Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsAdam-god Teaching - A Theory Or A Doctrine?
Adam-god Teaching Theory Doctrine - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 19th Oct, 2007 - 6:37pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 4 - Views: 403
KoZ2 - Kingdom of Zion Topic
Adam-god Teaching - A Theory Or A Doctrine?
Adam-God Teaching - A Theory Or A Doctrine?
From the Koz2.org site:
NOTE: This is an Argument, so take everything has AGAINST the Doctrine. Arguments defending welcomed.
| QUOTE |
| Adam-God Teaching - A Theory Or A Doctrine? by John Farkas Van Hale's booklet, What About the Adam-God Theory? (No. 3 in the Mormon Miscellaneous response series) purports to debunk claims that early Mormon leaders believed in the "Adam-God doctrine." This doctrine, or theory as some call it, was a teaching by Brigham Young, second president and prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Young taught that the pre-mortal Adam of the Garden of Eden, was in the pre-existence, the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ. He also is the Father of our spirits, and was the literal Father of the physical body of Jesus Christ. He is our God (I.e., God the Father). There is also evidence that the fourth and fifth presidents and prophets, Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, supported this idea. This doctrine is no longer taught by the Mormon church. Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th Mormon president and prophet, denounced it in 1976. Hale would have readers of his booklet believe the Mormon church never taught it. However, the evidence clearly shows that the Mormon church taught it, considered it important and punished people who rejected it. Common Ground While there is much to Hale's book that calls for criticism and correction, the following points will not be disputed: 1. That Brigham Young did teach the Adam-God doctrine or "theory". On page 1 of his booklet, Hale writes: "After examining the evidence, however, I soon became convinced that on at least two occasions Brigham Young had taught a concept which generally has not been accepted by Mormons - namely, that God the Father, the Father of our spirits and the Father of Jesus (of both his body and his spirit), came to this earth, took upon himself mortality, and was known as Adam, the progenitor of the human family. Simply stated, according to President Young, God the Father became Adam. (Journal of Discourses 1:50; Deseret News June 18, 1873). Later I found several other references in which President Young hinted at this belief. (JD 4:216-218, 271; 5:331; 6:274; 7:290; 11:41,42)." "Over the past 15 years I have found many additional sources which confirm that this idea was taught for a period of time in the past century. They include sermon reports, private diary entries, minutes of meetings, letters, articles, and statements. Many of these are unpublished and have only come to light in the last several years." 2. That the Adam-God doctrine never was formally made, via church membership vote, an official part of Mormon canonized scripture during Young's tenure (1847-1877) as leader of the church. On pages 2-3 Hale writes: "The Church has always had an official canon. During Brigham Young's lifetime it was the Bible, The Book of Mormon, and a somewhat smaller Doctrine and Covenants. President Young never attempted to incorporate any statement of the Adam-God theory into this canon..." "The theory was never advocated in any official statement. In addition to the canon, official statements were occasionally issued by the First Presidency and by the Quorum of the Twelve. The only one in which Brigham Young ever referred to the Adam-God theory was a statement issued in 1860 entitled 'Instructions to the Saints.'..." 3. That the Adam-God doctrine is not acceptable to orthodox Christians. On page 8, Hale writes: "The primary argument of those who do not accept the Adam-God theory is that it is not scriptural. I concur with this. I do not believe that it can be supported from the Bible. To me the biblical message is that Adam's God is our God; his Father is our Father. (Genesis, and Luke 3:38). This also seems to be the message of LDS scripture. (Moses 2-5 and D&C 78:15-22)." 4. That Young routinely taught standard/normal Mormon doctrine in the same period he taught the Adam-God doctrine. 5. The following statement by Brigham Young, cited by Hale, also is agreeable to this writer: "'I have heard some make the broad assertion that every word within the lids of the Bible was the word of God... I believe that the Bible contains the word of God, and the words of good men and the words of bad men; the words of good angels and the words of bad angels and the words of the devil; and also the words uttered by the donkey when he rebuked the prophet in his madness. I believe the words of the Bible are just what they are. (JD 13:175, 235).' " What Young said about the Bible can be applied to the four Mormon scriptures as a group. They "contain the word of God, and the words of good men, the words of bad men, and so on." A Theory or a Doctrine? Hale called his work "What About the Adam-God Theory?" It would have been better if he had said "...Adam-God Doctrine?" No key Mormon leader, including those from Young to Joseph F. Smith (circa 1850-1892) considered it a theory. To this writer's knowledge, the term "theory" never was used during Young's time. It was called doctrine and taught as doctrine. Young called it doctrine in the following documents: Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1861; Deseret News, June 18, 1873; Journal of Discourses 5:331-332; JD 1:50-51; Millenial Star, Vol. 48, Cover. In other documents, Young did not call it doctrine, but spoke as though it was: Journal of Discourses 7:290; 11:122,123; Brigham Young Papers Feb. 19, 1854; Millenial Star, Vol. 31:482,483; Vol. 34:530; Vol. 16:534. Formal Vote Not Always Needed Hale relies heavily on the fact that the Adam-God doctrine never was presented to the Mormon church membership for formal vote (see Doctrine & Covenants 26:2, 28:13, 104:21 for Mormon scripture on how "all things shall be done by common consent in the Church"). Hale believes that because there was no vote, the doctrine was just Young's opinion. But Hale may not be aware of the many examples of Mormon doctrine that never were voted on: 1. The practice of polygamy by Mormons from 1835-1880 never was approved by a membership vote. It was "written" in 1843, announced on August 29, 1852, but was not put into the "Scriptures" until 1876. This, along with 26 or 27 other "revelations" were not voted on until Oct. 11, 1880 (see Ensign, Dec. 1984, pp. 38-39). 2. There is no accepted revelation that there is a Mother in Heaven, the wife of Elohim (Gospel Principles, pg. 9; Mormon hymn #270: "O My Father", LDS Hymns, 1973 edition). 3. The teaching that Jesus Christ is "Jehovah" and "Elohim" is God the Father (The Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage, missionary edition, pp. 466, 467). 4. That Jesus Christ was the first spirit child of God the Father and his wife and was raised to maturity in the pre-existence (Gospel Principles, pg. 9). 5. That Jesus Christ and Lucifer are spirit brothers (Gospel Through the Ages, Milton R. Hunter, pg. 15). 6. That God the Father was once a man and progressed to become God (Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, 1985 pp. 151-153). 7. The sacred Mormon Temple ceremonies are not in any Mormon scripture. The April 1990 changes in the temple ceremonies attest to the fact that these are not governed by "common consent." |
Sponsored Links:
Doctrine Or Theory - Teaching Adam-god
| QUOTE |
| 8. Most Mormons when asked about the many references in The Book of Mormon that say there is only one God (see "The Testimony of Three Witnesses"; Alma 11:28,29,44; 3 Nephi 11:27,36; Mormon 7:7). When confronted with Mormon scripture, the typical respo nse is: "That means "one in purpose."" There is no Mormon canonized scripture that says this. It is difficult to prove something did not occur and it is possible that one or more of these teachings has been approved by a membership vote. Any corrections of errors or omissions would be welcomed, so long as documentation is given. Brigham Young's Opinion of the Bible On page 2 of his booklet, Hale tries to show Young's opinion of the Bible by using Journal of Discourses 13:175, 235. Hale then says: "Brigham Young did not claim inerrancy for his sermons. In fact the contrary is true, as will be seen." His Journal of Discourses reference does not support his position though. Even an orthodox Christian could agree with Young's statement. As previously stated above, Young's assessment of the Bible could be applied to the three other Mormon scriptures (except for his assessment of the words spoken by the donkey). It is unlikely that Hale is saying the other Mormon scriptures are inerrant. What Young Said About the Bible What Hale did not do in his effort to discount Young's statements in Journal of Discourses 13:95, 264 (I.e. his sermons are scripture and "as good scripture as is couched in the Bible.") was to show what he really thought of the Bible. Young said the following about the Bible: a. "...but aside from that I believe the doctrines concerning salvation contained in that book are correct,..." (JD 13:175). b. "No Latter-day Saint, no man or woman, can say The Book of Mormon is true and at the same time say that the Bible is untrue. If one be true, both are; and if one be false, both are false" (JD 1:38). c. "... that the Bible, as far as it is correctly translated, is the word of God. The Bible contains the word of God ... of Jesus, of angels, of good men ... and in the main is true, and every item of doctrine taught by the Latter-day Saints is to be found in this book" (JD 13:235). (For more on a similar thought, also see JD 1:237,238, 242,245; 10:320; 13:213, 214; 14:208; 15:41; Discourses of Brigham Young 126, 129.) d. " ... there is the New Testament; you may leave out The Book of Mormon, and the book of Doctrine & Covenants, and follow that book faithfully, and I will warrant you to arrive at salvation." JD 1:244. Bruce R. McConkie in Mormon Doctrine, page 682, 1979 edition, said: "Any message whether written or spoken, that comes from God to man by the power of the Holy Ghost is scripture." Young, in his use of the word "scripture" and his descriptions of the Bible and other Mormon scriptures, included this concept. Is Belief in Adam-God Not Essential? On pages 3-4 of What About the Adam-God Theory? Hale quotes several sources to try to show that Young considered belief in Adam-God "non-essential." In the first item, dated Oct., 1854, this full discourse can be found, beginning on page 263, in The Adam-God Maze; and under that date in Brigham Young Addresses. Young did say: "... does not immediately concern yours and 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." Hale's logic then is that Adam-God was not "necessary for people to know." But Young also taught much more than Adam-God in this talk. He also talked about "duties and callings" in the church; a "... system of salvation to bring back the children of Adam and Eve into the presence of our Father and God..."; about God; about the need for authority "... to go forth and preach, and baptize ..." It is hard to believe that these other subjects were non-essential to Mormons. Young also said: "It is true if you are faithful, and diligent they are things that will be fully made known to you in due time - at the proper time, according to the will of the Lord." What Else Did He Say? The second reference is from a talk given on April 25, 1855. Hale cites comments that Young made but leaves out important context. What follows is Hale's exact citation, followed by the statement's context. "... it is one that should not trouble us at all ... I do not tell it because that I wish it to be established in the minds of others." "... When we can see that very character [Michael] and talk and live with him in our tabernacles, if we are so fortunate as to get there into his society, then we can say that to us there is but one living and true God, and he is the father of our Lord Jesus Christ and of our spirits. And when we get back to him and learn that he is actually our father, we shall not feel any anxiety to call upon anybody else for the blessings we are in need of. It is a subject I am aware that does not appear so close to our understandings at present as we could wish it or as it will be some day, and it is one that should not trouble us at all, all such things will become more clear to your minds bye and bye." "I tell you this as my belief about that personage who is called the Ancient of Days, the Prince and so on, but I do not tell it because that I wish it established in the minds of others; though to me this is as clear as the sun, it is as plain as my alphabet. I understand it as I do the path to go home. I did not understand so until my mind became enlightened with the spirit and by revelations of God; neither will you understand until our Father in Heaven reveals all things unto you. To my mind and to my feelings those matters are all plain and easy to be understood" (MABY, April 25, 1855, emphasis added). The third reference primarily uses Journal of Discourses 4:217: "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 for 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, JD 4:271; 7:238; 7:285; 11:43, 268). First Principle Is To Know God Hale did not include Journal of Discourses 4:215, the first page of this discourse, in his citations. In it Young said: "It is one of the first principles of the doctrine of salvation to become acquainted with our Father and our God." Young then quotes from John 17:3 about knowing the "only" true God and Jesus whom he sent. He then says: "... this is as much to say that no man can enjoy or be prepared for eternal life without that knowledge." LDS founder Joseph Smith also said "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know that we may converse with him ..." (JD 6:3). So let us examine more carefully what Young did say in Journal of Discourses 4:217. The thought behind the first part really needs study, I.e. "...whether we are to consider Him [Adam] our God, or whether His Father or His Grandfather." It is not so clear who the "His" refers to. If the "His" refers to Adam, then we have "... consider Adam our God, or whether Adam's father (I.e. Adam's God) or Adam's grandfather (I.e. Adam's God's God). If the "His" is "God" then we have a very similar meaning. In light of the "first principle" statements by Young and Smith shown above, it then is clear that Young in Journal of Discourses 4:217 (Feb. 8, 1857) must have had in mind the ideas from his April 25, 1855, talk, I.e. "... all such things will become clear to your minds bye and bye." and "... neither will you understand until our Father in Heaven reveals all things unto you." Judging from the amount of attention Young gave the teaching, it is clear that he considered it important. Young Fails Test of a Prophet If we can understand Young to say in Journal of Discourses 4:217 that Adam is our God, and this God has a God and this God had a God, then there are at least three gods and it doesn't make any difference which one we worship, then Young is not a prophet. A true prophet of God cannot hold a private view of God that breaks the First Commandment ("You shall have no other Gods before me," Exodus 20:3) and retain his authority. Young's position on this subject would strip him and anyone he ordained of prophetic authority. Since Hale's use of incomplete quotes has been demonstrated, let's go back to a statement on page 1 of What About Adam-God? Hale writes: "First, in their zeal to refute Mormonism they have misstated, ignored, or distorted many points of Mormon history." No doubt this has happened, but Hale is guilty of the same thing with regard to Christianity. Differences Between Bible Authors? On pages 5-6 What About Adam-God? Hale tries to demonstrate that biblical prophets did not always agree, thus making it acceptable for Mormon prophets to change their views. Hale writes: "Several subjects on which the authors of the Bible diverge include: the nature of God, Jesus, and the Messiah; salvation, resurrection, the second coming and the observance of the law of Moses. Our opponents must be able to deny the differences demonstrated by Bible scholars on these several important points and show a perfect agreement among Bible authors before I could see any validity in their demanding perfect consistency among LDS prophets." A response to Hale's attack on the Bible is beyond the scope of this article but it is interesting that Hale used non-Mormon, liberal theologians to demonstrate his points about Bible errors and doctrinal disagreements. Some examples of Mormon teaching about going outside the faith for authority follow. Mormon Opinion of Christendom From a booklet published by the Mormon Church, Rays of Living Light, by C.W. Penrose, First Counselor to President Heber J. Grant: a: In "Divine Authority," page 2, about non-Mormons - "their power is only human, their decisions, their commissions and their creeds are equally valueless in the plan of salvation." b: In "Apostasy" on pages 3-4: "Look at the condition of so-called Christendom today! There are no inspired apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers administering by divine authority and in the power and demonstration of the Holy Ghost. In their place there are contending priests and teachers guided by the wisdom of men ... Not one of the clashing, jarring and discordant sects of the day proclaims the Gospel as it was preached by Peter on the day of Pentecost..." |
Adam-god Teaching - A Theory Or A Doctrine? Studies Doctrine Mormon
| QUOTE |
| The late Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, on page 55 of A New Witness For the Articles of Faith said: "The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the Bible. Beyond this they have little resemblance. They are described in the creeds that the Lord told Joseph Smith were `an abomination in his sight' (JSH 1:19)." (JSH stands for Joseph Smith History and is part of the Pearl of Great Price, a canonized scripture of the Mormon Church.) JSH 1:18-19 reads: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) - and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'" The "Personages" in the above are the Mormon God the Father and Jesus Christ. I Nephi 14:10 in The Book of Mormon says that there are only two churches, the Church of the Devil, and the Church of the Lamb of God. Most Mormons, after discussion, will agree that the Mormon church is "The Church of the Lamb of God." That leaves "Christendom" in the devil's camp. Why Do Mormons Want To Be Called Christians? Given the Mormon attitude toward Christendom, it is puzzling that Mormons want to be considered Christians. The Adam-God issue is a Mormon issue and the Bible is a canonized scripture of the Mormon church and one would expect Hale to use an official Mormon position on the Bible and prophet issues raised on page 5. He probably didn't because he could not find one that fits his need. The eighth item in the Mormon "Articles of Faith" says: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly ..." The seventh and ninth items say that the receipt of new revelation from God is possible for Mormons and that history has borne out its occurrence. The 1979 edition of the Mormon King James Bible for the first time included footnotes for short items and a separate section for longer items that showed where the "Joseph Smith Translation" of the Bible differed from the traditional King James. The changes that Smith, founder, first President and Prophet of the Mormon Church, made are in general minor and do not support the biblical problems Hale would like his readers to believe exist. Several items in The Pearl of Great Price give additional indications of the Mormon view on the quality of the Bible. They are: The Book of Moses, The Book of Abraham, verses 1:36-42 of Joseph Smith History, and Joseph Smith - Matthew 1:1-55 (Matthew 23:39, chapter 24). There is no other official Mormon document known to this writer that says the Bible's prophets and writers, except as noted above, differ when comparing earlier writings to later and when comparing author to author as Hale states on page 5 of What About Adam-God? Hale's ideas are interesting, but his attempt to pull in non-Mormon theologians is not appropriate for a Mormon to do. Adam-God Opposition - Disciplinary Action Hale on page 4 says that it is false to say it was church practice to excommunicate those who did not accept it. This may be correct, but it is clear that discipline was held at high levels in the church. Two examples are: 1. Orson Pratt, an apostle, was almost excommunicated for opposing Adam-God doctrine: Minutes of Meeting of Council of the Twelve in Historian's Office; April 5, 1860, Brigham Young Papers, Church Historian's office. 2. In late 1890, 1891, 1892, Bishop Edward Bunker Jr. and his father, Edward Bunker Sr. of Bunkerville, Utah, and his counselor Myron Abbot were before church courts. The Bunkers denied Adam-God doctrine; Abbott accepted it. The final High Council Court was held June 11, 1892, and was attended by President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor, George Q. Cannon. In summary, the Bunkers had their hands slapped for advancing false doctrine and "indulging in mysteries." Bunker Sr. was advised "to let these things alone." Abbott, who supported Adam-God doctrine, was cautioned to not become "puffed up in pride" over the victory. See Adam-God Maze, pp. 215-238 for the sources covering the above. Also Unpublished Revelations, pp. 168-175. What General Authorities Thought On page 4, item 5, Hale says: "the Adam-God theory was not considered Church doctrine by other General Authorities." "... Yet we have only several brief comments on the subject by only one of them ... Heber C. Kimball ..." The two disciplinary cases given above refute this statement. Other examples are: 1. A letter from President Joseph F. Smith to Bishop Edward Bunker, Feb. 27, 1902; see page 263 of Adam-God Maze. 2. "... the period will come when the people will be willing to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer and Revelator and God! but not the Father of their spirits, for that was our Father Adam" (Journal of Wilford Woodruff, Dec. 11, 1869). Also see Dec. 16, 1867; Feb. 19, 1854. 3. For several others see pages 114, 115, 116 in the Adam-Go Maze. No Revelation on Adam-God? On page 3, item 3, Hale says: "Nor does it appear that he (Young) ever claimed to have received a direct revelation on the subject." Young's statement published June 18, 1873, in the Deseret News is quoted and then discounted as being only limited to "namely that Adam is our father and God." If readers would read this discourse for themselves, they would see that Hale omitted the first part of this very sentence, which disagreed with his thesis. In column 4 of this article, Young said: "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 our God ... Our Father Adam helped to make this earth, it was created expressly for him ... He brought one of his wives with him, and she was called Eve, ..." In column 5 of this article, Young continues: "Why was Adam called Adam? He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He, with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. 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. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children who were born to me in the spirit world to come here to take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has and where is the mystery?'" This discourse is consistent with the Mormon doctrine that says only resurrected beings can procreate "spirit offspring" and that Adam had no blood when he came to earth - until after he ate of the fruit. Hale's conclusion is erroneous, but more light is shed on this subject in Young's April 25, 1855, talk shown above on page 4. A good description of Adam-God doctrine is given and it should be noted that Young said he was enlightened with the Spirit and by the revelation of God. So it is clear that Young did teach the Adam-God doctrine, that he considered it important and that he and others called it "doctrine" and did not consider it a "theory" but a revelation from God. Mormon leaders who rejected the idea were disciplined. Adam-God Doctrine is in Mormon Scripture Finally, Young did not have to submit the Adam-God doctrine to Mormon Church membership vote because it was already in Mormon scriptures. |
Doctrine Or Theory - Teaching Adam-god
| QUOTE |
| Consider the following: * From Doctrines & Covenants 27:11 (given by Joseph Smith Aug. 1830) we have: "And also with Michael or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days." * From Doctrines & Covenants 116 (given again by Joseph Smith, May 19, 1838) we have: "...Adam shall come to visit his people, the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet." * These both are reinforced in Doctrines & Covenants 138:38, a newer revelation: "Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all." (Oct. 3, 1918, by Joseph F. Smith). From these we learn that: * Adam (or Michael) is the Ancient of Days referred to by Daniel the prophet (see Daniel 7:9,13,22). * Adam is the father of all. * Adam is the prince of all. * Adam has the title Father - Father Adam (from the 1918 revelation). Daniel 7:9,13,14 and 22 say: "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire ... I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him ... And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed ... Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." From these and the Doctrines & Covenants references (excluding 138:38) we now have: 1. Father Adam will (future) sit on his throne (not necessarily for the First time) (Daniel 7:9) 2. The "Son of Man," a title for Jesus Christ, will come to, and will be brought before father Adam and father Adam will give Jesus Christ dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him (Daniel 7:13-14). In addition, the 1979 edition of the Mormon King James Bible also supports this statement. See note 13a at the bottom of page 1112. It refers to "Rev. 11:15. T.G. [Topical Guide - notes in the back of the book] Jesus Christ, Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Son of Man." 3. Father Adam came and gave or participated in giving judgment to the saints (Daniel 7:22). 4. Doctrines & Covenants 138:38 makes it clearer that Adam also has the title "Father" even though this is evident in Daniel 7:13,14,22. God, Father, Adam, Michael, Ancient of Days Teachings These Mormon scripture verses clearly show why Young did not submit his teachings on Adam-God doctrine to a membership vote. Adam-God doctrine was already in canonized scripture (Daniel 7:9,13,14,22; D & C 27:11, 116:1 and then added to in 1918 with 138:38). In support of the above are the following: On June 2, 1839, the Prophet Joseph Smith called Adam Michael the Archangel, "He, [Adam] is the Father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, ... the Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ ... I saw Adam in the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman. He called to gather his children and blessed them with a patriarchal blessing. The Lord appeared in their midst, and he [Adam] blessed them all ..." (JD 6:237, 238). On Jan. 8, 1865, Young called the father of us all the Ancient of Days, our Heavenly Father, and one like the Son of Man (the Savior) came to the Ancient of days [sic] (JD 11:42). In Journal of Discourses 11:327, Young says: "... they will come up tribe, by tribe, and the Ancient of Days, He who led Abraham, and talked to Noah, Enoch, Isaac, and Jacob, that very Being will come and judge the twelve tribes of Israel." (Also see JD 11:283, 326.) In addition, Young's oft-quoted, or misquoted April 9, 1852, discourse, Journal of Discourses 1:50 says in the heading on page 46: "Adam, Our Father and Our God." Page 50 also says: "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." Two other parts of this discourse on page 51 are worth quoting: "It is true that this earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Elohim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum ... perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." - "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." Only One True Father There is only one "Father" and "father of all" who sits on a throne (Revelation 1:4, 7:15, 14:5, 22:1; Psalm 45:6; Matthew 23:23; Hebrews 1:8, 12:2) and can have the "Son of Man" come to and be brought before him to receive "dominion, and glory and a kingdom." It can only be God the Father, the Father of Jesus Christ, the God of Genesis 1:1-26; the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph - the one true God of the Bible. Orthodox Christians believe that the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7 is God the Father, not Adam or anyone else, but God the Father. Adam-God doctrine is not a Christian teaching and there is no biblical support for it. Author's Note: In writing this article I used material from the following: Cully K. Christensen's book The Adam-God Maze; Adam is God? by Chris A. Vlachos; Unpublished Revelations, Vol. 1 by Fred C. Collier, pp. 165-179; Brigham Young Addresses, 5 volumes, by Eldon Jay Watson; The Adam-God Doctrine, by David John Buerger, in Dialogue, Vol 15, #1, Spring 1982.See also The Notes - or Selected References on the Fulness of the Gospel for Saints and Other Interested Students, Vol. I, by Robert R. Openshaw, 1980 Bitterroot Publishing Company, (now) Box 1187, Hamilton, MT 59840, LCC 80-66650. This is a "fundamentalist" Mormon work. Among its 600 pages are 60 pages of annotated references on the Adam-God doctrine alone, plus photocopies of rare documents. © 1991 - PFO. All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. Reproduction is prohibited, including BBS, except for portions intended for personal use and non-commercial purposes. For reproduction permission contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26062, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136. |
TOPIC: Adam-god Teaching - A Theory Or A Doctrine?