Adam-God Theory

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

BenBritton wrote:Wilford Woodruff is referring to Joseph's teaching on Adam and Gabriel. In that set of teachings on Priesthood, which we have been quoting and Wilford Woodruff refers to, assumes Christ as Lord and God. In it Joseph taught that Michael was the "archangel". According to the 1828 webster dictionary, "ARCHAN'GEL, n. 1. An angel of the highest order;" Then laterJoseph says, "the Son of man shall send forth his Angels." Why does Adam receive the priesthood first? Because he the archangel, the only angel referred to with that title. The prefix arch- means highest or chiefest, so Adam is the first of the Angels, and first to receive the priesthood, Noah is 2nd.

In a revelation Joseph lays out the hierarchy as follows, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." I see that the arch-angel became the arch-man but still not superior to Son-Ahman

It is my opinion that Joseph is referring to Adam as the highest in authority next to Christ. I think he says Adam receives it first, because in Joseph's mind Christ is God and the source of the priesthood, thus the name of the priesthood, the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".


Once again Ben, you are talking about when Joseph taught that the Father and the Son were one being, and was teaching a hierarchy that is Protestant. Try again. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... march-1832
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

grindael wrote:
BenBritton wrote:Wilford Woodruff is referring to Joseph's teaching on Adam and Gabriel. In that set of teachings on Priesthood, which we have been quoting and Wilford Woodruff refers to, assumes Christ as Lord and God. In it Joseph taught that Michael was the "archangel". According to the 1828 webster dictionary, "ARCHAN'GEL, n. 1. An angel of the highest order;" Then laterJoseph says, "the Son of man shall send forth his Angels." Why does Adam receive the priesthood first? Because he the archangel, the only angel referred to with that title. The prefix arch- means highest or chiefest, so Adam is the first of the Angels, and first to receive the priesthood, Noah is 2nd.

In a revelation Joseph lays out the hierarchy as follows, "What is the name of God in the pure language?" The answer says, "Ahman." "What is the name of the Son of God?" Answer, "Son Ahman--the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Ahman." "What is the name of men?" "Sons Ahman," is the answer. "What is the name of angels in the pure language?" "Anglo-man." I see that the arch-angel became the arch-man but still not superior to Son-Ahman

It is my opinion that Joseph is referring to Adam as the highest in authority next to Christ. I think he says Adam receives it first, because in Joseph's mind Christ is God and the source of the priesthood, thus the name of the priesthood, the "Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God".


Once again Ben, you are talking about when Joseph taught that the Father and the Son were one being, and was teaching a hierarchy that is Protestant. Try again. http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSumma ... march-1832


BOAP is a good source, but they don't give the date of the revelation, even though they gave you a hint, the Book of Commandments. And Webster's 1828 is not unique to Mormon Doctrine so I don't see the point. The Universe quote was 10 years after that edition, by the way.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

Well this is excellent evidence that joseph had an inkling about God and Christ as separate beings early on. Here is more testimony to that fact "At one of these meetings after the organization of the school, (the school being organized_ on the 23rd of January, 1833, when we were all together, Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling, with our hands uplifted each one praying in silence, no one whispered above his breath, a personage walked through the room from east to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did and Joseph answered that is Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; he was surrounded as with a flame of fire. He (Brother Coltrin) experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw Him.

When asked about the kind of clothing the Father had on, Brother Coltrin said: I did not discover his clothing for he was surrounded as with a flame of fire, which was so brilliant that I could not discover anything else but his person. I saw his hands, his legs, his feet, his eyes, nose, mouth, head and body in the shape and form of a perfect man. He sat in a chair as a man would sit in a chair, but this appearance was so grand and overwhelming that it seemed I should melt down in his presence, and the sensation was so powerful that it thrilled through my whole system and I felt it in the marrow of my bones. The Prophet Joseph said: Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that they exist and that they are two separate personages."

I use the Webster to get a baseline.

User avatar
Uncle Ed
Apostle
Posts: 794
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:47 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Uncle Ed »

My, my, what a topic, and in-depth to the point of "thread necromancy". I find it all interesting because of one point I did not see mentioned, which I think sweeps away any objections a TBM might have in trying to synthesize all of these quotes and discrepancies and contradictory statements by the same people. These names and titles are possessed by GOD, all of them, for GOD has been and done it all throughout eternity. To pick at words is like worrying a scab. GOD Is and has been Adam, Elohim, Jehovah and Jesus the Christ. There is nothing and nobody that GOD has not been and Is not. So when mortals, even "prophets" pronounce upon the nature, identities, powers, authorities, keys and titles of GOD there is inevitably going to result a ton of overlap and apparent confusion: but confusion only in the minds of some who insist on a more neat and tidy Godhead and eternity....
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6186
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by consiglieri »

God has never been Consiglieri.


Trust me on this.
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)

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

OK, I have a great follow up on Joseph Smith on Adam-God. According to Buerger, Joseph Smith always taught Adam as subservient to Christ. He does a fantastic job so it's my turn to cut and paste large chunks of text!

This claim that Joseph Smith taught "that Adam was God" is the first of three known occasions on which Brigham Young attributed the origin of Adam-God to Smith.39 While there is no reliable primary source documentation from Smith's era to support this assertion, much later testimony from other intimates of Joseph Smith such as Helen Mar Kimball (one of Joseph's plural wives) in 1882, and Benjamin F. Johnson in 1903, endorse Brigham's claim.40 It is therefore appropriate to consider briefly the merits of this assertion.

Joseph Smith unquestionably viewed "Adam" as an individual whose importance extended well beyond the role of first parent to the human race. Five years after the organization of the Church, the Prophet published a revelation which identified "Michael, or Adam, [as] the father of all, the
prince of all, the ancient of days[.]"41 Four years later, in a sermon in Nauvoo in 1839, he went much further. As recorded by Willard Richards, Smith announced that

"The Priesthood was . . .first given to Adam: he obtained the first Presidency & held the keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,—he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures . . . . he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over
the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council . . . . The Son of Man stands before him and there is given him glory & dominion. —Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family." [emphasis in original]42

The centrality of Adam's role was reiterated by the Prophet in a major discourse on the priesthood the following year. He spoke of Adam being the "first and father of all, not only by progeny, but he was the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the Salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven and will continue to be revealed from henceforth." This has, in retrospect—and in isolation—the ring of Adam-God to it, but Smith then said,

"Adam holds the Keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i.e. the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that have [been and] are to be revealed . . . . This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill [sic] Christ shall present the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation."43

In both of these 1839 and 1840 sermons, Joseph clearly places Adam in a position subservient to Christ, a relationship seemingly incompatible with the Adam-God doctrine later articulated by Brigham. As Orson Pratt noted, there also were other important inconsistencies between the fully developed Adam-God doctrine and the scriptures revealed by Joseph Smith. A problem with our present D & C 29 and Book of Moses has already been alluded to; all three of these scriptures clearly place the speaker ("I, the Lord God") in authority above Adam. Moreover, Adam is commanded to repent and seek redemption "through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son."

Pratt's discomfort with Brigham's Adam-God doctrine was not limited to Young's insistence that Adam was not created from the dust of this earth. Other Latter-day Saint scriptures such as the Book of Mormon also pose some difficulties. The prophet Amulek, for example, is there reported as saying a resurrected "mortal body . . . can die no more," that in the resurrection, "spirits [are] united with their bodies, never to be divided" (Alma 11:45). As both the Book of Moses (6:12), and the Doctrine and Covenants (107:53) report the death of Adam, there is at least a theoretical problem with the notion that he had been resurrected prior to his earthly experience.

Additionally, Section 107, which was the third section in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, said in part, "And the Lord appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever."44

Another early revelation (March 1832), now D & C 78, also appeared in the 1835 edition, and made a very similar point. The "Lord God," the "Holy One of Zion," it reported, "hath appointed Michael your prince and established his feet, and set him upon high, and given him the keys of salvation under the council and direction of the Holy One."45 As the "Lord," "Lord God," and "Holy One" in these passages are all understood in Mormon theology to refer to Jesus Christ,46 these scriptures are as irreconcilable with Adam being the father of Christ as were Joseph's later sermons quoted above. Indeed, the sermons essentially restate the message of these scriptures.

These later sermons are all the more significant when one recalls that Brigham had asserted that "it was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God when in Luke Johnson's." Johnson was ordained one of the original Apostles in mid-February 1835; briefly (six days) disfellowshipped and removed from the Council of the Twelve in September 1837; went again into apostasy in December 1837; and was excommunicated in April 1838. Although he was re-baptized into the Church well after Smith's death (in 1846), it follows from his church career that any preaching on Adam-God by Smith "in Luke Johnson's" would have to have occurred in Kirtland well before the Nauvoo sermons.

On the other hand, the Nauvoo period also marked the first major synthesis of the Mormon perception of the nature of God, and all of Smith's later teachings are not necessarily known. The Prophet's sermons and writings in his last years more clearly identified God the Father as an actual being who possessed a physical, but "glorified" corporal body such as our own. Smith's important discourses on April 7, 1844 (the "King Follett Sermon") and June 16, 1844 (on the plurality of gods) crystallized ideas on the eternal evolution of mankind. God himself, the Prophet taught, was once a mortal man who had experienced a similar existence to our own. Indeed, both Joseph and
Hyrum Smith preached an eternal patriarchal lineage of gods; as there never was a son without a father, so also the God of this earth has a father, as does
his father ad infinitum.47

While stopping well short of an "Adam-God doctrine," such ideas clearly were necessary precursors to the notions advanced by Brigham. The one
fragment of evidence that Smith may have carried this at least a step further is found in a poem by apostate Mormon William Law, recently of the First
Presidency, published in the Warsaw Message in February 1844. Entitled "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," this poem satirically spoke
of the "greater" glory a man could have in the hereafter if he had plural wives; "Creating worlds so fair; At least a world for ever wife That you take with you there."48 (Emphasis in original.) While this notion does presage yet another aspect of Brigham Young's teachings, it obviously still falls well short of a positive link between the Adam-God doctrine and Joseph Smith.

At least as relevant as the foregoing in evaluating Joseph's possible views, is the total absence in any of his known sermons or writings, or in that of any other Mormon leader before 1852, of anything like the fully developed Adam-God doctrine. Instead, statements such as that found in John Taylor's 1852 publication, The Government of God, actually suggest that the antithesis of Adam-God was then held to be true: " . . . when God made man, he made him of the dust of the earth . . .," and "Adam is the father of our bodies, and God is the father of our spirits." Orson Pratt's 1848 discussion of "The Kingdom of God" involved analysis of the nature of God; but nothing could be cited from it which would support Adam-God in any way. Another early Mormon favorite—A Voice of Warning—first published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt, did cover the scriptural account of Adam's creation; yet he too did not deviate from Joseph Smith's expositions cited above.49 Additionally, while Orson Pratt may have been alone in speaking out against the doctrine after 1852, it is notable that no other Mormon leader—aside from Young—seemed willing to ascribe it to Smith, even after 1852.50 The one other apostle to volunteer a source, Heber C. Kimball, seems to ascribe it to himself. In April 1862, Kimball—long an advocate of the doctrine—testified, "[T]he Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all the inhabitants of this earth." Orson Pratt, as noted below, also inferred that the doctrine originated with Kimball, and T. B. H. Stenhouse, after leaving the Church, made this claim as well, in Rocky Mountain Saints (1873).51

The fact that Brigham Young claimed at least three times that Smith was the originator of Adam-God nonetheless strongly suggests that Brigham thought Smith taught something related to this doctrine. As illustrated above, this indeed is the case. Possibly Young misconstrued or misremembered what he heard (or heard something no one else did?). Whatever the explanation, it can safely be said that with our current understanding it is a very big step from what is known of Joseph Smith's teachings on Adam to those later articulated by Brigham Young.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

I believe the quote found in the center of all that cut and paste is the clincher in terms of defining Joseph's view on Priesthood authority.

"Adam holds the Keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i.e. the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that have [been and] are to be revealed . . . . This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill [sic] Christ shall present the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." (Discourse, October 5, 1840, original ms. in handwriting of Robert B. Thompson, LDS Archives, as cited in Ehat and Cook, op. cit., pp. 39-40; cf. HC, vol. rV, pp. 207-09.)

Joseph Smith preached Christ at the head of the priesthood and Adam next in authority.

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

BenBritton wrote:I believe the quote found in the center of all that cut and paste is the clincher in terms of defining Joseph's view on Priesthood authority.

"Adam holds the Keys of the dispensation of the fulness of times, i.e. the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that have [been and] are to be revealed . . . . This then is the nature of the priesthood, every man holding the presidency of his dispensation and one man holding the presidency of them all even Adam, and Adam receiving his presidency and authority from Christ, but cannot receive a fulness, untill [sic] Christ shall present the kingdom to the Father which shall be at the end of the last dispensation." (Discourse, October 5, 1840, original ms. in handwriting of Robert B. Thompson, LDS Archives, as cited in Ehat and Cook, op. cit., pp. 39-40; cf. HC, vol. rV, pp. 207-09.)

Joseph Smith preached Christ at the head of the priesthood and Adam next in authority.


I believe I already quoted from that discourse and I understand that Buerger is not making the same connection. But Joseph was leading to something and he revealed it just before he died, as William and Wilson Law attest in their Nauvoo Expositor:

Nauvoo Expositor 1:1, Resolution #2, June 7, 1844.

Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many of the official characters, and having laboured with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness, and humility, yet to no effect, we feel as if forebearance has ceased to be a virtue and hope reformation vain. And inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the church such as; a plurality of Gods above the God of this universe; and his liability to fall with all of His creations; the plurality of wives; unconditional sealing up.


This is Adam-God and Joseph taught it. See Fred Collier, http://books.google.com/books?id=ppd0lI ... h.&f=false
Last edited by grindael on Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

And perhaps this is the teaching that Buerger suggests that might exist but no one else heard. Whatever it was Brigham's version had Christ as subservient to Adam and that is the crux of the problem.

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

BenBritton wrote:And perhaps this is the teaching that Buerger suggests that might exist but no one else heard. Whatever it was Brigham's version had Christ as subservient to Adam and that is the crux of the problem.


So did Joseph, at the end. That is where Brigham Young got it from.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

grindael wrote:
BenBritton wrote:And perhaps this is the teaching that Buerger suggests that might exist but no one else heard. Whatever it was Brigham's version had Christ as subservient to Adam and that is the crux of the problem.


So did Joseph, at the end. That is where Brigham Young got it from.


Now, that is your tale on it.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

As far as I iknow, Anson Call is the only one who ever gave an account of Joseph possibly teaching about Adam as a resurrected being who then fell. You notice that Anson does not take the opportunity to say that Joseph equated "the Father" and Adam.

I don't see a pattern where Joseph's new revelations glaringly contradict his past revelations. If Joseph indeed taught something like Anson Call suggests I don't believe he would have taught it in a way that places Adam in a more exalted station than Christ. I believe that to be a glaring flaw in Adam-God as Brigham Young (and Heber C. Kimball) originally taught it.
Last edited by BenBritton on Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

BenBritton wrote:As far as I iknow, Anson Call is the only one who ever gave an account of Joseph teaching about Adam as a resurrected being who then fell. "Anson Call:

“On one occasion when Brother Joseph (Smith) was cutting wood, there came to him some brethren and I was among them. We said, 'Brother Joseph, we have some questions to ask, and we will cut your wood while you answer them' 'all right', said Joseph, and we went into the house. Joseph placed his arms across his knees, bent over as if in meditation, and then said, 'now for your questions.'
We said to him; 'what about the creation of the world; how was it inhabited?' Joseph answered and said; 'I will tell you how it was. You and I were in the spirit world at the grand council, and there we were spirits together. We saw and heard that council, and heard them talk of formation of the world and we were among those when the morning stars sang together and when the sons of God shouted for joy. We were among those who had more courage than others and therefore we came down here and took bodies. Some who did not have the courage said, 'Father, we have fought Satan face to face here in the spirit world and helped to cast him down there and now to go down and fight him again face to face, we are afraid we shall never return to thy presence and would prefer a less degree of glory and go some other of your creations where we are sure of -returning.' 'Yes, you and I had more courage and came down here of our own agency and choice.'
Now regarding Adam: He came here from another planet - an immortalized being and brought his wife, eve, with him, and by eating of the fruits of this earth became subject to death and decay and he became of the earth earthly, was made mortal and subject to death. 12th Ch. Rev. 7 and on.”

You notice that Anson does not take the opportunity to say that Joseph equated "the Father" and Adam. I think this is potentially an accurate account of a teaching from Joseph Smith that could have been transformed into Adam-God.

George Laub reports Joseph giving a similar account about other resurrected beings breaking celestial laws in order to come to this earth, "Now the history of Joseph[u]s in Speaking of angels came down and took themselves wives of the daughters of men, See Geneses 6 Chapter 1-2, verses. These ware resurrected Bodies, Violated the Celestial laws." (George gives an April 1843 date, but it's most likely April 1844 considering just before this entry he gives his notes on the King Follett sermon and also marks it April 1843)

I don't see a pattern where Joseph's new revelations glaringly contradict his past revelations. If Joseph indeed taught something like Anson Call suggests I don't believe he would have taught it in a way that places Adam in a more exalted station than Christ. I believe that to be the glaring flaw in Adam-God as Brigham Young (and Heber C. Kimball) originally taught it.


Ben, Anson Call made that statement in 1877, so I don't trust it. But the Expositor statement shows that Joseph was teaching the basic elements of Adam-god. It is not much different than him changing his early doctrine from one God Jesus/Father to two Jesus & Father. It was what he did. But to say there is no evidence that Brigham Young didn't get it from Joseph is wrong. You are quibbling. Joseph taught that Adam held the keys of the Universe, and that places him over Christ, but as TO THIS WORLD, Adam (as he "fell" with his creations") was subservient to Christ as Savior and Firstborn who would inherit it from Adam. This was Joseph's progressive Doctrine of Deity, and Young got it from him, and then claimed he also received a confirmatory "revelation" from God about it.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

I think this is the point where we agree to disagree. I see in one of those hundred quotes above that Adam received his authority from Christ, and from another quote that it was in the creation (before the fall). I see your position too. Brigham said Joseph said it, and you also have your own interpretation of our many quotes.

User avatar
iamse7en
Sunbeam
Posts: 73
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 2:30 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by iamse7en »

BenBritton, but there are a number of Joseph's statements and concepts that also mesh really well with BY's teachings of the AG Doctrine. You have to look at all the statements of his, instead of cherrypicking and drawing a definitive conclusion.

First, in the creation story, Joseph explained the temple characters this way: The Father (our Father) had acted under the direction of a "head god" and a "council of gods in the creation of the worlds." Once the earth had been organized, "the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us." From the context of Joseph's discussions of this head god, it is apparent that the Prophet clearly considered this being to be a patriarchal superior to the father of Jesus. This meshes perfectly with Brigham's statement (acc. to Joseph Fielding Smith journal) that Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson. The way Mormons understand this heave

Second, most Christians read the Bible quite correctly when they associate the Ancient of Days in Dan 7 with God himself. Joseph was actually making a very controversial statement when he declared that Adam was the Ancient of Days.

Third, look at the implications of these statements from the TPJS:

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next. (HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)


He begins to become even more explicit than this:

Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my father. The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others .... The keys have to brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adams authority. (HC 3:386,387; not only does this infer The Father (of spirits) is Adam, but it explicity says he's THE HEAD and whenever keys are revealed from heaven, it's by HIS authority, not Christ's.)


Commencing with Adam, who was the first man, who is spoken of in Daniel as being the “Ancient of Days,” or in other words, the first and oldest of all, the great, grand progenitor of whom it is said in another place he is Michael, because he was the first and father of all, not only by progeny, but the first to hold the spiritual blessings, to whom was made known the plan of ordinances for the salvation of his posterity unto the end, and to whom Christ was first revealed, and through whom Christ has been revealed from heaven, and will continue to be revealed from henceforth. Adam holds the keys of the dispensation of the fullness of times; i.e., the dispensation of all the times have been and will be revealed through him from the beginning to Christ, and from Christ to the end of all the dispensations that are to be revealed. “Having made known unto us the mystery of His will, according to his good pleasure which He hath purposed in Himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him.” (HC 4:207-208)


Clearly, Joseph did not always teach that Adam was subservient to Christ.

Fourth, perhaps an even stronger point, BY explicitly said, on multiple occasions, that Joseph taught this doctrine. Not that Adam was the first man, the great Archangel, or held a special place in priesthood authority, but BY explicitly said Joseph taught the doctrine that Adam was the father of Jesus and the father of our spirits.

Fifth, I don't find it coincidental that many of Joseph's closest insiders were strong advocates of the doctrine. BY, HCK, Eliza Snow, Benjamin Johnson, Helen Mar Whitney (who also explicitly said BY was not the author of the teaching, but that Joseph was), etc. Why would these devoted people of the Prophet, who spent many hours in council with the prophet all endorse such a radically different teaching if Joseph had not taught it himself?

This issue (whether Joseph is the author of the AG doctrine) is more grey than you would like to believe.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

We've already discussed most of this throughout the thread. Honestly, I think Buerger does a fantastic job making the argument.

As far as the Adam revealing Christ statement goes, that can also be considered from the context of the Holy Spirit's job to witness of Christ, or ministering angels job to reveal Christ. I find that in every quote we've discussed Joseph implicitly or explicitly places Christ in a higher position of authority.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

How have we come at the Priesthood in the last days? It came down, down, in regular succession. Peter, James, and John had it given to them and they gave it to others. Christ is the Great High Priest; Adam next. (HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)


We have discussed this quote a lot already. I don't like your interpretation of this, and I don't think Grindeal would either. I think the Peter, James, and John is instead a reference by Joseph to the restoration of the priesthood to Joseph and Oliver.

Our Savior speaks of children and says, Their angels always stand before my father. The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man, and organized them. He (Adam) is the head, and was told to multiply. The keys were first given to him, and by him to others .... The keys have to brought from heaven whenever the Gospel is sent. When they are revealed from heaven, it is by Adams authority. (HC 3:386,387; not only does this infer The Father (of spirits) is Adam, but it explicity says he's THE HEAD and whenever keys are revealed from heaven, it's by HIS authority, not Christ's.)


We haven't discussed this quote, however I don't find that it supports your position. "The Father" in this quote appears, to me, to be a separate and more authoritative figure in Adam. I see Joseph implying that the Father is the one telling Adam to multiply and giving him keys.

Here is another clarifying teaching from Joseph, "And again, God purposed in Himself that there should not be an eternal fullness until every dispensation should be fulfilled and gathered together in one, and that all things whatsoever, that should be gathered together in one in those dispensations unto the same fullness and eternal glory, should be in Christ Jesus; therefore He set the ordinances to be the same forever and ever, and set Adam to watch over them, to reveal them from heaven to man, or to send angels to reveal them. "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?""

I think we can consistently find Adam as the head and set there by Jesus Christ.

What I'm saying with all this, is that Joseph's public discourses probably shouldn't be interpreted as Adam-God doctrine, at least not in a way the places Michael above Jesus Christ. Joseph clarifies many times that he put's Christ above Michael. I'm also saying what Brigham taught was a radical departure from the established priesthood order. If Joseph taught it, and we have been acknowledging that possibility, I do not believed he would have upset his well established priesthood doctrine, and if he did it would also have been a radical departure for him to make as well.

BenBritton
Nursery
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by BenBritton »

I want to publicly thank Grindael for his sharing his insight on Adam-God (I'm not being sarcastic). I learned a lot and I saw some new sources that I might not have seen otherwise, so thank you. My views on the subject haven't changed however, though I have seen where some of my views needed adjustment (particularly in the case of Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith). Unless someone has something significantly new to add to the conversation, I probably won't respond to it.

Grindael, if you'd like to continue our debate/discussion via email, I'd look forward to it. I'll send you a PM.

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

BenBritton wrote:I think this is the point where we agree to disagree. I see in one of those hundred quotes above that Adam received his authority from Christ, and from another quote that it was in the creation (before the fall). I see your position too. Brigham said Joseph said it, and you also have your own interpretation of our many quotes.


Actually, I have the "interpretation" of those like Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Fred Collier, who understand what Joseph said. I didn't see you address the Expositor quote. Joseph progressively changed his theology. But there is no discussion of this. It is not a surprise then, that some statements Joseph made would "conflict" with others. Are we to then accept Joseph's early theology from the Lectures on Faith and say that D&C 132 is in error. There is no way to reconcile those two theologies. Many Mormons will just deny that there is any problem. Brigham Young had "inside" knowledge about what Joseph taught. Why? Because Joseph kept a lot of things secret. But there is evidence that Joseph taught the rudiments of Adam God, and so Brigham carried on with those concepts.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

User avatar
Fence Sitter
God
Posts: 8860
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:49 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by Fence Sitter »

Ben.

It seems you are trying to show that BY came up with Adam God on his own and also trying to establish that Joseph Smith did not teach Adam God, correct me if I am wrong. I think if you are correct, then it calls into question other aspects of BY's leadership. Are you willing to apply that same approach to the succession crisis? The methodology these men used to support BY in Adam God is the same they used to support BY taking over the Church itself after Joseph Smith died.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."

User avatar
grindael
Dragon
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Adam-God Theory

Post by grindael »

(HC 3:387-388; this infers: Peter/James/John --> Christ --> Adam)


I don't see (that quote) that way, Iamse7en.

That progression would be Adam - others like Moses - Elijah (etc) - Christ - P, J, J, - Joseph Smith, (the earthly line of the Priesthood).

Joseph was fleshing out his new theology from 1838 -1844 (the rudiments of it developed in 1836) not long after the Lectures on Faith were published. This came about from his study of Hebrew, which he then applied to the Book of Abraham (his interpretation of the translation of elohim). Why, in 1839 would he write,

26 God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now;
27 Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory;
28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.


He says right there explicitly that there was a time to come when nothing would be "withheld", whether there be one God or many gods. This was in 1839! On June 16, 1844 he says,

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural: and who can contradict it!


Really? Now we know that isn't true. It just isn't. So Joseph contradicted Joseph. There is no way to draw a line and say that Joseph taught this, which led to this, which led to this... without seeing contradictions. This is true, and what is really important:

Clearly, Joseph did not always teach that Adam was subservient to Christ.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.

Post Reply