Adam-God Theory

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

How do you deal with what Brigham Young said about the moon and its residents SoCal?

or better yet, joseph smith.....

since the line of thinking originated from joseph and was passed to brigham....

i dont expect you to answer this question because it is stupid to bring up this quote here in this discussion....

we are talking about a doctrine taught from the pulpits of the church and in the temple, not comments made by men who had little understanding of space....

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I've rarely seen anyone on here have the guts to come out and say "it is false doctrine", instead I mostly read..."well you can't discount what Brigham Young said" etc...etc......you know exactly what I'm talking about.

I just thought I would say what most probably think, but don't have the guts to do.

here is what we know about adam/god....

brigham taught it over, and over, and over.....

an apostle was stripped of his apostleship because he didnt believe.....

brighams successor believed in the idea.....

it was taught in the temple.....

these are the reasons why there has been discussion, but i have yet to read anyone here who actually said they believed in the idea....

[Dan]

JonnyLingo wrote:

How do you deal with what Brigham Young said about the moon and its residents

Me:

That is a straw issue. Brigham NEVER proclaimed in general conference his ideas on moon men. Also, Brigham never adamantly claimed in the name of God that any moon men ideas were true doctrine. Brigham never structured the temple ordinances and lecture at the veil around his ideas on moon men. Brigham never spoke out about moon men publicly dozens of times refering to such ideas as true doctrines. If you can find any other issues besides moon men that fit all of the above criteria, then maybe we can analyze that issue, but the moon men issue falls miserably short.

When one realizes the extent to which BY testified about AG, it is hard to say it is a false doctrine and that BY's statements on the matter are not disturbing in their implications unless suffering from cognitifve dissonance. The reality is that most are just not aware of the extent to which BY testified and proclaimed this as doctrine. He testified in the name of the lord that this was a true doctrine. If you are aware of that and you are a mainstream LDS, do not tell me that that does not trouble you. There have been statements of disavowal of AG in the past, but for the most part it appears they were made as a form of disinformation (i.e., BRM's letter to Eugene England). SWK's passing statement re AG is not too satisfactory for a number of reasons. This issue is much more complex than most realize and more people who understand it, who are members in good standing, than you realize actually do believe it.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Dan

JonnyLingo wrote:
If you are aware of that and you are a mainstream LDS, do not tell me that that does not trouble you.

I am aware of that, and while I may not be as mainstream as others, it doesn't trouble me. I'm sticking with my "Brigham was wrong" theory. I think the reason it is surpressed in any form has less to do with wanting to conceal the truth than just wanting to avoid the argument.

[Dan]

Yeah, initially, after the turn of the 1900s, the concealment was mainly to'not throw pearls before swine'. As decades passed and AG was sort of forgotten, or at least foreign to the rising generation(s) of LDS folk, when claims would be made by LDS antagonists that Mormons worship Adam, not only would the information brokers of the church try to avoid the argument, they would purposefully lie about what was really taught 'back in the day.' Over the last 15-20 years, with the ease of information transfer, etc., it became undeniable to even the modest inquirer that AG was a pillar doctrine of the church back then, and we can see some of the obfuscating steps taken by esteemed church leaders to purposefully hide the truth (Widtsoe, Petersen, BRM, JFS, others). Now, the truth is clear for anyone who opens their eyes wide enough to catch a glimpse, but yes, the church still tries to avoid the issue, and at least on a micro level (stake presidents, bishops, etc.) if inquired about you will get answers such as BY was being misunderstood, etc. 100 year old arguments basically.

So, AA, you are saying that BY testifying in the name of the Lord about AG, teaching AG in general conference and in many other official settings, structuring temple ordinances around AG, etc. seriously does not bug you at all? It does not make you pause and wonder if anything a current propehet dared to speak in the name of the lord at general conference, for example, could really just turn out to be a bunch of crap?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Dan

So, AA, you are saying that BY testifying in the name of the Lord about AG, teaching AG in general conference and in many other official settings, structuring temple ordinances around AG, etc. seriously does not bug you at all? It does not make you pause and wonder if anything a current propehet dared to speak in the name of the lord at general conference, for example, could really just turn out to be a bunch of crap?

Honestly, no.

Brigham Young had one of the toughest assignments in the history of this dispensation: being the guy who followed Joseph Smith. He had been a member of the church a mere twelve years when he became the church's leader. There are certain spiritual gifts he simply did not have-- he was stubborn, had a ferocious temper, and was extremely blunt, all of which were qualities that were necessary for the leader of the church to have if it was to survive the post-Carthage era. The man made mistakes, some of which were especially bad-- but what do you expect? He had nothing else to look to for a precedent.

Mormons are fairly well accustomed to the idea that what man is, God once was, and what God is, man may one day become. To the early members of the church, this was brand new. To expect them to fully understand what Joseph Smith had taught them is asking an awful lot. Brigham heard Joseph teach that God was once a man, and that He had ascended to his present position. Two plus two equals five: God was not only a man, but the man, Adam (which name literally means "man").

At the same time, God did not allow his leaders to lead the church astray. Had all 15 members of the quorum and first presidency permanently implemented false doctrine, I have no reason to doubt that God would have corrected it through revelation. Nevertheless, for all that Brigham did to adopt the principle, holdouts in the Twelve prevented him from fully doing so, and the teaching eventually faded away.

It bugs me not at all because: a.) The church as a whole was NOT led astray, but the false doctrine eventually weeded itself out, and b.) Those who strenously adopted the teachings under the sanction of Brigham Young turned out all right. As you said, there are and have been members who believed AG with all their hearts and were active for life. I feel that when you follow God's prophet when he is wrong, you will STILL ultimately be blessed for it. If something a current prophet dared to speak in the name of the Lord at General Conference turned out to be a bunch of crap, I'll still be better off trying to follow him than I would on my own.

[Dan]

I am suprised by your attitude and I believe it to be more of an exception than the norm, but so be it. Orson Pratt was the only hold out and it nearly cost him his place in the Q12. All others believed. It was official as official can be. BY's strengths and weaknesses aside, if BY is speaking in the name of the Lord, I am going to listen up. If later leaders say BY was dead wrong when speaking in the name of the Lord, I am also going to take note and scratch my head a bit. The main reason though, why the teaching fizzled out was because of the recommendations by the G.Q. Cannon led correlation committee to tone down any discussion of such topics and just focus on the basics (though the nature and identity of God, ironically, to me, is pretty fundamental). It was completely toned down after that to the point that discussion on the topic was shrugged off and the temple ceremony was changed. Then came some men in the heirarchy who held the Orson Pratt view on the topic who became vocal in supressing it further with lies about the teaching never existing at all. When one of those men became president of the church (JFS) that just about sealed the quashing of the concept. But since that time we can verify that it really was taught and can see how the concept was treated over the last 150 years. It is very interesting to really delve into and study.

[Black Diamond Bay]

"official as official can be" because Orson Pratt did hold out, leaving a division in the leadership of the church on this issue. In my mind that makes the issue far from "official." Yes, I understand that it was taught over the pulpit, Brigham testified of it's validity in the name of God, etc... I can't but into a theory that says that a perfect God came to Earth in a mortal form and sinned, and then just resurrected himself and went on about his business. Doesn't add up, in fact I think it's absurd, and I don't really care what Brigham Young taught. It's not logically sound

Additionally, I don't think that it's fair to claim what the main reason for the doctrine dying out was. Fine to speculate, but history is all just a matter of perception.

It is interesting to study and to speculate on, but IMO, ridiculous to be troubled by it.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

LOL. Nice to see the old Rocky back. No offense taken because I've never subscribed to the theory. I learned a lot about the history of the theory in the discussions here. That's about the extent of it.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've always spoken plainly. Sometimes I've just been more direct than others, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Dan]

... though Orson Pratt 'held out', he still acquiesed to the decision of the quorum, so yes, it was 'unanimous.' If you want to use a standard such as the one that you put forth, decisions such as the 1978 priesthood declaration could easily be called into question, because we would just need to point to _one_ apostle that did not personally agree with it, right? Regardless of whether they all acquiesced to it? Or while we are at it, should we summarily throw out the decision to ban polygamy? because the MAJORITY of the apostles were against its termination? So does that leave such a decision back then in doubt? Why don't we look back to the bible in acts 15 when the decision was being made regarding the gospel and the gentiles. There certainly was not unity in the way you express, but they all acquiesced to Peter's prophetic pronouncement. You are setting up an impossible standard to defend. These were just the first few examples that popped into my head.

In addition your summary of the AG concept is a far cry from the interwoven dynamics of it all. Your simplified, dogmatic, straw man description of the concept is a far cry from the reality of the principle as it was believed by virtually all of the brethren (minus some here and there) in the mid to late 1800s. Are you implying there was something cognitively wrong with their ability to see this fundamental 'problem' that you were able to recognize after cursory analysis of the concept? I know you may think I am trying to be condescending in my manner of speaking to you here, but I really hope you do not take it that way. I DO understand how you come to the conclusions you have and it is understandable based on the teaching traditions you are used to after growing up in the church. But I assure you, if you really dig into this stuff you will realize it is much more involved than you realize and much deeper. You will realize many of the early brethren believed in ideas such as multiple mortal probations (basically required for the AG concept) and other related principles and doctrines that are much different than what is taught in Sunday school today. Once you are familiar with the genral context of beliefs on different issues at that time period, you can begin to see how something like AG would make A LOT of sense for them to believe, whereas today it would not because different things are emphasized.

Look at the issue another way ... you say you cannot see how a God would condescend to mortality to transgress and later be able to raise himself. Well, is it much easier for you to believe that Lucifer, son of the morning, perhaps originally premier in authority of Jesus, could fall into perdition while in the very presence of God himself? We actually have some scriptural description of the event, but it is scant. War in Heaven?? What an absurd and illogical idea! But due to the fact that we have a little bit of scripture talking about it, again we can accept it. AG is tough to swollow, and seemingly as hard to believe as the examples I just mentioned, among other potential examples, but it just doesn't have the scripture behind it that the other examples do. That is the very reason why Orson Pratt never believed it, but all of the other brethren did. I know AG does not nicely dove-tail with common LDS paradigms, but does any one of us really believe that if the veil were lifted and we were to see and comprehend the mysteries of heaven that we would NOT have MANY MANY MANY major suprises. We have just a speck of knowledge from the eternal river of knowledge that is hidden from our eyes.