Adam-God theory

From Free net encyclopedia

The Adam-God theory (also called the Adam-God doctrine) arose from words by Brigham Young that were interpreted by some of his contemporaries to mean that Adam is the God the Father. On April 9, 1852, the official transcript of a talk given by Young says that Adam "is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do." (1 J.D. 50-51). Some of the Latter-day Saint leaders such as Orson Pratt and Amasa M. Lyman found it difficult to reconcile this idea with other accepted doctrines of the church and, along with the general church membership, took a more pragmatic view of Brigham Young's words.

The Adam-God theory has been rejected as false doctrine by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Modern apologists and other Latter-day Saints commonly interpret Young's statements in ways that are consistent with modern mainstream Latter-day Saint doctrines. The most popular explanation is that Adam was a god (not the God) prior to this earth's creation, that he helped God the Father create the earth, and that Adam and Eve "fell" to a state of mortality so that they could have children. Latter-day Saints believe that Adam, as the patriarch of the entire human family, has responsibility for the keys of the priesthood held on this earth, with accountability to Christ and God, and that all priesthood leaders are accountable to him. Adam will receive these keys back one day and will then deliver them up to Jesus Christ and God the Father.

Other modern apologists dismiss Young's recorded statements as attributable to erroneous transcriptions of what Young actually said on the subject. For example, just prior to the statement that "He helped to make and organize this world," there is an omission in the Watt transcription of this discourse. At this point Young gave some instruction which is not recorded by Watt, but which was summarized by at least two other reporters, Wilford Woodruff and Samuel Rogers. These omitted instructions concern the actual physical process used by The Father to provide physical bodies for His spirit children, Adam and Eve. As recorded by Wilford Woodruff, this process was that The Father "ate of the fruit of the Garden until He could beget a Tabernacle." (4 Journal of Wilford Woodruff 127-130) Referring to God the Father and His Wife, Rogers records Young as saying that they "eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth." (2 Brigham Young Address 12; Samuel Hollister Rogers Journal 145) In the Watt version of this discourse, Young repeats this concept in the latter part of paragraph 15 when he recapitulates some of his previously expressed concepts and says that it was "from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession."

While rejected by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the doctrine has enthusiastic acceptance among several small fundamentalist Mormon groups, most of which accepted the doctrine in the 1920s and 1930s.

Contents

[edit]

Young's Adam-God Teaching

[edit]

Statements and Controversy

Young's earliest statements about the Adam-God theory were made in the 1850's, during a period of revivalism known as the Mormon Reformation in Utah. Brigham Young first taught the doctrine in a sermon on April 9, 1852, when he stated:

"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. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do .... When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family....
"It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael....
"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." (1 J.D. 50-51).

After this sermon, Hosea Stout wrote in his diary: "Another meeting this evening. President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us. That he came to this world in a resurected [sic] body &c more hereafter." (2 Diary of Hosea Stout 435 (April 9, 1852)).

Wilford Woodruff records part of Young's discourse as follows:

I will now preach you another Sermon. ["A"] Their is one great Master and Head in all kingdoms & g[overnments?]. So with our Father in Heaven. He is a Tabernacle. He Created us in the likeness of his own image. The Son has also a Tabernacle like the Father & the Holy Ghost is a minister to the people but not a tabernacle.
Who begat the Son of God? Infidels say that Jesus was a Bastard but let me tell you the truth Concerning that matter. Our Father begat all the spirits that were before any tabernacles were made. When our Father came into the Garden He came with his celestial body & brought one of his wifes with him ["B"] & eat of the fruit of the garden until He could begat a tabernacle. And Adam is Michael or God And all the God that we have any thing to do with. They Eat of this fruit & formed the first Tabernacle that was formed. And when the VIRGIN MARY was begotton with Child it was By the Father and in no other way ownly as we were begotton. I will tell you the truth as it is in God. The world dont know that Jesus Christ Our Elder Brother was begotton by our Father in Heaven. Handle it as you please. It will either seal the damnation or salvation of m[e/a?]n. He was begotton by the Father & not by the Holy Ghost. . . . . (4 Journal of Wilford Woodruff 127-130)

Samuel H. Rogers recorded a third account of Young’s discourse in his journal entry of 16 April 1852.

April 16, 1852. Conference commenced on the 6 and continued until the 11, it was held in the new tabernacle, adjourned until the 7 of next October. We had the best conference that I ever attended during the time of the Conference President Brigham Young said that our spirits were begotten before that Adam came to the Earth, and that Adam helped to make the earth, that he had a Celestial body when he came to the earth, and that he brought his wife or one of his wives with him, and that Eve was also a Celestial being, [“B”] that they eat of the fruit of the ground until they begat children from the Earth, he said that Adam was the only God that we would have, and that Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, but of the Father Adam, that Christ was our Elder brother. The argument that he used to show that Christ was not begotten by the holy ghost was a caution to the Elders that when they should go to preach the Gospel, to be careful how they laid their hands on the sisters, for the reception of the holy ghost, lest the Holy Ghost should get them with child and that it would be laid to them. (2 Brigham Young Addresses 12; Samuel Hollister Rogers Journal 145)

As shown above, Woodruff and Rogers record two statements that do not appear in the Watt version of Young’s discourse. (Each omission is indicated by brackets around the letters "A" and "B".} It is apparent from these omissions that the Watt version of this discourse is incomplete and that in the Journal of Discourses we do not have a complete account of what Young said. It has been estimated that there are approximately 100 words missing in the Watt account; "each [missing] paragraph could represent an omission of approximately 50 words."

Despite objections by some other leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at that time that the doctrine was misunderstood by the membership at large, Young continued teaching the doctrine. Young never fully explained the doctrine, and said that most would misunderstand his teachings in the matter. Speaking of the doctrine nine years later in the church's general conference, Young stated:

"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 Isreal [sic] 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 dirrision [sic]. Had I revealed the docterine [sic] of baptisam [sic] from [sic] the dead instead Joseph Smith there are men arround [sic] me who would have rediculed [sic] the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass." (Watt, G.D., transcriber, Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct 8, 1861) [1].

Brigham Young made many statements, before and after his above quote, that agree with the mainstream teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Just two days prior, on April 7, 1852, Brigham Young said that "the Lord made Adam like himself." (6 Journal of Discourses 317-318) Later, on August 8 of that same year, Brigham Young said, "The Lord sent forth His Gospel to the people; He said, I will give it to my son Adam."(3 Journal of Discourses 94) These statements suggest that Brigham Young may have had a much larger doctrinal picture in mind which he figured the general public was not prepared to receive at that time.

[edit]

Adam as the father of Jesus Christ

Many who accept the Adam-God doctrine believe that it includes the idea that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ through the Virgin Mary, or perhaps God the Father (Elohim), although Young seemed particularly exact not to confuse the identity of Elohim and Adam. Many also believe that Eve was a wife from a previous planet or earth. Young's statements on this subject are somewhat ambiguous, and some have rejected this interpretation.

[edit]

The distinction between Father Adam and Father Elohim

Though Young referred to Adam as the "Father" in his 1852 sermon and thereafter, it is clear that Young did not equate Adam with "Elohim" (who modern Mormons usually identify as God the Father) for he stated in his sermon that "Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael" were "three distinct characters". Moreover, in 1873, when discussing the Adam-God theory, he stated:

"We say that Father Adam came here and helped make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, 'Go ye and make an earth'.... Adam came here, and then they brought his wife.... Then he said, 'I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation'." (Deseret News, p. 308 (June 18, 1873)).
[edit]

Official Interpretations

[edit]

References to the Doctrine in Temples

In 1877, while Brigham Young was beginning to standardize the Endowment ceremony for use in the Saint George temple, Young introduced as part of the Endowment the "Lecture at the Veil". The final draft of the Lecture, made after Young's death, is kept private in the St. George Temple. There are those who believe that Young's personal secretary recorded Young's dictation of the lecture in his personal journal. A portion of that journal entry reads as follows:

"Adam was an immortal being when he came. on this earth he had lived on an earth similar to ours... and had begotten all the spirit that was to come to this earth. and Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living bore those spirits in the celestial world.... Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is Father Adams 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 come in the spirit [glory] 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." (Journal of L. John Nuttall, personal secretary of Brigham Young, Feb. 7, 1877 in BYU Special Collections).

L. John Nuttall records in his private journal for Wednesday 7 February 1877 that after serving that day in the St. George Temple and after taking his evening meal, he attended a meeting with President Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Erastus Snow, Brigham Young Jr, I.G. Bleak, and E. M. Greene. (See paragraphs 1A and 1B below.) This meeting was held in President Young’s private winter home in St. George, Utah. During the course of the meeting, President Young gave some teachings which Nuttall later recorded in his personal journal.

It appears that Nuttall recorded President Young’s instructions on the 8th, not on the 7th when they were delivered. The claim that Nuttall did not record President Young’s instructions on the same night they were delivered is made by Fred Collier. Collier notes that, after Nuttall had written the first sentence of paragraph 1B, “[a]t this point Nuttal stopped writing for the ink beginning the next sentence is much lighter and the same as that used for his diary entry of February 8th.” Collier notes that Nuttall resumed his entry for February 7th with the word “Works” and continues with the rest of his journal entry as set forth in this section. It would appear that Nuttall wrote the majority of that entry on the following day, the 8th.

Six days before this private evening meeting, President Young had also given some instructions in the St. George Temple. Nuttall, who was serving at that time as the temple’s recorder, wrote down those instructions for safe keeping. (According to Nuttall’s journal entry for 1 February 1877 “President Young was present and gave some instructions not previously given, which I wrote for safe keeping and reference hereafter.”) It is claimed by some that the instructions recorded by Nuttall on 1 February 1877 included what has come to be called “the lecture at the veil” and that Nuttall and John Daniel Thomas McAllister had been specifically requested to record that particular lecture. It is further claimed that the teachings recorded six days later in Nuttall’s journal entry for 7 February 1877 are actually Nuttall’s record of the 1 February 1877 lecture. (E.g., G. Bergera, Conflict in the Quorum 258-260 (2002) Bergera states that President Young “dictated [the lecture] to one of his secretaries” and then sets out the text of Nuttall’s 7 February 1877 journal entry.) Below we will see why this last claim is most likely not true.

Nuttall’s 7 February 1877 journal entry begins as follows:

{1A} In the sealing room, in anointing where Josiah Guile Hardy and his wife Ann Lenston Hardy had their 2 anointings, also Matthew Clayton, also Sarah Johnson Macdonald anointed to A. F. Macdonald. His wife Elizabeth Graham Mc D. as proxy, Ranny Van Cott Macdonald was also anointed to A. F. Mcdonald, W. Woodruff anointing.

In this initial paragraph, Nuttall summarizes his activities of the day (performing various anointings in the St. George Temple) before he attended the evening meeting at President Young’s residence. Most writers who discuss “the lecture at the veil” do not quote paragraph 1A of Nuttall’s journal at all.

{1B} (1) After supper went to President Young's. (2) Present Prest. Young, W. Woodruff, E. Snow, B. Young, Jr., I. G. Bleak, E. M. Greene and myself. (3) Works in the temple being under consideration, Prest. Young was filled with the spirit of God and revelation, and said when we got our washings and anointings under the hands of the Prophet Joseph at Nauvoo we had only one room to work in, with the exception of a little side room or office were we were washed and anointed, had our garments placed upon us and received our new name.

Not only do most writers who discuss “the lecture at the veil” fail to quote paragraph 1A, they also rarely quote the first two or three sentences of paragraph 1B. Instead, they most often begin to quote the Nuttall journal starting with the third sentence. Unfortunately, by omitting the initial portions of Nuttall’s journal entry, such writers obscure the fact that the words Nuttall records here was actually delivered at an evening meeting held in Brigham Young’s private residence and not in the St. George Temple. In any case, it was in the midst of these discussions concerning the temple that President Young was filled with the spirit of revelation and began to speak concerning the first endowment ceremony presented by the Prophet Joseph Smith at Nauvoo.

Because Nuttall also notes that at this private evening meeting several matters or “Works” concerning the temple were considered by those present, many writers have assumed that this journal entry contains the “lecture at the veil.” For example, Theorists Robert Black and Fred Collier both assume that Nuttall’s reference to the “Works” in the temple refers to what Black chooses to call “the sermon before the Veil.” Unfortunately, they give no reasons for this assumption. Similarly, most other writers simply assume, without discussion, that the text of this journal entry represents President Young’s 1 February 1877 lecture delivered in the St. George Temple, despite the fact that Nuttall plainly states in the often omitted introductory sentences of his journal entry that this text was delivered on 7 February 1877 at the residence of President Young. This unquestioned assumption that this journal entry contains the text of Brigham Young’s 1 February 1877 lecture at the veil is very surprising because there are several good reasons to question that assumption.

First, Nuttall records that he heard the specific statement recorded in his journal directly from President Young at the President’s own residence during an evening meeting with five other Church leaders on Wednesday 7 February 1877. Nuttall never claims in this journal entry, or in any other statement, that this particular text is the lecture at the veil delivered by President Young on the previous Thursday in the St. George Temple. In deed, Nuttall never claims that this text was ever delivered by anyone in any temple at any time. Why anyone would suppose that this text is the lecture at the veil given on 1 February 1877 despite Nuttall’s clear statement as to the actual date, time, place and manner of its delivery has never been explained.

Second, there are no known corroborating, contemporary records in which it is claimed by anyone that this text is the lecture at the veil. For example, although Nuttall specifically mentions Wilford Woodruff as being one of those present at this evening meeting, Woodruff’s own journal entry for 7 February 1877 does not even mention the evening meeting, let alone quote the text of President Young’s discourse delivered that evening.

Woodruff’s entire journal entry for this particular evening reads: “Feb 7 1877 I spent the day in the Temple. W Woodruff gave second Anointing to (Josiah /Guile/ Hardy and his wife Ann Dunston Hardy) (Matthew Clayton) (Elizabeth Graham Macdonald for and in behalf of Sarah Johnson Macdonald, & Fanny Vancott Macdonald Anointed to Allexander Findley Macdonald). H. W. Bigler held the Horn J L Nut tall Recorder. We baptized 386 for the dead. John L Smith Baptized. D H Cannon Confirmed 185, A. H. Raleigh 61, H. W. Bigler 77, D. D. McArthur 63.” Woodruff gives no hint of what he did after he left the temple for the day.

Third, Nuttall’s journal entry for 7 February 1877 is far too short to be the actual lecture at the veil. Woodruff records in his journal entry for 1 February 1877 that Brigham Young presented “a lecture at the veil” in the St. George Temple on 1 February that required approximately thirty minutes to deliver. (“President [Young] was present and deliverd a lecture at the veil some 30 Minuts.” Wilford Woodruff, 7 Wilford Woodruff's Journal 325 (1 February 1877)). In comparison, the text of Nuttall’s journal entry for 7 February 1877 does not require more than a couple of minutes to recite. Even if this text were some shortened form of the actual lecture at the veil, there is clearly much more to the full lecture than the few lines Nuttall has penned in his journal. In fact, other writers have concluded that, at best, this 7 February journal entry represents only Nuttall’s personal summary of some additions made to the full lecture at the veil. ( “The copy of the veil lecture which Nuttall describes is not presently available. But on 7 February Nuttall summarized in his diary additions to the lecture which Young made at his residence in Nuttall's presence.” (D. Buerger, The Mysteries of Godliness 111 ( 1994 )); “The sermon that followed was added to the Lecture at the Veil and was incorporated into the ceremony of the Temple as an essential part of the Endowment. . . . . The following is that part of the Lecture at the Veil which was delivered by President Young at his home in St. George, Utah, on the evening of February 7th, 1877:” (F. Collier, 1 Unpublished Revelations 116 (introduction to Part 75) (1981)).)

Fourth, in other journal entries recorded after 7 February 1877, Nuttall states that he had not yet finished organizing the text of the lecture at the veil delivered in the temple on 1 February 1877. For example, three days after this evening meeting, on 10 February 1877, Nuttall records that he was “[w]ith Bro. W. Woodruff engaged in writing the lecture for the endowments to be read to Prest. Young. Spent the evening at Prest. Young's house, did not finish our work.” In other words, three days after the date Nuttall wrote the instant text in his journal he was still working on the text of the actual endowment lecture and had not yet finished it. In addition, on 20 March 1877, some six weeks after the 7 February meeting at President Young’s home, Nuttall records that he “[c]opied part of lecture at the veil, . . .. . . . Prest. Young called in and gave us further instructions as to our workings, left temple at 6 P.M.” Nuttall does not here state the purpose for which he was copying part of the lecture at the veil, but it appears clear that he and President Young were still working on the final text of that lecture.

Fifth, there is at least one document by Nuttall himself which appears to exclude the instant text from being the actual lecture at the veil. In 1892 Nuttall wrote a letter to the First Presidency in which he appears to claim that the lecture at the veil was dictated in the temple, recorded by both himself and J.D.T. McAllister, put into proper form and then submitted to and approved by President Brigham Young.

MEMORANDA
In January 1877, shortly after the lower portion of the St. George Temple was dedicated, President Brigham Young, in following up in the Endowments written, became convinced that it was necessary to have the formula of the Endowments written, and he gave directions to have the same put in writing.
Shortly afterwards he explained what the Lecture at the Veil should portray, and for this purpose appointed a day when he would personally deliver the Lecture at the Veil. Elder J.D.T. McAllister and L. John Nuttall prepared writing material, and as the President spoke they took down his words. Elder Nuttall put the same into form and the writing was submitted to President Young on the same evening at his office in residence at St. George. He there made such changes as he deemed proper, and when he finally passed upon it said: This is the Lecture at the Veil to be observed in the Temple.
A copy of the Lecture is kept at the St. George Temple, in which President Young refers to Adam in his creation &c.
/s/ L. John Nuttall
For Presidents W. Woodruff
Geo. Q. Cannon
Jos. F. Smith
June 3, 1892
Salt Lake City
(L. John Nuttall, “Memoranda” (3 June 1892)) (BYU Special Collections, Mss 188, Letterpress copy book #4, p. 290.)

The text recorded in Nuttall's journal for 7 February 1877 does not met any of the criteria set out in Nuttall’s Memoranda. Instead, the Nuttall journal text was delivered and recorded at the residence of President Young, was not submitted to President Young for his approval, and J.D.T. McAllister is never mentioned. Clearly, this text does not met the circumstances Nuttall himself ascribes to the production of the actual lecture at the veil.

Sixth, this text is clearly not complete. In paragraph 31 of the Nuttall text there are clearly noted 4 (or 5) blank lines between paragraphs 30 and 32. These blank lines are an obvious indication that something is missing from this text. Whatever this text is, it is not even a complete transcript of Young’s statement on 7 February 1877.

For all of the above reasons it appears highly unlikely that the text delivered by President Young at his own residence on 7 February 1877 and penned by L. John Nuttall in his private journal represents the same lecture at the veil delivered by Brigham Young six days earlier on 1 February in the St. George Temple.

[edit]

The Theory as a Doctrine

There is some controversy as to whether or not Young considered the Adam-God theory to be official church doctrine. At the end of his 1852 sermon, he stated, "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." (1 J.D. 51). Nevertheless, in 1854, after a great deal of controversy concerning the doctrine, Young minimized the importance of the doctrine, stating that the "subject ... does not immediately concern yours or my welfare... I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know" (October 8, 1854, Historical Department of the Church [HDC]).

After 1854, Young also generally declined requests to elaborate on the doctrine. In 1860, the First Presidency issued a statement, entitled "Instructions to the Saints", regarding disagreement between Young and apostle Orson Pratt on many doctrinal issues, including the Adam-God theory. Pratt strongly and vocally disbelieved the theory. The statement was meant to clear up any questions on the official position of the Church on these doctrinal disagreements. It concluded, "It is deemed wisest to let that subject [the Adam-God Theory] remain without further explanation at present" (2 Messages of the First Presidency 222).

Although Brigham Young minimized the importance of this doctrine to salvation, and he declined to elaborate on the doctrine much further, he continued to assert the doctrine until his death. In 1870, Young claimed that he had "never yet preached a sermon and sent out to the children of men that they may not call Scripture." (19 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).

After the death of Brigham Young, church leaders began to cast the theory as mere speculation that was non-binding on the church. In 1897, Wilford Woodruff, then President of the Church, wrote a private letter on the subject, stating:

The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's ‘bare mention’ was ‘without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth.’ Only the scripture, the ‘accepted word of God,’ is the Church's standard (Letter to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, HDC).
[edit]

Contemporary Interpretations

[edit]

Evidence For Adam is God Interpretation

During the life of Brigham Young and for some time later, many devout Latter-day Saints believed and taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ. Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency under Brigham Young, stated that "there is but one God that pertains to this people, and he is the God that pertains to this earth — the first man. That first man sent his own Son to redeem the world..." (4 J.D., p.1). However, it is not clear that Adam is the "first man" Cannon meant. George Q. Cannon, another member of the First Presidency, when asked by his son about the conception of Jesus by Mary, asked "what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus." (March 10, 1888, Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon) (at Brigham Young University).

There was also a Mormon hymn published in 1856 entitled "We Believe in Our God", that stated:

We believe in our God the great Prince of His race,
The Archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days,
Our own Father Adam, earth's Lord, as is plain,
Who'll counsel and fight for his children again.
We believe in His Son, Jesus Christ..." (Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints p. 375) (Liverpool, 1856).
[edit]

Evidence Against Adam is God Interpretation

It is evident, however that most contemporaries believed in yet another interpretation not widely referred to by modern Mormon apologists.

This theory states that as Adam stands at the head of the human family, he has become our god. For instance, "the Lord made Moses a god to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1) and as Paul was "as Christ Jesus" to the Galatians (4:14). In this way, Adam as our great progenitor, will preside over the human family as "father and God."

According to some researchers, "this was the interpretation of Brigham Young's statement advocated in 1853 by Samuel W. Richards, who, as editor of the Millennial Star and President of the Church in the British Isles, first published President Young's initial sermon on the subject (Millennial Star, December 10, 1853)."

Franklin D. Richards who took Samuel W. Richards place also promoted this interpretation (see MS, March 31, 1855).

Other presidents of the Church have also taught this interpretation.

[edit]

No More Clarification by Young

In any case, Young seems to have decided to let the issue rest and not to explain more. He stated:

Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care of one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species. (JD 4:217; see also JD4:271; 7:238; 7:285; 11:43, 268).
The world may in vain ask the question: "Who are we?" But the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God who we serve. Some say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve." So we are, and they are the children of our Heavenly Father. We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of. (JD 13:311. See also JD 1:238; 10:231; 13:309).
[edit]

Modern Interpretations

[edit]

Denounced as False Doctrine

After Young's death, the Adam-God theory, as popularly understood, was slowly disregarded by most Mormons, and was never adopted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as canon. Eventually, the doctrine was denounced as false. Latter-day Saint president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce [the Adam-God] theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." Conference Report, p. 115 (October 1-3, 1976).

In 1980, Latter-day Saint apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a talk elaborating upon the Adam-God theory:

"There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

"The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

"We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced" (BYU Devotional, June 1, 1980).

  • This is what Elder McConkie said the audio recording of this sermon. The print version has subsequently been changed to "has no excuse whatever for being led astray by it."
[edit]

Controversy Arises Again

As both Kimball and Young are revered as prophets, some apologists and devout Mormons believe that two prophets cannot disagree on a matter of doctrinal interpretations and have interpreted Kimball's statement not as a denunciation of Young's teachings, but as a denunciation of how some of Young's contemporaries interpreted his teachings.

Some have argued that the LDS church leadership does not openly discuss the historical evidences of Adam-God being taught because it may undermine their claim that the President of the church will never be allowed by God to lead the church astray. If Young could be wrong about this matter, then the church President today could also be wrong in his teachings — in fact, he could be wrong about President Young being wrong. Those who believe this feel that to avoid this inevitable conclusion, the LDS church leadership have chosen to ignore the matter as much as possible.

The Adam-God doctrine, in various forms, however, is still accepted by many post-Utah-migration period Latter Day Saint splinter organizations.

[edit]

Apologetics revisited

[edit]

"A god - Two Adams 1"

Many apologetic and devout Mormon scholars have debated Young's precise meaning. Some think he meant that Adam was an eternal God-like being who was placed on this earth with a celestial body and the literal (physical) father of the human race (because of his parentage and immortal body Adam would thus be a god, and a literal Son of Eloheim born with an immortal body without blood - as opposed to Christ who was born "in the flesh" as a mortal being), who chose to partake of the forbidden fruit, Fall and mortality.

In Mormon theology, Christ is the only begotten Son of God "in the flesh." But Adam is also considered a Son of God, and therefore a "god" in his own right, due to his actions in premortality and in the Garden of Eden. Because Adam, an immortal being, partook of the forbidden fruit he became the "first flesh" or first mortal on earth, just as God had planned. And as the "first flesh", he is considered the mortal father of all mankind, including Jesus.

Many Latter Day Saints believe this is what Paul meant by his teaching of two Adams - that it took one "god" to bring mortality into the world (Adam), and a God (Christ) to make immortality possible. "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive... And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15, see also Romans 5:19, Luke 3:38). In essence the second Adam undid what the first Adam did - one was the father of us through mortality, and the second the Father of us all through his atonement and resurrection.

Because his actions are believed to be in accordance with the Will of God in the garden of Eden, Adam is revered in Mormonism rather than scorned for the Fall, as is prevalent today in mainstream Christianity. It has been explained that the fall had to be the result of a transgression of mankind, rather than the result an act of God, so that mankind could not blame an unjust God for their fallen state.

[edit]

"Our father - Two Adams 2"

To complement the above view, some Mormons also claim that Brigham Young used the name "Adam" for two distinct entities. It is argued that Brigham Young often distinguished between "Father Adam", referring to the God of the Universe, and "Adam" or "our father Adam", referring to Adam, the first mortal man. In many of Brigham Young's controversial discourses, including the alleged "Adam-God" discourse, he attempted to make that distinction that there were two Adams. For example, on 28 December 1845 Brigham Young made an explicit reference to a "more ancient" Adam after whom Michael received the name Adam. "Adam’s name was more ancient than he was. It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the Priesthood." (Intimate Chronicle (William Clayton Journal) 238-239 (28 December 1845)). On 25 April 1855 Brigham Young spoke of Adam (Michael) as having lived for a long time with another Being whom Brigham Young explicitly calls "father Adam." "Well, you see from this that when you and I have been with and lived with the Lord, we shall know his voice. If father Adam were to come into this house and you were to see him go back and forth, would you know him? No, you would [ever] mistrust it was him unless he revealed himself. But by the time that you have lived with him [father Adam] as long as Adam had before he came here, you will know him and recognize his footsteps, but reading the history will not teach you these things." (3 Brigham Young Addresses ¶7 (25 April 1855))

[edit]

Scholarly Conclusions

[edit]

"Who Knows..."

Regardless of interpretation, the mystery of Young's teachings in regard to exactly what he meant in the few statements he made on the subject apparently died with him and his close associates.

Most scholars believe that the few statements about the theory are inadequate to properly understand what was meant by the teachings.

Although not necessarily an apologetic view, some have also argued the Adam-God theory was influenced by Hermeticism.

[edit]

Other Latter Day Saint Sects Elaboration of the Teaching

[edit]

Apostolic United Brethren

The Apostolic United Brethren (sometimes nicknamed the AUB), A Fundamentalist Mormon group accepts the Adam-God teaching, and one of their leaders Joseph W. Musser was the first to write a book on it (called "Michael, Our Father and Our God") in the 1930s.

[edit]

FLDS

The Adam-God teaching is widely accepted as doctrine by members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

[edit]

School of the Prophets brotherhood

Robert Crossfield (also known as the Prophet Onias) claims to have received revelations that go into more depth about the Adam-God doctrine. These revelations, and many others, are to be found in the "Second Book of Commandments". This collection of revelations was first published in 1969 as the "Book of Onias". The few members and supporters of the "School of the Prophets", set up by the authority of these revelations, are the only ones who accept Robert Crossfield as a prophet. Other Mormonism groups, Latter Day Saints in general, and the current LDS church authorities do not accept his claims.

[edit]

Others

See also: Controversies regarding Mormonism

[edit]

External links

[edit]

References

  • Journal of Discourses (public domain), 1854-1886.
  • Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young (covering 1839-1877), Eldon Watson, 1984.
  • Joseph W. Musser, Michael, Our Father and Our God, Truth Publishing, 1938.
  • Rodney Turner, The Position of Adam (B.Y.U. Masters Thesis), 1953.
  • Ogden Kraut, Michael-Adam, Pioneer Press, 1972.
  • Mark E. Petersen, Adam - Who Is He?, Bookcraft, 1976, ISBN 087747592X.
  • Elwood G. Norris, Be Not Deceived, 1978, ISBN 088290101X.
  • Chris A. Vlachos, Adam is God?, 1979.
  • Gary James Bergera, "The Orson Pratt-Brigham Young Controversies: Conflict Within the Quorums, 1853 to 1868," 13(2) Dialogue7-49 (Summer 1980).
  • Culley K. Christensen, The Adam-God Maze, 1981, ISBN 0-9608134-0-3.
  • David J. Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine", Dialogue (Spring 1982).
  • Van Hale, What About the Adam-God Theory, Mormon Miscellaneous, 1983.
  • Carl Broderick, "Another Look at Adam-God", Dialogue (Summer 1985).
  • John Farkas, Adam-God Teaching - A Theory or a Doctrine?, 1991.
  • Craig L. Tholson, Adam-God, 1991, Publishment, ASIN B0006F6490.
  • Nate Allred, The Unknown God, Messenger Publications, 1997.
  • Drew Briney, Understanding Adam God Teachings, Privately published hardback book, 2005.
  • Robert J. Matthews, Origin of Man: the Doctrinal Framework.
  • Scanned images of various 19th century LDS publications with statements on Adam-god from Brigham Young and other LDS General Authorities
Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Adam-God_theory"