Adam-God Theory

[_gfchase]

I checked your 1852 and 1853 references and neither discuss the Adam/God theory. Tell me have you actually checked these references for your self? I will check the rest if you insist that they teach this theory, but so far you are not batting too well. What I find is grasping at straws.

You must have done a rather lousy job checking John Dehlin:6 275

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns - have become Gods, even the sons of God - are made kings of Kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation and they will go into the garden and ...

He goes on to identify that Adam is his father and that he, Brigham Young, will go on and attain all that the Father (presumably Adam) and Son have attained (p. 276).

This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.

[_Tobin]

This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.

Uh no. Maybe in your world that is what the Adam/God theory means, but in actuality the idea is that Brigham Young identifies Adam as God the Father. Clearly this seems to be what he is doing in John Dehlin:6 275-276

[_gfchase]

This does not teach that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do which is the basis of the Adam/God theory. This teaches that we all have the ability to become gods which is quite another doctrine, so am I the one doing a lousy job of research or is it just your grasping at straws as I said before? Adam is the father of the human race and so is your father as well.

Uh no. Maybe in your world that is what the Adam/God theory means, but in actuality the idea is that Brigham Young identifies Adam as God the Father. Clearly this seems to be what he is doing in John Dehlin:6 275-276

Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adam is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may become Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason not to believe will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

[Guest]

Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adan is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may beco,me Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Well, you are either deliberately moving the goalposts or very confused. In either event, I don't really care. The Adam/God theory is not about Brigham Young teaching that "Adan[m] is the only God with whom we have to do" as you claim. In the John Dehlin:6 275-276, Brigham Young says "Adam is my father". He then states that he will go on and attain what the Father (Adam) and Son have attained. Since the subject he is talking about is becoming Gods, one would assume he is talking about becoming a God. That means that Brigham Young is teaching that Adam is God the Father, which is what the Adam/God theory is.

The next false claim you've made is that I didn't read the material. I actually did and that is why I cited it and know what it says.

Now, you can go off and pretend that the Adam/God theory was never taught by Brigham Young all you want. You can subscribe to the incorrect view that it was a clerical error and somehow all these references to it are mistaken. I find it hilarious that you need to resort to such tactics to explain away something he clearly taught though. You seem desperate to prove that Brigham Young as somehow always perfect in everything he taught, was apparently God, and couldn't have been mistaken and taught false stuff. And I find the fact you believe nonsense like that over what is clearly true rather humorous.

[_CameronMO]

Those who seek for a reason not to believe will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

I thought you were the one that was seeking a reason not to believe.

It's there. President Young spoke about this several times, over several years, to many people who recorded it. Stop looking for the words "Adam-God," and look at the concepts he taught to the people.

[_gfchase]

Perhaps you should go back and read my first post above, Brigham never taught such a thing, it was a scribal error which was corrected a few days later in the margins. I quoted the exact statements as they appear in the John Dehlin and the correction. Brigham NEVER taught that Adan is the only God with whom we have to do!!!!!Again page 275 does NOT teach Adam is God, it teaches that we may beco,me Gods if we are faithful and page 276 is directed to those leaving on missions not to cling to their families, rather to pray for them and leave them in the hands of the Lord. I suspect that you have never actually read this for your self. Those who seek for a reason will always find one regardless of the evidence. Are you one of those?

Well, you are either deliberately moving the goalposts or very confused. In either event, I don't really care. The Adam/God theory is not about Brigham Young teaching that "Adan[m] is the only God with whom we have to do" as you claim. In the John Dehlin:6 275-276, Brigham Young says "Adam is my father". He then states that he will go on and attain what the Father (Adam) and Son have attained. Since the subject he is talking about is becoming Gods, one would assume he is talking about becoming a God. That means that Brigham Young is teaching that Adam is God the Father, which is what the Adam/God theory is.

The next false claim you've made is that I didn't read the material. I actually did and that is why I cited it and know what it says.

Now, you can go off and pretend that the Adam/God theory was never taught by Brigham Young all you want. You can subscribe to the incorrect view that it was a clerical error and somehow all these references to it are mistaken. I find it hilarious that you need to resort to such tactics to explain away something he clearly taught though. You seem desperate to prove that Brigham Young as somehow always perfect in everything he taught, was apparently God, and couldn't have been mistaken and taught false stuff. And I find the fact you believe nonsense like that over what is clearly true rather humorous.

Well golly gee whiz, let me see now. I have been a member of the Church for 58 years and I have been hearing the term Adam God theory from the beginning. I currently participate on several forums and have never until now, heard it referred to as having to deal with becoming a God, which is quite another topic that is commonly taught in the Church and was indeed taught by Joseph Smith before it was taught by Brigham Young. It is one of the basic tenants of the Church. Adam/God has always referred to the misquoted and corrected statement found in the Journal of Discourses that says in referring to Adam: "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." Now if you wish to change the rules and say that the teaching that we can become Gods is what you wish to call the Adam God theory, then O K. I believe that it was Lorenzo Snow who said "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Nobody hides this teaching, as I said it is one of our basic tenants. Just please let me know which topic we are actually discussing.

[_Tobin]

Well golly gee whiz, let me see now. I have been a member of the Church for 58 years and I have been hearing the term Adam God theory from the beginning.

Why should I care?

I currently participate on several forums and have never until now, heard it referred to as having to deal with becoming a God, which is quite another topic that is commonly taught in the Church and was indeed taught by Joseph Smith before it was taught by Brigham Young. It is one of the basic tenants of the Church. Adam/God has always referred to the misquoted and corrected statement found in the Journal of Discourses that says in referring to Adam: "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."

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Now if you wish to change the rules and say that the teaching that we can become Gods is what you wish to call the Adam God theory, then O K. I believe that it was Lorenzo Snow who said "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Nobody hides this teaching, as I said it is one of our basic tenants. Just please let me know which topic we are actually discussing.

I haven't changed any rules and been consistent about what the Adam/God theory is. You are the only one that keeps dodging the issue by either completely misrepresenting what I said or what the Adam/God theory is. And you certainly haven't addressed what Brigham taught in John Dehlin:6 275, 276.

[_gfchase]

Well golly gee whiz, let me see now. I have been a member of the Church for 58 years and I have been hearing the term Adam God theory from the beginning.

Why should I care?

I currently participate on several forums and have never until now, heard it referred to as having to deal with becoming a God, which is quite another topic that is commonly taught in the Church and was indeed taught by Joseph Smith before it was taught by Brigham Young. It is one of the basic tenants of the Church. Adam/God has always referred to the misquoted and corrected statement found in the Journal of Discourses that says in referring to Adam: "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."

You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father. You are simply dancing around the issue, though I've quoted it several times to you.

Now if you wish to change the rules and say that the teaching that we can become Gods is what you wish to call the Adam God theory, then O K. I believe that it was Lorenzo Snow who said "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be." Nobody hides this teaching, as I said it is one of our basic tenants. Just please let me know which topic we are actually discussing.

I haven't changed any rules and been consistent about what the Adam/God theory is. You are the only one that keeps dodging the issue by either completely misrepresenting what I said or what the Adam/God theory is. And you certainly haven't addressed what Brigham taught in John Dehlin:6 275, 276.

Show me anything in the following that says that Adam is God the Father. This is everything on the subject from pages 274, 275 and 276. You said above "You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father." Please point out SPECIFICALLY where it says that Adam is God the Father.

"Perhaps in the case before us, as in others, we might say that men become children. We are children in the first place, then become men; and in the second place men become children in their understanding. As to the correctness of the exalted views that brother Phelps has of myself, I leave it to the congregation to decide for themselves; but to place me on a par with the personages he has named, who have overcome and entered into the presence of God, or even to compare me with Joseph Smith, our martyred Prophet, is too much; though I expect, if I am faithful, I shall be as great as they are now, and so can every other faithful man. But am I now to be compared with these exalted characters? Not at all,—not even with Joseph; and he is at present inferior to others brother Phelps has named. But I expect, if I am faithful with yourselves, that I shall see the time with yourselves that we shall know how to prepare to organize an earth like this—know how to people that earth, how to redeem it, how to sanctify it, and how to glorify it, with those who live upon it who hearken to our counsels.

The Father and the Son have attained to this point already; I am on the way, and so are you, and every faithful servant of God.

One of the greatest queries on the minds of the Saints is to understand the nature, the principle of the foundation of our existence. To say nothing about what has been, if you will follow out that which is before you, you can learn all about it. I have a notion to tell you, though I have not time to say much about it now. I will, however, just tell you the simple story relating to the exaltation of man in the celestial kingdom of God. We will take Joseph for instance: he is faithful to his calling—has filled his mission to this earth, and sealed his testimony with his blood; he has done the work his Father gave him to do, and will soon come to the resurrection. His spirit is waiting for the resurrection of the body, which will soon be. But has he the power to resurrect that body? He has not. Who has this power? Those that have already passed through the resurrection—who have been resurrected in their time and season by some person else, and have been appointed to that authority just as you Elders have with regard to your authority to baptise.

You have not the power to baptise yourselves, neither have you power to resurrect yourselves; and you could not legally baptise a second person for the remission of sins until some person first baptised you and ordained you to this authority. So with those that hold the keys of the resurrection to resurrect the Saints. Joseph will come up in his turn, receive his body again, and continue his mission in the eternal worlds until he carries it out to perfection, with all the rest of the faithful, to be made perfect with those who have lived before, and those who shall live after; and when the work is finished, and it is offered to the Father, then they will be crowned and receive keys and powers by which they will be capable of organizing worlds. What will they organize first? Were I to tell you, I should certainly spoil all the baby resurrection that Elder Hyde and the others ever preached, as sure as the world.

After men have got their exaltations and their crowns—have become Gods, even the sons of God—are made Kings of kings and Lords of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? Yes, an Adam will have to go there, and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporeal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.

I am on the way to become one of those characters, and am nobody in the world but Brigham Young. I never have professed to be brother Joseph, but brother Brigham, trying to do good to this people. I am no better, not any more important than another man who is trying to do good. If I am, I don't know it. If I improve upon what the Lord has given me, and continue to improve, I shall become like those who have gone before me; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom, and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me. What do we want more? I shall be just like every other man—have all that I can, in my capacity, comprehend and manage.

I am on my way to this great exaltation. I expect to attain unto it. I am in the hands of the Lord, and never trouble myself about my salvation, or what the Lord will do with me hereafter. It is for me to do the will of God to-day, and, when to-morrow comes, to inquire what is his will concerning me; then do the will of my Father in the work he has appointed me to do, and that is enough for me. I am serving a God who will give me all I merit, when I come to receive my reward. This is what I have always thought; and if I still think so, it is enough for me."

Jerry

[_Tobin]

Show me anything in the following that says that Adam is God the Father. This is everything on the subject from pages 274, 275 and 276. You said above "You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father." Please point out SPECIFICALLY where it says that Adam is God the Father.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said that Brigham Young indicates that "Adam is my [his] father" in reference to God the Father. He states we are sons of God, identifies who the father is, then goes on and discusses the father or "my Father" further on in the same context as being God.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.

He is teaching the Adam/God theory right here.

I am on the way to become one of those characters, and am nobody in the world but Brigham Young. I never have professed to be brother Joseph, but brother Brigham, trying to do good to this people. I am no better, not any more important than another man who is trying to do good. If I am, I don't know it. If I improve upon what the Lord has given me, and continue to improve, I shall become like those who have gone before me; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom, and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me. What do we want more? I shall be just like every other man—have all that I can, in my capacity, comprehend and manage.

I am on my way to this great exaltation. I expect to attain unto it. I am in the hands of the Lord, and never trouble myself about my salvation, or what the Lord will do with me hereafter. It is for me to do the will of God to-day, and, when to-morrow comes, to inquire what is his will concerning me; then do the will of my Father in the work he has appointed me to do, and that is enough for me. I am serving a God who will give me all I merit, when I come to receive my reward. This is what I have always thought; and if I still think so, it is enough for me.

Who is he serving? my Father (who is also God) Who is his father? Adam. It is here plain as day.

[_gfchase]

Show me anything in the following that says that Adam is God the Father. This is everything on the subject from pages 274, 275 and 276. You said above "You clearly missed this then. John Dehlin:6 275, 276 seems to confirm that Brigham Young taught that Adam is the father and specifically God the Father." Please point out SPECIFICALLY where it says that Adam is God the Father.

You are moving the goalposts yet again. I said that Brigham Young indicates that "Adam is my [his] father" in reference to God the Father. He states we are sons of God, identifies who the father is, then goes on and discusses the father or "my Father" further on in the same context as being God.

This is a key for you. The faithful will become Gods, even the sons of God; but this does not overthrow the idea that we have a father. Adam is my father; (this I will explain to you at some future time;) but it does not prove that he is not my father, if I become a God: it does not prove that I have not a father.

He is teaching the Adam/God theory right here.

I am on the way to become one of those characters, and am nobody in the world but Brigham Young. I never have professed to be brother Joseph, but brother Brigham, trying to do good to this people. I am no better, not any more important than another man who is trying to do good. If I am, I don't know it. If I improve upon what the Lord has given me, and continue to improve, I shall become like those who have gone before me; I shall be exalted in the celestial kingdom, and be filled to overflowing with all the power I can wield; and all the keys of knowledge I can manage will be committed unto me. What do we want more? I shall be just like every other man—have all that I can, in my capacity, comprehend and manage.

I am on my way to this great exaltation. I expect to attain unto it. I am in the hands of the Lord, and never trouble myself about my salvation, or what the Lord will do with me hereafter. It is for me to do the will of God to-day, and, when to-morrow comes, to inquire what is his will concerning me; then do the will of my Father in the work he has appointed me to do, and that is enough for me. I am serving a God who will give me all I merit, when I come to receive my reward. This is what I have always thought; and if I still think so, it is enough for me.

Who is he serving? my Father (who is also God) Who is his father? Adam. It is here plain as day.

You are injecting something that is not said. You said in the post at the top of this page that he SPECIFICALLY taught that Adam is our God. It simply is not there and you accuse me of moving the goal posts, go figure! If you wish to INTERPRET Brigham's remarks that way, you have the right to do so.

Jerry