Adam-God Theory

[_bcspace]

I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

I've read this. But he did not convince me that Brigham Young was misquoted.

Which tells me that you did not read it at all is this is not Watson's claim.

[_Alter Idem]

I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

I've read this. But he did not convince me that Brigham Young was misquoted.

Which tells me that you did not read it at all is this is not Watson's claim.

Okay. I feel like I'm pulling teeth with you.

Let's start this over. The Op asked "Can anyone articulate the "Adam-God" theory that is attributed to Brigham Young?" To which you answered;


"Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.
BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve."



When I questioned you on this interpretation of Adam/God, you cited Elden Watson, which suggested you'd gotten this version from him. If you didn't get it from him, where did you get it?

So, what I need from you is something to back up your claim that Brigham Young actually believed it was God the Father and Mother who came to earth and partook of the fruits, conceived Adam and Eve, who then fell--and if it wasn't Elden Watson who suggested this interpretation, then please don't cite him to bolster your position.

I'm very interested to see your reference, because everything I've read from Brigham Young and his contemporaries who explained him, say it was Adam and Eve who came and fell again--not their children and frankly, if Brigham Young had believed and taught what you say he did, I'd feel much more accepting of his theory.

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes. But "attributed" is the operative word.

BY never taught such a thing. His opinion actually was that God the Father and Mother came to earth and by partaking of the physical fruits, conceived the Adam and Eve who fell. Thus God the Father and Mother became a type of Adam and Eve to Adam and Eve.

BY certainly did teach Adam God and he institutionalized it the the temple endowment at the St George Temple. He taught that Adam was our God and the father of Jesus Christ, that Adam was a God before the creation of this world and that this world is populated with the spirit children of Adam and his wives. He taught that Adam-God came to earth with one of his wives-Eve-ate food from this earth, became mortal and started the human race

He almost had all the 12 on board with the but Orson Pratt withstood him. But for Orson this may have become a fully accepted doctrine. However when BY died it was brushed under the rug and thankfully left behind.

But he did teach it for over 25 year.

[_Jason Bourne]

I disagree. See for example.....

http://eldenwatson.net/7AdamGod.htm

Watson;s article is weak and a rather horrible explanation. I know a number of highly placed apologists who think it is a silly explanation.

If Brigham Young had taught what you suggested, there would have been no reason to have to drop it from LDS teachings--it doesn't contradict scripture.

It never was part of LDS teachings to begin with that I know of considering the Church's definition of doctrine.

The temple endowment certainly seems to qualify as LDS teaching and doctrine.

[_collegeterrace]

BY certainly did teach Adam God and he institutionalized it the the temple endowment at the St George Temple.

He taught that Adam was our God and the father of Jesus Christ, that Adam was a God before the creation of this world and that this world is populated with the spirit children of Adam and his wives. He taught that Adam-God came to earth with one of his wives-Eve-ate food from this earth, became mortal and started the human race

He almost had all the 12 on board with the but Orson Pratt withstood him. But for Orson this may have become a fully accepted doctrine. However when BY died it was brushed under the rug and thankfully left behind.

But he did teach it for over 25 year.

Oh No!!! TBMs PLEASE DO NOT READ THE ABOVE!!!!

Someone contact the modsquad!!!!

Jason the picture perfect Mormon has openly discussed former content of the "sacred temple ceremony®"!!

Dear God on earth! What has become of Jason?!?!?

[_Yoda]

Oh No!!! TBMs PLEASE DO NOT READ THE ABOVE!!!!

Someone contact the modsquad!!!!

Jason the picture perfect Mormon has openly discussed former content of the "sacred temple ceremony®"!!

Dear God on earth! What has become of Jason?!?!?

Moderator Note--Jason did not quote specific portions of the temple ceremony, old or new. He gave an overview of what was taught. Therefore, it's allowable, and will stand......Liz.

[_Jason Bourne]

Oh No!!! TBMs PLEASE DO NOT READ THE ABOVE!!!!

Someone contact the modsquad!!!!

Jason the picture perfect Mormon has openly discussed former content of the "sacred temple ceremony®"!!

Dear God on earth! What has become of Jason?!?!?

I know you really try hard to come across as lacking substance and intelligence PP but this one just seems like a special effort at that task. Well done.

[_Yoda]

I know you really try hard to come across as lacking substance and intelligence PP but this one just seems like a special effort at that task. Well done.

LOL Agreed. ;)

As far as the topic is concerned, Jason brings up a very valid point. If the temple ceremony is not considered doctrine, I'm not sure what is.

Comments, BC?

;)

[_bcspace]

BY certainly did teach Adam God and he institutionalized it the the temple endowment at the St George Temple. He taught that Adam was our God and the father of Jesus Christ,

In what context and which Adam? Adam Sr. (God the Father) or Adam Jr.(the Adam who precipitated the fall)?

Watson;s article is weak and a rather horrible explanation. I know a number of highly placed apologists who think it is a silly explanation.

I know some who put it in a position of prominence on fairwiki. It has good listed strengths and the weaknesses listed have little to do with it's content.....

However, Watson's theory has not been widely accepted for several reasons: (a) it is not widely known, (b) it assumes that those in Brigham Young's audience understood that he was talking about two Adams, and (c) Brigham never directly explained his Adam-God teachings in the way Watson interprets them.

[_Yoda]

In what context and which Adam? Adam Sr. (God the Father) or Adam Jr.(the Adam who precipitated the fall)?

According to Jason's summary, BY taught that Adam and God the Father were one and the same, and that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ.