Why did Brigham Young believe Adam was God?

[_Drifting]

Bcspace, when you get your theory published officially by the Church let us know. Until then, you're just speaking as a man! ;-)

[_bcspace]

So, BC, since you have previously stated that the JoD as a whole. is NOT official doctrine, but snippets which are published in official LDS materials are,

Correct.

where does this declaration by Brigham Young fall?

Neither Adam God or Adam Sr/Jr is doctrine. The debate is as far as I can tell:

1)Over what BY's opinion was, Adam God or.....?

2)Whether or not Adam God was doctrine at one time. I say that since Adam God never existed in the mind of BY, it was never present as doctrine, even in the Lecture at the Veil. But I would then have to admit that it is possible that Adam Sr/Jr is present in the LAV and I freely do.

Also, as an aside, how do you characterize the temple ordinances, and basic temple script? Doctrine?

Doctrine. Published by the Church. In another thread here, I think we are agreeing it's not necessarily literal.

And...as far as Adam Sr. and Eve Sr. are concerned...CFR on where this is published in official Church sources.

It is not. I have never claimed this or Adam God to be doctrine. Neither of them are.

Frankly, any source other than your opinion would be helpful.

My previous post contains a link. Footnote 8 on that page is the link to Watson. As you can see, I have quoted the usual specific sources from the JoD et. al.

[_Chap]

This thread has me a bit confused. Let's see if I have grasped the main points:

Brigham Young talked about 'Adam' in two ways that at least superficially do not seem to be consistent.

That leaves us with these alternatives.

Either:

(a) BY didn't frankly care much about consistency, but just stood up there in the pulpit and said whatever he thought sounded impressive and prophet-like at the time he was speaking. He knew no-one would dare to call him on it. So sometimes he contradicted himself. But that's OK, since we already knew he was a bit of a fraud.

Or:

(b) If BY used term T in two apparently inconsistent senses, then, given that he was a prophet, our confusion must just be caused by the fact that we are missing that fact that in BY's head there are really two different terms, T1 and T2. Unfortunately for us poor non-prophets he did not always clearly distinguish between the two, but just said 'T' for both. But we just need to study it out and all will be clear.

[_bcspace]

Bcspace, when you get your theory published officially by the Church let us know. Until then, you're just speaking as a man! ;-)

Give credit to Watson though imho, his paper is disorganized. I discovered it in 2005, Watson's paper is dated 1998. This theory will never be published by the Church because it is not doctrine nor am I claiming it should be doctrine. Perhaps the Church will see it historically this way though. I think it would be another major crushing of the Adam God proponents which, though they are already well-refuted, continue to resurrect it because most Mormons haven't studied it. Adam Sr/Jr is a major simplification because it's closer to the truth and would make the refutation of Adam God more readily available to the average Mormon.

[_bcspace]

Or:

(b) If BY used term T in two apparently inconsistent senses, then, given that he was a prophet, our confusion must just be caused by the fact that we are missing that fact that in BY's head there are really two different terms, T1 and T2. Unfortunately for us poor non-prophets he did not always clearly distinguish between the two, but just said 'T' for both. But we just need to study it out and all will be clear.

He was simply using "Adam" as a name title for God because he believed as I have shown, that God came to earth and with his wife and by partaking of the physical food on the earth were able to beget the physical bodies of the first people we know of as the Adam and Eve who fell.

God is an Adam(Sr) because, in BY's opinion, He produced the first man by copulating with His wife. Adam (Jr) is still an "Adam" because he is the first of God's children.

Where LDS doctrine fits in is that it agrees that our spirits are literally the children of God, but it does not say, as Adam Sr/Jr does, that Adam is also a literal physical child of God.

[Guest]

I never came to the Adam Jr/Sr lime of thought but rather always parsed this as Elohim - grandpa god, Adam/Michael - god the father, Jehovah - god the son.

Not sure who that leaves for hr HG - Joseph Smith, BRM?

I also always felt that Adam god was fairly well hinted at in Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith. Elsewise why do the keys go from the prophets to Jesus, and from Jesus to Michael Adam-Ondi-Amhan?

Economy of heaven and all that.

[_bcspace]

BC is having fun.

I am. Perhaps too much fun. That is not to say I am joking about Adam Sr/Jr or Official Doctrine or the Priesthood ban or anything else I've been addressing. I am deadly serious on all those and more.

[_bcspace]

I never came to the Adam Jr/Sr lime of thought but rather always parsed this as Elohim - grandpa god, Adam/Michael - god the father, Jehovah - god the son.

Perhaps you are using "god the father' in a nonstandard sense, but one can't parse it as Adam being God the Father, the literal father of Jesus, without running into conflicts such as God the Father being a resurrected being. Alma 11:45 makes it clear that once resurrected, one can't die again, but that happens if one assumes BY thought that Adam is God the Father because Adam does die eventually.

Not.sure who that leaves for hr HG - Joseph Smith, BRM?

I think one is much better off with Adam Sr/Jr.

I also always felt that Adam god was fairly well hinted at in Teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith.

The TOTPJS is not a doctrinal work because it's not published by the Church; unless perhaps you are actually referring to the manual Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith

[_consiglieri]

I sensed a disruption in the force and found I had been summoned to this thread.

Yes, I do know a lot about Brigham Young's teachings regarding Adam. Maybe too much. (BCSpace will be here shortly to disabuse you of this notion.)

No, Brigham Young never taught about an Adam Sr. and an Adam Jr. This is, as somebody already noted, a complete (and completely lame) invention by Elden Watson (I believe) in order to try to make Brigham match currently received LDS doctrine.

Now, for the interesting part, which is the question asked in the OP--Why did Brigham teach such an "outlandish" thing.

I think the first thing to note is this was not so outlandish at the time. First, Joseph Smith's teachings had not yet been systemetized and correlated into a fine paste.

Second, Joseph Smith posited the idea that Adam is not the fall guy most of Christianity views him as.

He is actually a hero, not a zero in Joseph's view.

Not only that, he is a guy who was very important even before the earth was created. Joseph said Adam was the archangel, Michael.

More than that, Joseph said that Michael/Adam was one of the presidency who created this earth.

More than that, Joseph said that Adam held the keys of presidency (in some sense) over this earth, and that whenever anything was revealed to the inhabitants of this earth, it had to go through Adam.

More than that, Joseph said Adam was a "Prince" and would rule and reign over all the exalted inhabitants of this earth in eternity.

Long story short--Adam is a big deal to Joseph.

Now Brigham took these basic building blocks taught by Joseph, including the eternal progression of the gods, that God was once a man, that we can become gods, etc., and cobbled together an idea that Adam is actually the God of this earth.

Brigham taught that Adam is the father not only of our mortal bodies, but the father of our spirit bodies, which he begot in the premortal existence.

Brigham did NOT teach that Adam was Elohim, but held that Elohim is a God superior to Adam, and that Elohim's jurisdiction is over a multitude of worlds, whereas Adam's jurisdiction is over just this one.

Brigham's views have a great deal of appeal to me personally, although I think he went against Joseph by putting Jesus beneath Adam, whereas Joseph was pretty clear Jesus was superior to Adam.

My take on Brigham's theory is not that Brigham was crazy or "out there," but that he took seriously the principles taught by Joseph Smith and attempted to thoughtfully elaborate upon them to get a deeper and fuller understanding.

Brigham found out to his chagrin that the Church as a whole was not willing to accept his pronouncements in the same way they had those of Joseph, that they would accept a president as an administrator but not as a revelator, and the Church has had president/administrators ever since.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Fence Sitter]

I sense a quick exit on BC's part coming.