Adam-God Theory

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
User avatar
Kolohe
Nursery
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2008 3:26 pm

Adam-God Theory

Post by Kolohe »

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6185
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by consiglieri »

Yes.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

User avatar
The Nehor
God
Posts: 11832
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by The Nehor »

I can tell you what he said.

Interpretation? No. I've got one I believe to be the truth but to explain it I'd have to explain things I'm not supposed to discuss. Sorry.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22384
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by moksha »

Remember, line upon line and speculation upon speculation.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
collegeterrace
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:28 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by collegeterrace »

Would you like that meat milk shake chunky or smooth?
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan

Yoda

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Yoda »

collegeterrace wrote:Would you like that meat milk shake chunky or smooth?

Moderator note---Collegeterrace, if you are going to post in the Celestial Forum, your avatar needs to change. This is a G rated forum. Thanks. Liz

User avatar
The Nehor
God
Posts: 11832
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by The Nehor »

moksha wrote:Remember, line upon line and speculation upon speculation.


Yep, though the two are often the same. First comes the speculation then after time pondering it is either altered or becomes a line.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo

Yoda

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Yoda »

Moderator Note--Thanks for changing your avatar, Port. Much appreciated. :) Liz

User avatar
Mad Viking
Stake President
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:27 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Mad Viking »

Adam = Our God
Jehovah = Adam's God
Elohim = Jehovah's God
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace


User avatar
Pokatator
Famous Potato
Posts: 1417
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:38 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Pokatator »

Thank you for the web site Cinepro.

Welcome to the board Kolohe, great question and a great avatar. I am a big fan of Israel.
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably.
bcspace

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by bcspace »

Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?


Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.

User avatar
collegeterrace
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:28 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by collegeterrace »

bcspace wrote:
Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?


Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.


Nice try fool.

Young claimed that he had "never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (13 J.D. 95.) In 1873, Young lamented, "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873).
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan

User avatar
ludwigm
tired, less active investigator
Posts: 10158
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by ludwigm »

collegeterrace wrote:
bcspace wrote:==quote== Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?==/quote==
Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.
BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.
Nice try fool.
Young claimed that he had "never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve." (13 J.D. 95.) In 1873, Young lamented, "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God." (Deseret News, June 18, 1873).

I've translated bcspace's words for You:

BY never taught such a thing. He has preached sermons and has given interviews to Deseret News.
In one of his sermons he said that his sermons are scriptures.
In one of his interviews he said that there is a particular doctrine which God revealed to him and he revealed to the other Latter-day Saints - namely that Adam is our Father and God. (Maybe, he said his private opinion, he talked as man, not as THE PROPHET.)
Can You find one word about teaching?

You know, the story is about words restored (=redefined).
Horse means deer. Or tapir. Or whatever.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei

User avatar
cinepro
God
Posts: 4503
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:15 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by cinepro »

bcspace wrote:
Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?


BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.


Can you provide the quotes from Brigham Young where he says that?

User avatar
Who Knows
God
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Who Knows »

BY didn't know wtf he was talking about. He contradicted himself (which is how BCSpace chooses to get his 'out') regarding adam/god.

To try to make sense of what he 'taught' is silly.

He was making it up as he went along, just like all the early church leaders.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...

Alter Idem
Apostle
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Alter Idem »

Kolohe wrote:Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?


Thanks to Cinepro's link, I can. Thank-you, thank-you Cinepro!!!!

I wrote on this topic on my blog at MADB.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... blogid=18&

From my article;
In a nutshell, this is what the Adam-God theory which Brigham Young taught comprised;

Adam was a resurrected, immortal being, someone who had lived on an earth like ours, had received his exaltation and become one of "the gods". In the celestial world he and his wives begat spirit children (that's us) and so he is the father of all the spirits who inhabit this earth. He and his wife Eve came to earth and together they ate the fruits and veges of the earth, which had the effect on their bodies as to allow them to bear mortal children. They became as little children, forgetting all and "fell" that the plan could carry on. Later they died, but "did not lay their bodies down in the dust" but went back to the spirit world.

Jesus Christ is Adam's oldest spirit son, his heir; He was the firstborn of his spirit children in the Celestial world. Hence it was Adam who came to the virgin Mary and is the literal father of Jesus.

Pres.Young did not explain what relationship there was between Eloheim, Jesus Christ and Adam--but he did suggest that Eloheim is the Grandfather of Adam. (see page 18-19) Brigham Young saw Eloheim as a separate being from Adam and claimed that Adam had contact with his "grandfather" and "great-grandfathers"...these would be more of "the Gods" mentioned in scripture. So, Adam does not equal Eloheim--at least not the Eloheim who cursed Cain..that was the "grandfather" Adam.

"Adam" is also a title--he used it as a title when explaining at times and this can add to the confusion.

Also, the Adam/God theory that Fundamentalists preach today is different. I'm pretty certain they identify Adam as being also Eloheim, but Brigham Young did not make that identification.
Every man is a moon and has a [dark] side which he turns toward nobody; you have to slip around behind if you want to see it. ---Mark Twain

Alter Idem
Apostle
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Alter Idem »

bcspace wrote:
Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?


Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.


BC, I think you ought to read the article Cinepro linked to. It is clear that Brigham Young identified the mortal Adam and Eve with resurrected, immortal beings who came to earth, gave up their immortality by eating the fruits and then they fell--not their children. The explanation you gave is the one I like also, but it's not what Brigham Young taught.

If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.
Every man is a moon and has a [dark] side which he turns toward nobody; you have to slip around behind if you want to see it. ---Mark Twain

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by bcspace »

BC, I think you ought to read the article Cinepro linked to. It is clear that Brigham Young identified the mortal Adam and Eve with resurrected, immortal beings who came to earth, gave up their immortality by eating the fruits and then they fell--not their children. The explanation you gave is the one I like also, but it's not what Brigham Young taught.


I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.


It never was part of LDS teachings to begin with that I know of considering the Church's definition of doctrine.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.

Alter Idem
Apostle
Posts: 784
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:24 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Alter Idem »

BC, I think you ought to read the article Cinepro linked to. It is clear that Brigham Young identified the mortal
Adam and Eve with resurrected, immortal beings who came to earth, gave up their immortality by eating the fruits and then they fell--not their children. The explanation you gave is the one I like also, but it's not what Brigham Young taught.


I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm


I've read this. But he did not convince me that Brigham Young was misquoted. He only convinced me of what I already knew--that it contradicts scripture to say that immortal, resurrected beings were the ones who "fell" and lived on earth for almost 1,000 years. Watson discounts this interpretation of Brigham Young's Theory because it is unscriptural, but nowhere does he show us that Brigham Young never taught it. He also did not address Orson Pratt's criticisms. From Pratt's criticisms, we see O.Pratt claimed B.Young's theory involved resurrected beings reverting back to a mortal state and he vehemently disagreed with it--for precisely the same reason Elden Watson rejected it--it is unscriptural (not to mention revolting!).
If we accept Elden's Watson's revision of Adam/God to what you quoted, then Orson Pratt's criticism of the doctrine makes no sense. As I said, there would have been no reason for O.Pratt to voice the criticisms he did if Watson's version was what B.Young was teaching. Also, B.Young and O.Pratt discussed this over years...do we really think Orson Pratt could never grasp B.Young's true teaching--as Eldon Watson describes it? That is just not reasonable.


If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.
It never was part of LDS teachings to begin with that I know of considering the Church's definition of doctrine.


Yes, it was part of LDS teachings--but it was never canonized, if that's what you are inferring. It was taught by Brigham Young from 1852 to about 1861 publicly and was later taught privately until Pres. Youngs' death. We know this because it can be found in church writings. It was almost made part of the temple ceremony except that Brigham Young died before being able to complete the project.

We could believe that Brigham Young was misunderstood and Elden Watson's interpretation was what Brigham Young actually meant...the problem is, we've got Orson Pratt's clear explanation of the problems with B.Young's theory to know that B.Young taught something different than Watson believes he taught. Maybe Brigham Young misunderstood Joseph Smith--years later, he attributed the teaching to Joseph. Maybe what Joseph taught him was closer to Watson's interpretation. I think that is a possibility.
Every man is a moon and has a [dark] side which he turns toward nobody; you have to slip around behind if you want to see it. ---Mark Twain

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by bcspace »

I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

I've read this. But he did not convince me that Brigham Young was misquoted.


Which tells me that you did not read it at all is this is not Watson's claim.
Machina Sublime
Satan's Plan Deconstructed.
Your Best Resource On Joseph Smith's Polygamy.
Conservatism is the Gospel of Christ and the Plan of Salvation in Action.
The Degeneracy Of Progressivism.
A lesson on 'Faggotry' for Kevin Graham; a legitimately descriptive and even positive term used by homosexuals themselves.

Post Reply