HUMAN LIFE

by Eliza R. Snow (Smith)*

"The sun had set, and twilight's shady mood

Spread a brown halo--ting'd the solitude

As days last glimmer flitted down the west;

Life's stirring scenes demurely sank to rest--

Soft silence lent its contemplative charm,

And all conspir'd the mental pulse to warm--

From world to world, imagination wander'd,

While thought, the present, past, and future ponder'd.

"As I was musing the desire intense

That some kind guardian angel might dispense

Instruction; lo! a seraph-form appeared--

His look---his voice my anxious spirit cheer'd.

It was the Priesthood-- he who holds the key

T' unlock the portals of Eternity;

And with o'erflowing heart, I took my seat,

An enter'd student at th' Instructors feet.

"What would'st thou me?" The seraph gently said:

"Tell me, and wherefore hast thou sought my aid?"

"I then replied: Long, long I've wish'd to know

What is the cause of suff'ring here below--

What the result of human life will be--

Its ultimatum in Eternity.

"With deep, attentive mind-- with list'ning ear,

I watch'd and waited ev'ry word to hear;

As thus he said; 'Tis not for you to pry

Into the secrets of the worlds on high--

"To seek to know the first, the moving Cause,

Councils, decrees, organizations, laws--

Form'd by the Gods, pertaining to this earth,

Ere your great Father from their courts came forth,

The routine of his ancestors to tread--

Of this new world, to stand the royal head.

"The more immediate cause of all the woe

And degradation in your world below,

Is disobedience: Sorrow, toil and pain,

With their associates, follow in its train.

This life's an ordeal, and design'd to prove

Fraternal kindness and parental love.

Earth is your Father's workshop. What is done--

All that's attain'd, and what achievements won,

Is for the Parents: All things are their own--

The children now hold nothing but by loan.

Whatever some may claim in proud pretense;

No one has yet obtain'd inheritance;

E'en Abraham has no possession gain'd

Of what by promise he thro' faith obtained:

And all that greedy hands accumulate,

Is yet the Father's, not the child's estate.

Then shame, O shame, on all the strife you see

Here in the cradle of life's nursery--

The green-ey'd jealousies--the frosty hate

Which carnal, avaricious thoughts create!

How vain that phantom of mortality,

The mimic-form of human dignity!

'Tis soon enough for infant lips to talk

Of pow'r and greatness, when they've strength to walk--

'Tis soon enough for children to be great,

When they can boast a self-possess'd estate.

"It will not matter whatsoe'er is gained,

Or what on earth may seem to be obtained;

But 'tis important that each one prepare

To be with Christ, a joint, an equal heir:

Faith, and obedience, and integrity,

Will the grand test of future heirship, be.

If true and faithful to the Father's will,

It matters not what station here you fill;

As you prepare yourself on earth, will be

Your place, your portion in eternity.

"As disobedience fill'd the world with pain,

Obedience will restore it back again.

The base perversions of my pow'r produce

All the strong engines satan has in use;

And qualify the sons of men to dwell

With his dark majesty, the prince of hell.

All that obey the pow'rs of darkness go

With those they follow-- to the world below,

Then list to me--my precepts all obey--

The Gods have sent me in this latter-day,

Fully commissioned upward all to lead,

Who will my councils and instructions heed-

Who seek in ev'ry circumstance and place,

To benefit and bless the human race--

Who seek in their Father's interests to enhance--

His glorious cause upon the earth advance--

Whether below, they much or little claim,

If they exalt and magnify his name;

And in his service labor faithfully,

They'll have a fullness in his legacy.

Each faithful saint is an acknowledg'd heir,

And as his diligence, will be his share,

When god a patrimony shall bestow

Upon his sons and daughters here below.

"Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been

Subject to sorrow in a world of sin:

Through long gradation he arose to be

Cloth'd with the Godhead's might and majesty.

And what to him in his probative sphere,

Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?

Whate'er his offices and callings were,

He magnified them with assiduous care:

By his obedience he obtain'd the place

Of God and Father of this human race.

"Obedience will the same bright garland weave,

As it has done for your great Mother, Eve,

For all her daughters on the earth, who will

All my requirements sacredly fulfill.

And what to Eve, though in her mortal life,

She'd been the first, the tenth, or fiftieth wife?

Whether by fools, consider'd small, or great?

'Twas all the same with her--she prov'd her worth--

She's now the Goddess and the Queen of Earth.

"Life's ultimatum, unto those those that live

As saints of God, and all my pow'rs receive;

Is still the onward, upward course to tread--

To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head

Of an inheritance, a new-form'd earth,

And to their spirt-race, give mortal birth--

Give them experience in a world like this;

Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss,

Crown'd with salvation and eternal joy

Where full perfection dwells, without alloy.

"Thus said the Seraph.--Sacred in my heart

I cherish all his precious words impart;

And humbly pray, I ever may, as now,

With holy def'rence in his presence bow.

The field of thought he open'd to my view,

My wonder rous'd--my admiration too:

I marvel'd at the silly childishness

Of saints, the heirs of everlasting bliss,

The candidates for Godheads and for worlds,

As onward time, eternities unfurls.

I felt my littleness, and thought, henceforth

I'll be myself, the humblest saint on earth;

And all that God shall to my care assign,

I'll recognize and use as His, not mine.

Wherever he appoints to me a place,

That will I seek, with diligence, to grace,

And for my Parents, whatso'er my lot,

To work with all my might, and murmer not,

I'll seek their interest, till they send or come,

And as a faithful daughter take me home.

"As thus I mus'd, the lovely queen of night,

'Neath heav'n's blue canopy, diffus'd her light:

Still brighter beams o'er earth's horizon play--

A cheering prelude to approaching day,

When truth's full glory will o'erspread the skies,

And the bright "Sun of Righteousness" arise."

~End.

(The "ULTIMATUM OF HUMAN LIFE" was published in Salt Lake City, printed at the Latter-day Saints' Printing and Publishing Establishment in 1877. in "Poems, Religious, Historical, and Political by Eliza R. Snow. Vol. II, Compiled by the Author" It is found on pages 5-10)

SO WHAT HAPPENED?

First, The doctrine was no longer taught publicly after about 1898 when Apostle and Counselor in the First Presidency, George Q. Cannon, gave a talk before the first Sunday School conference entitled "Things which Should not be Taught in Sunday School."

In this talk Cannon says he thinks it "not wise" to advocate the Adam God Doctrine, Multiple Mortal Probations, and certain other teachings formerly taught openly from the stand.

Secondly, There was a REFORM of LDS Doctrine, between 1890-1915, during which several doctrines -- including, but not limted to:

- polygamy

- eternal progression

- Multiple Mortal Probations (Reincarnation, transmigration of souls)

- Doctrine of Adoption (Adopting men who were unrelated by birth, to leading Priesthood leaders)

- Priestesshood of women

- Doctrine of Literal Gathering of Israel

-- and several others) - were 'dropped', or severely revised, for various reasons -- Many feel it was to a large extent, because the church was taking so many "hits" from the secular world for doctrines they could neither understand, nor countenance.

But there are many who feel that these doctrines -- including "Adam-God" -- are powerful, beautiful and profound doctrines on their own, but understood TOGETHER they create an amazing, coherent, unified whole which reveal some of the most profound truths of the universe.

FINALLY (if anybody is still reading! *g*) -- a few personal notes:

1. I don't necessarily personally accept this doctrine as absolute truth; but i do think it has some real beauty and wisdom.

2. IMO, it does fit beautifully, with several other "controversial" but profound doctrines.

3. If i have any "goal" in posting this, it is to encourage LDS to:

a) Give it some time, think and pray about these things, and see whether they prompt you to any whisperings of the Spirit that are valauble to you. If not, fine. But if so -- finer *g*.

B) stop permitting the Church's enemies to define this doctrine as something to hate, fear, argue against, deny, suppress, demonize or ignore.

IOW, stop reacting to the REACTIONS TO it, and consider it on its own -- consider it as if you had NO preconceptions about these topics, these words; consider it as if it MIGHT just have something to teach you of importance and value.

Consider it is if it may just be a *beautiful* doctrine with profound spiritual significance and implications.

I hope LDS will someday stop allowing the church's enemies to define it, and use it against the church and Prophet from whose brilliance it sprung, -- this makes no sense, heart or spirit to me.

At the very least, i think it's possible for (some) LDS to stop groaning whenever someone raises the issue and proudly reply (some version of) "yeah, so what!" *g* -- well, maybe more like --

"This just might be a beautiful spiritual truth which you are evidently incapable of comprehending -- so much the sadder for you."

Blessings to all -

~Gaia

[john doe]

One of the reasons that yoga is so popular is that if you twist your body into wild contortions so much that you eventually look like a pretzel, eventually you get to a point where 'clarity' kicks in. Or you neck hurts from all the twists. By the same token, if you take BY's words and twist the gospel just so, and bend your mind just right, you will be able to understand the Adam-God theory in the same way that ardent believers in the theory do.

I'm sorry, my mind just doesn't bend that way. I have read the sermons in the past, and various commentaries on it, and I just can't bring myself to believe it the way that others would have us believe it. Adam is not God the Father of our Spirits. And I don't believe that BY meant for us to believe that, either. I believe that what he was saying is that Adam, being the first man, was the father of all men on earth, and thus deserves a place of honor in the eternities. I don't think he intended for anyone to worship Adam as God The Father of our Spirits. I believe the gospel is much simpler than what you make it out to be. Adam-God is very convoluted, and hurts the head to think about.

I suggest you post your theory on the MA&D board and let those who deal with these things on a daily basis take a whack at it. I suspect you won't because you don't want to give up on a pet theory, but it would be a good place to see where the holes in your theory are. There are many church scholars and pseudo-scholars over there who would be happy to show you where you are right and where you are wrong.

[Brother Dorsey]

In another thread, MOksha raised some questions about the "Adam-God" docttrine, and i thought it deserved its own thread --

As i said, Moksha, yes indeed, what is now referred to as the "Adam-God" doctrine or theory, certainly was taught -- not just by Brigham Young, nor just a couple of times;

blah, blah, blah.....

There NEVER WAS an Adam-God Doctrine, and Brigham Young NEVER taught an Adam-God Doctrine/theory.

So, my question to you is why are you posting this anti-Mormon stuff?

It's kind of like your heavenly mother post, chalk full of references and quotes from anti-Mormon literature....mostly crap.....

If I wanted to read this garbage I would just go visit an anti-Mormon website....

Is that where you got this?

I thought there was a rule here at LDSTalk that quoting any anti crap was not allowed?

This doesn't belong on the Gospel discussion board....can we move it to the anti-gospel discussion board?

Just my humble opinion......

Blessings

Bro. Dorsey

[a-train]

3. The terms "Elohim" "Michael-Adam", "Jehovah", and "Christ" are all PRIESTHOOD OFFICES , not proper names of people.

This is important to keep straight because in LDS practice, one single person may hold many different Priesthood offices; or an office may be filled by different people at different times.

So according to the Adam-God doctrine, The being we refer to as Heavenly Father participated in the Creation and in the early establishment of this earth, in MORE THAN ONE WAY, and in more than one office --

It's a bit like saying,

"Brother Smith participated in General Conference in three different contexts and roles:

1) as an individual (giving the opening prayer or sustaining the authorities),

2) as an Apostle, (giving an address), and finally

3) as a father, (bringing his family and taking the baby out to be changed when necessary).

However, "father", "Apostle" and "Brother Smith" are all very *different* things, with different roles, responsibilities, obligations, authorities, power, roles, etc.

It would be as wrong to say that "Father" is an apostle, as it would be to say that "father runs the church", or "apostle" changes diapers as part of his official responsibilities.

Thus, it is NOT (doctrinally) correct to say that "Adam is God," or that "LDS worship Adam" --

So Brigham and other GA's could very truthfully deny that "Adam is God" (as they did) withOUT negating the principles of the so-called "Adam-God" doctrine.

Hilarious! This is somehow supposed to support 'Adam-God Theory'?!??!?!? Again, it could only work if you delete Brigham's testimony that three distinct characters 'filled the priesthood offices' of Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael and formed a quorum in the organizing of element and the creation of the earth.

Can I be set apart as Elders Quorum President, 1st Counselor, 2nd Counselor, Secretary, and etc. and form a quorum only by virtue of my multiple priesthood offices? I could give directions to myself.

I can see no other purpose in the endeavor to, through some outrageous system of redefinition and over-analsyis, come to the conclusion of 'Adam-God' other than the vain sense of spiritual superiority over the brethren of the Church and the membership who do not subscribe to the notion.

As Brigham said, it is a mystery and I can say that it will remain to be so as long as we place our own contemplations above the revelations of the LORD.

-a-train

[Moksha]

There NEVER WAS an Adam-God Doctrine, and Brigham Young NEVER taught an Adam-God Doctrine/theory.

So, my question to you is why are you posting this anti-Mormon stuff?

Blessings

Bro. Dorsey

Our discarded history or outmoded doctrines really do not need to be denied nor referred to as anti-mormon. What was was. It is best to own our mistakes so that we can learn from them.

What is up with the constant use of large size bolded type?

[Brother Dorsey]

<div class='quotemain'>

There NEVER WAS an Adam-God Doctrine, and Brigham Young NEVER taught an Adam-God Doctrine/theory.

So, my question to you is why are you posting this anti-Mormon stuff?

Blessings

Bro. Dorsey

Our discarded history or outmoded doctrines really do not need to be denied nor referred to as anti-mormon. What was was. It is best to own our mistakes so that we can learn from them.

What is up with the constant use of large size bolded type?

Discarded history? Outmoded doctrines? this Adam/God theory was NEVER doctrine nor was it EVER taught in the church......

If you have any questions regarding this topic go to your Bishop or Stake President....don't rely on an on line post to find truth because you never know the posters agenda! The adversary will make the slightest changes to talks, speeches and comments by past General Authorities to pervert the true Gospel. With the emphasis on past....because they cannot defend their statements.

Because I forgot my reading glasses at work.

[Snow]

[

Our discarded history or outmoded doctrines really do not need to be denied nor referred to as anti-mormon. What was was. It is best to own our mistakes so that we can learn from them.

Because - as anyone can readily note, there are certain posters on this board who have an agenda - an agenda to portray the Church as misguided, it's leaders as mistaken and worse - abusive, it's polices harmful and it's apostates and heretics as victims.

When there is a pink salamander in the room, are we to ignore it?

Discarded history? Outmoded doctrines? this Adam/God theory was NEVER doctrine nor was it EVER taught in the church......

If you have any questions regarding this topic go to your Bishop or Stake President....don't rely on an on line post to find truth because you never know the posters agenda! The adversary will make the slightest changes to talks, speeches and comments by past General Authorities to pervert the true Gospel. With the emphasis on past....because they cannot defend their statements.

Bro, Dorsey,

That is was never doctrine is certainly true. That is was never taught in the Church is probably untrue - though a case can be made that is wasn't.

If I had questions about Brigham Youngs thoughts on God and Adam, I probably wouldn't ask either my Bishop or my Stake President. It is a matter of Mormon History and neither is a Mormon History buff - generally knowledgeable yes, but no experts they.

[a-train]

Our discarded history or outmoded doctrines really do not need to be denied nor referred to as anti-mormon. What was was. It is best to own our mistakes so that we can learn from them.

HA! THEY DELETE PORTIONS OF BRIGHAM'S TALK AND ACCUSE THOSE WHO WANT TO KEEP THOSE PORTIONS OF DISCARDING OUR HISTORY AS OUTMODED DOCTRINES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLUSH! SHAME! This is false accusation and deception pure and simple.

Do you seriously not see that quotes from past leaders have been edited and portions of them deleted in order to support this notion of 'Adam-God'? Further, do you not see the bait and switch tactic going on here? They say: 'Brigham taught that Michael was Eloheim' and delete portions of his talk that say that Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael are 'three distinct characters'. Then they pretend that the Church 'abandoned the idea'. Do you not see this?!?!?!?!

The LDS people, me included, generally want to know and practice the authentic teachings of the Restoration. So, we read unedited talks and refrain from deleting portions and changing certain words in order to get a full picture of the original meaning. Plus, we certainly do not trust the quotations given us through anti-mormon sources when we have at our fingertips the original texts in their unedited fullness.

-a-train

[tiancum]

The adversary will make the slightest changes to talks, speeches and comments by past General Authorities to pervert the true Gospel.

Yes, Bro. Dorsey is right. Satan loves to do this. I have had many do this with my words. I have said many things, and people have taken them really wrong.

The key is this. When someone speaks with the spirit, it needs to be understood with the holy ghost also, or, like the scripture says, it is NOT of God.

I have had many, non Christian, proclaimed Christian, LDS etc (with less than pure motives) say i believe some really weird things.

The Adam/God theory was NEVER taught as doctrine...officially. It was a fringe doctrine that many subscribed to, just like the foolish fringe belief that God is still learning, or that Satan will come back some day.

These records, simply are not scripture. They were never EVER referred to as scripture either. They are imperfect records. Much is not accurate, whether by hearing incorrectly, or by deliberate deception.

If I wanted to read this garbage I would just go visit an anti-Mormon website....

Is that where you got this?

When a person continually fills their mind with darkness, it makes discerning with the spirit more and more difficult. This is indeed anti-mormon.

President Hinkley has spoken on the Adam-god theory and said is was wrong. That is pretty clear to me.

[Gaia]

One of the reasons that yoga is so popular is that if you twist your body into wild contortions so much that you eventually look like a pretzel, eventually you get to a point where 'clarity' kicks in. Or you neck hurts from all the twists. By the same token, if you take BY's words and twist the gospel just so, and bend your mind just right, you will be able to understand the Adam-God theory in the same way that ardent believers in the theory do.

I'm sorry, my mind just doesn't bend that way.....

I suggest you post your theory on the MA&D board and let those who deal with these things on a daily basis take a whack at it. I suspect you won't because you don't want to give up on a pet theory, but it would be a good place to see where the holes in your theory are. There are many church scholars and pseudo-scholars over there who would be happy to show you where you are right and where you are wrong.

GAIA:

Y'know, there's a HUGE difference between (on the one hand) saying, "This thing just doesn't make sense, heart or spirit to me, and i don't expect it ever will....";

- And (on the other hand) saying something like, "And you have evil/ unworthy / suspicious motives for raising, talking or thinking about it in the first place!"

Unfortunately, That's the sort of hostility that some folks seem to harbor about many of these "controversial" issues....I think that sort of defensiveness is rather sad;

-- And ilt's precisely what i was talking about with my "few personal notes" at the end of that previous post - allowing the Church's enemies to define those issues in negative and troubling terms, which then have to be defended against.

Hopefully, we'll get beyond that, some day.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Gaia]

These records, simply are not scripture. They were never EVER referred to as scripture either.

GAIA:

With all due respect, that is simply WRONG ;

In fact, in General Conference, (President and Prophet) Brigham Young specifically called the doctrine "SCRIPTURE" -- See Brigham Young, General Conference, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. October 8th, l854, Hist.Rec. (The quote is a long address, so be sure to read it entirely)

- and in another (see below) he referred to it as revelation.

Therefore, If you have an issue with it, your issue is with Brigham, and the other GA's who taught the doctrine over a quarter century.

If I wanted to read this garbage I would just go visit an anti-Mormon website....

Is that where you got this?

GAIA:

I deliberately quoted LDS sources. If you have any doubts about that, i suggest you consult the sources yourself -- i provided the references so you could do so.

I also think i made myself quite clear that the "anti-Mormons" have it completely WRONG, and MISunderstand what is essentially (and was thought by the GA's who taught it) "one of the most glorious revealments of....heaven -- "

I think one of the best ways to respond to those who ridicule it and cast aspersions on the character and motives of those who merely repeat it, is to quote President (and Prophet) Brigham Young:

"Some years ago I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our Father

and God, That will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of

their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will.

It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven,

yet the world hold it in derision.

Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead instead of Joseph Smith,

there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until doomsday.

But they are ignorant and stupid as the dumb ######."

(Brigham Young, 8 Oct 1861, Ms sermons of Brigham Young, Church Archives.)

And here's another:

"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father

Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true".

(Brigham Young, 7 Oct 1857, Journal of Discourses, 5:331.)

And another from Apostle and Counselor in First Presidency, Heber C Kimball:

"The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God and Father

of all the inhabitants of this earth."

(Heber C. Kimball, Memorandum, 30 April 1862; Sacred History, Soloman F. Kimball

papers, Church Archives.)

I hope nobody thinks THEY are "anti-Mormons" .

I also hope that everyone remembers i have made it very clear that it is NOT a *currently* accepted doctrine or teaching of the Church.

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Gaia]

<div class='quotemain'>

There NEVER WAS an Adam-God Doctrine, and Brigham Young NEVER taught an Adam-God Doctrine/theory.

So, my question to you is why are you posting this anti-Mormon stuff?

Blessings

Bro. Dorsey

Our discarded history or outmoded doctrines really do not need to be denied nor referred to as anti-mormon. What was was. It is best to own our mistakes so that we can learn from them.

What is up with the constant use of large size bolded type?

GAIA:

Hi Moksha --

Well, i know i occasionally use bold or caps to emphasize or clarify a thought or quote -- especially if someone has tried to negate or question it.

However i think it's also true that some people get pretty heated in their defensiveness over these topics....

I've said elsewhere that the more you see caps, large size type and all (online), the more likely it is that someone's "Shadow" is being activated.... and i think that's certainly true here, with all the accusations of "anti-Mormon" being hurled about

Ironically, these are probably the very same folks who will rhapsodize in Suday School about how America is the "only country where the Truth of the Gospel could have been restored and taken root" because of its principles of Freedom, especially freedom of thought and freedom of Religion.... LOL!

~Gaia

[rosie321]

I've read some of the back and forth on this issue. This is my summation and thoughts regarding it (for whatever its worth).

In the history of the church something was mentioned about Adam/God. Though the facts of what was actually stated seems to be in disagreement here, there seems to be no disagreement that it was a part of LDS history.

The church does not like to address this issue even though it was an important issue in the past.

Anti mormons like to discuss it.

I have to agree with GAIA here I'd much rather see this point addressed by the church then by anti's only. This was a matter that was important to early leaders. Maybe this site is not the appropriate place to do so but I do think it is an area that should be understood by members and not so easily written off. Those who ask questions should not be identified as anti's. Talking to your bishop about it usually does no good. First of all the bishop has enough other commitments and the mere discussion of this material is considered anti as shown on this board.

Maybe this whole topic could be discussed in gospel doctrine classes or other times where stronger members could feel comfortable talking about it but would put it in an understandable and positive light It is understandable why one would not want to discuss such matter with people who do not understand basic church concepts but why can't it be discussed among members? Why does there seem to be fear over discussing it? .

[Gaia]

Why does there seem to be fear over discussing it? .

GAIA:

Hi Rosie --I think you've raised some good and important points.

I think there are several reasons why many good people are concerned about discussing it:

1. They feel there is confusing, conflicting or insufficient information on it, to discuss it wisely;

2. They feel that raising it might confuse, trouble or offend those new in the Gospel;

3. Current Church leaders have very strongly and firmly condemned it and ( it seems to many) even discussion about it, so they fear they may be in opposition to the Prophet or God by even discussing or thinking about it.

4. There are so many clear doctrines that they consider esential to salvation and worth discussion, that they feel they cannot justify the time and effort spent on something so unclear, questionable, and which seems totally INessential to their salvation. (Though Brigham and others said it would eventually prove essential to salvation, they can rationalize his comments away somewhat)

I think these certainly are understandable, reasonable concerns. Taken all together, they can put a strong negative "spin" on the entire subject, and most people want to avoid negativity, or "the appearance thereof" -- and focus on what they feel is safe, essential, and approved.

I just wish they would try to understand that not everyone feels constrained to do so; that some people have a different view and that there is room for different perspectives, attitudes, interests, gifts and talents in the Church -- that simply thinnking or talking about something does not necessarily mean you are "guily" of anything, and that those of us who are different are no less children of Heavenly FAther and Mother.

Thanks for your effort to understand.

Blessings --

~Gaia