LDS: Adam was "our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomas_Ruin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thomas_Ruin

Guest
Why did Joseph Smith taught Brigham Young that Adam was “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do” (statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852)?
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
Why did Joseph Smith taught Brigham Young that Adam was “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do” (statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852)?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that Joseph Smith actually did teach Brigham Young on that but I know that the modern LDS church no longer holds that although it still holds to its doctrine of polytheism although it doesn’t call it that. You will find that the only Mormons that actually teach the Adam God Doctrine at this moment in time would be those fundamentalist sects like the FLDS which was controlled by Warren Jeffs. As to why they taught that probably the same reason that Jehovah Witnesses believe that Jesus was not crucified on a cross because it sets them apart from orthodox Christians. What amazes me is how these restorationist movements all ignore the earliest Christian documents that states that their beliefs were unknown to the apostolic period
 
From your source:

“Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don’t know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won’t be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.”

This makes sense. Odd that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith told him this (see: statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852.) Do you believe this happened?
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
From your source:

“Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don’t know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won’t be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.”

This makes sense. Odd that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith told him this (see: statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852.) Do you believe this happened?
Click to expand...
Don’t be fooled by this argument. What nonsensical jibberish. Why would Brigham Young teach something so important about God that could not “be reconciled with LDS scripture?” Why would Brigham Young teach the membership something false? This is the standard answer LDS apologists and leadership give anytime one of their “prophets” taught something so wacky that there is no other way to get around it. And they frequently end it with something along the lines of “we won’t really know until God reveals more information.” That’s a sneaky way to leave the door open to anything so as to protect the integrity of leaders like Young as true prophets.

LDS “doctrine” has changed so much over the decades it’s almost impossible to define what it actually is. Whatever the current prophet teaches is true, and if a previous prophet taught something different it is discarded as if it never happened. LDS apologists have to do a tremendous amount of covering for the insane things their early leadership did and taught. I honestly don’t know how some of them sleep at night with the rediculous arguments they come up with. It’s just embarrassing.

You could say that when it comes to doctrine, the LDS church functions much like the Ministry of Truth in the book 1984.
 
Thomas_Ruin said:
From your source:

“Brigham Young appears to have believed and taught Adam-God, but he never developed the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. Therefore, we simply don’t know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God. Since the Church has rejected it, we won’t be able to answer the question until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.”

This makes sense. Odd that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith told him this (see: statement given in the general conference of the LDS Church on 9 April 1852.) Do you believe this happened?
Click to expand...
utlm.org/newsletters/no49.htm#McCONKIE

On October 8, 1861, Brigham Young said:

Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God. . . . It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, . . . (“A Few Words of Doctrine,” unpublished manuscript in the Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives, as cited by David John Buerger in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, page 29).

The Mormon Church’s own publication, Latter-Day Saints’ Millennial Star, clearly stated that the Adam-God doctrine was the word of the Lord:

. . . Adam is our Father and God, . . . the prophet and Apostle Brigham Young has declared it. . . . it is the word of the Lord (vol. 16, page 534).

Brigham Young was certainly not the only early Mormon leader who had a testimony to the doctrine. According to David John Buerger, Heber C. Kimball, a member of the First Presidency, claimed that,

“[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” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1982, page 27).

George Q. Cannon, who later became a member of the First Presidency, claimed the doctrine was revealed to him. David John Buerger informs us that,

In an 1870 meeting, “Elder Geo[rge] Q. Cannon fully endorsed the doctrine that Father Adam was our God and Father. . . .” Indeed, “the above doctrine had been revealed to him, so that he knew it was true” (Ibid., page 31).

Joseph Fielding Smith, who later became the sixth President of the Church, also endorsed the doctrine. Mr. Buerger points out that many Church leaders continued to believe the Adam-God doctrine after Brigham Young’s death. Even Lorenzo Snow, who became the fifth President of the Church, still maintained a belief in the doctrine a number of years after Brigham Young’s death:

Contrary to many later perceptions, Brigham Young’s death in late August 1877 did not mark the end of the Adam-God doctrine. . . . many of the Church’s leading authorities unquestionably retained a belief in Brigham’s teachings . . . in the 1890s one also finds brief but supportive references to the doctrine by Apostles Brigham Young, Jr., Franklin D, Richards and Lorenzo Snow. Amidst discussions treated below, for example, Snow is reported as leading “out on Adam being our Father and God. How beautiful the thought it brot. God nearer to us.” To this Richards added that “it made him thrill through his whole body it was new & it was inspiring” (Ibid., pages 33-34).
 
*In 1877 Brigham Young even introduced the Adam-God doctrine into the LDS endowment ceremony in the temple at St. George, Utah, which was the only one then in operation. This lecture was a summary of the theological meaning of the ritual, including the Adam-God doctrine. Young explained that Adam and Eve were once mortals on some other world and after receiving their exaltation the gods sent them to form this world for the habitation of their spirit children, of whom Jesus was the first born. The lecture also taught that Adam was the literal father of Jesus in the flesh.
*

Hard to believe this was not doctrine at one time if it was part of the temple endowment ceremony.
 
lax16 said:
*In 1877 Brigham Young even introduced the Adam-God doctrine into the LDS endowment ceremony in the temple at St. George, Utah, which was the only one then in operation. This lecture was a summary of the theological meaning of the ritual, including the Adam-God doctrine. Young explained that Adam and Eve were once mortals on some other world and after receiving their exaltation the gods sent them to form this world for the habitation of their spirit children, of whom Jesus was the first born. The lecture also taught that Adam was the literal father of Jesus in the flesh.
*

Hard to believe this was not doctrine at one time if it was part of the temple endowment ceremony.
Click to expand...
Correct. But the LDS damage control apologists spend a great deal of time writing revisionist history hoping to inoculate those who look up that kind of information. You can be assured that when Joseph Smith or Brigham Young taught such things the membership took it as gospel truth, just like they do now when their current prophet speaks from the pulpit. You don’t question the prophet, period.

Only later when people studying church history brought up problems after reading these zany teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did the apologists try to explain them away by claiming they were never really doctrine or that we don’t have enough revelation to understand them. If you want a good laugh you should try reading the recent church essays that attempt to answer problems with church practices and history. More pathetic attempts to answer questions using revisionist history, circular logic, and some excuses that are just plain laughable. They can’t really answer the tough questions because the truth is just too damaging to the legitimacy of the church itself. Also what the leadership often does is to simply dismiss the tough questions in church history by telling the membership that it’s Satan that causes people to doubt when they learn these things. Never mind the facts. The current catch phrase is to “doubt your doubts.” When faced with these historical problems, members are told to just have faith rather than look deeper into the history.
 
gazelam said:
Just read this PDF on the topic which is included in the above link. I personally found it quite informative.

fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf
Click to expand...
Personally, I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt with regards to the Adam-God doctrine. I don’t want to be like other people who question every little thing about the Christian faith and play “gotcha!” when certain things are obviously much more complex (and I’m not suggesting anyone here is doing that).

That being said, I do have an objection: Mormons considered Brigham Young a prophet in succession to Joseph Smith and the patriarchs of old. Shouldn’t he therefore have been able to clearly articulate whether something is a doctrine or not? Stating that he didn’t make something an official LDS doctrine seems to me that it considers the Mormon prophet more like a ‘Pope’ whose pronouncements are only doctrine when they are declared official. What’s your take on this, if you don’t mind?
 
Chris-WA said:
Correct. But the LDS damage control apologists spend a great deal of time writing revisionist history hoping to inoculate those who look up that kind of information. You can be assured that when Joseph Smith or Brigham Young taught such things the membership took it as gospel truth, just like they do now when their current prophet speaks from the pulpit. You don’t question the prophet, period.

Only later when people studying church history brought up problems after reading these zany teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did the apologists try to explain them away by claiming they were never really doctrine or that we don’t have enough revelation to understand them. If you want a good laugh you should try reading the recent church essays that attempt to answer problems with church practices and history. More pathetic attempts to answer questions using revisionist history, circular logic, and some excuses that are just plain laughable. They can’t really answer the tough questions because the truth is just too damaging to the legitimacy of the church itself. Also what the leadership often does is to simply dismiss the tough questions in church history by telling the membership that it’s Satan that causes people to doubt when they learn these things. Never mind the facts. The current catch phrase is to “doubt your doubts.” When faced with these historical problems, members are told to just have faith rather than look deeper into the history.
Click to expand...
Yes you are right.
I have also heard to “put it on the shelf” “don’t answer those who pepper you with questions in a lawyer-like fashion” “discord is of the devil” - all tactics to draw attention away from the question at hand and put blame on the person asking the questions.

I believe a religion should be able to withstand scrutiny and still attract followers.

I was once even called anti-Mormon when I posted a quote from BY. :rolleyes:
 
For those saying Young didn’t establish doctrine, how do you answer this argument then?

In a quorum meeting in 1860 every church authority sided with Young (re: Adam-God) against Orson Pratt. Every single one except three (Amasa Lyman & George A. Smith & Daniel H. Wells, who were sick). According to Woodruff who said,

“Evry man in this room who has a particle of the spirit of God knows that President Young is a Prophet of God and that God sustains him and He has the Holy Spirit and his doctrins are true. and that he is qualifyed to lead the people and he has explained evry thing so plain this evening that a Child Can understand [p.428] it and yet it is no evidence to you. Nothing Can make an impression upon you. No argument can reach your understanding.” (Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 428, January 27, 1860.)

…

“There were Present President Young President Kimball (D H Wells sick) All of the Twelve except A. Lyman & G. A. Smith who was sick. The Presidency of the Seventies Bishop Hunter & many others. A Hymn was sung O Happy Souls who Pray. Prayer By O Hyde.”

"President Young stated the object of the Meeting was to Convers upon Doctrinal Points to see if we see alike & think alike. I Pray that we may have the spirit of God to rest upon us that our minds may be upon the subject & that we may speak by the Holy spirit. "(Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, Vol. 5, p. 420)

In that meeting, Young said,

“Michael was a resurrected Being and he left Eloheem and Came to this Earth & with an im[mor]tal Body & continued so till he partook [p.427] of Earthly food and begat Children who were mortal. (Keep this to yourselves). Then they died.”

KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES???

“While in the writings and expressions of President John Taylor we have discovered no direct statement confirming the ‘Adam-God’ doctrine taught by Brigham Young”

“Elder John Taylor spoke at some length and tried to Convince Orson Pratt of his Error.”

Either Young is a prophet and can establish doctrine or he is not.
 
I left the RC Church and was Mormon for around a year. I met some wonderful people (what attracted me there in the first place) and they are very earnest and sincere, for the most part, in their beliefs. Their family values are also to be admired, and are very similar to ours. I still have friends that are Mormon.

However…the belief system doesn’t stand up to reasonable scrutiny and contains many errors that are either attempted to be smoothed away by revisionist history or a confusing “double-think” process that leads you in circular logic.

Joseph Smith, the founder of LDS, stated that “whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.” in the Doctrine and Covenants (revelations allegedly from the Lord to Joseph, according to Mormons.) Joseph set himself up as the prophet of the church and whatever he said in this capacity was to be taken as divine…and the same went for prophets after him.

This might sound familiar as to Papal authority, but it’s not, because Mormons believe in an “open canon” so the beliefs can change all the time. On one hand, they say their doctrine is unchanging. On the other, the prophet/president of the church can theoretically make huge changes citing a “revelation prompted them to”…i.e. they didn’t allow African-Americans to be ordained to the priesthood (which any eligible male over 18 can have in the LDS church) until the 1970’s, among other things.

Brigham Young is controversial in Mormon circles, and many disagree with what he said and say it’s ok to do so…meanwhile that goes against their fundamental belief that what the Prophet says, goes. Double-think. You’re also told you have a “choice” and “free will” to believe what you want, but unless you are a faithful Mormon, you won’t make it to the highest heaven.

I was never taught the Adam-God doctrine, mainly because they leave a lot of things to be taught until later on. They claim it is due to revealing things when you are ready…but I think it is also because most of the beliefs would shock people and they wouldn’t join if they heard them right away, i.e. the Garden of Eden is/was physically located in Missouri, God was once a man like us and we too can become Gods, Jesus Christ is our elder brother, St. Michael the Archangel and Adam are the same person. That one I was taught about Adam, and was told Michael was his “pre earth” name and Adam his “earthly” name.

The Book of Mormon itself is fraught with doctrinal error and there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the tribes and people described in the Book existed.

Be careful when debating with LDS . It can lead into very murky theological waters that can get confusing. They also are usually very lovely people who honestly think they are “helping” by trying to convert you, but won’t admit they are. Make sure you are well grounded in your Faith, and look to these sources to help:

catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers
catholic.com/tracts/problems-with-the-book-of-mormon
catholic.com/tracts/distinctive-beliefs-of-the-mormon-church
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/CAMORM3.HTM

They will try and say to only read their sources, as only they have the “truth”. You are encouraged not to read any other literature about Mormons as that’s how satan gets a stronghold…it’s more like they see looking to other sources as dangerous because you can discover the truth, and once you get in, it can be tough to get out. There are cult-like features to it.

Hope this helps.
 
lax16 said:
Yes you are right.
I have also heard to “put it on the shelf” “don’t answer those who pepper you with questions in a lawyer-like fashion” “discord is of the devil” - all tactics to draw attention away from the question at hand and put blame on the person asking the questions.

I believe a religion should be able to withstand scrutiny and still attract followers.

I was once even called anti-Mormon when I posted a quote from BY. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
All very true. And sad.
 
Chris-WA said:
Don’t be fooled by this argument. What nonsensical jibberish. Why would Brigham Young teach something so important about God that could not “be reconciled with LDS scripture?” Why would Brigham Young teach the membership something false? This is the standard answer LDS apologists and leadership give anytime one of their “prophets” taught something so wacky that there is no other way to get around it. And they frequently end it with something along the lines of “we won’t really know until God reveals more information.” That’s a sneaky way to leave the door open to anything so as to protect the integrity of leaders like Young as true prophets.

LDS “doctrine” has changed so much over the decades it’s almost impossible to define what it actually is. Whatever the current prophet teaches is true, and if a previous prophet taught something different it is discarded as if it never happened. LDS apologists have to do a tremendous amount of covering for the insane things their early leadership did and taught. I honestly don’t know how some of them sleep at night with the rediculous arguments they come up with. It’s just embarrassing.

You could say that when it comes to doctrine, the LDS church functions much like the Ministry of Truth in the book 1984.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Mormons seem to, at this point, throw Brigham Young under the bus (especially in regards to what he thought about black people)
 
gazelam said:
Here is an LDS-affiliated link on the topic.

en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory
Click to expand...
Well, that was a load of white wash.

I recommend you discover why “The Seer” and its author Orson Pratt were censored by Young and the Quorom of the Twelve. Hint.: Pratt published against Young’s Adam-God doctrine.

Now you post a link that preaches against Young’s doctrine. Poor Orson was threatened with excommunication for doing the same. That makes everyone quoted in that link, and yourself as well, under Brigham’s condemnation.
 
drac16 said:
Yeah, Mormons seem to, at this point, throw Brigham Young under the bus (especially in regards to what he thought about black people)
Click to expand...
It makes me wonder why they haven’t remained all the universities that currently bear Brigham Young’s name.
 
RebeccaJ said:
Well, that was a load of white wash.

I recommend you discover why “The Seer” and its author Orson Pratt were censored by Young and the Quorom of the Twelve. Hint.: Pratt published against Young’s Adam-God doctrine.

Now you post a link that preaches against Young’s doctrine. Poor Orson was threatened with excommunication for doing the same. That makes everyone quoted in that link, and yourself as well, under Brigham’s condemnation.
Click to expand...
Wow!. That’s quite a charge that I’m both white washing LDS history and am an LDS apostate… all in just 6 sentences!! I much prefer your well-reasoned comments such as the one found here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13703167#post13703167

and look forward to more of your well-reasoned comments in the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top