Why did Brigham Young believe Adam was God?

[_consiglieri]

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

Oh, no, my friend, you have it wrong.

BCSpace will beat his dead Adam Sr./Adam Jr. horse until the cows come home.

Who is that I hear at the door?

[_bcspace]

Who is that I hear at the door?

Moo.

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.

There has been no such note except by those who has a cherished chestnut to defend but can't answer to the common LDS doctrines (such as the aforementioned resurrection) BY must have rejected in order to imagine an Adam God theory. And also, an Adam God theory never takes into account all of what BY said concerning God the Father and Adam that differentiate between the two, etc. But unlike Scrat, the Adam God chestnut will never make it to the nest.

[_consiglieri]

I thought you'd never get here, BC.

Brigham's distinguishing between Adam and God are part and parcel of his Adam-God teaching.

Our earth has multiple Gods ascending above it, even as we have fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers.

All are fathers and all are Gods. It's just that some are closer in relation to us.

And to think that God is bound by the notion of only one resurrection is absurd.

He's God, remember?

I know a bishop who told me once he thought God could take off and put on physical bodies the same way we take off and put on clothes.

Now, I don't know if he was right, but he was a smart guy.

We should not be so quick to say what God can and can't do based upon our limited understanding of modern day correlated Mormon Doctrine.

Regardless of whether it is found in official Church publications.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Fence Sitter]

Who is that I hear at the door?

Moo.

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.

There has been no such note except by those who has a cherished chestnut to defend but can't answer to the common LDS doctrines (such as the aforementioned resurrection) BY must have rejected in order to imagine an Adam God theory. And also, an Adam God theory never takes into account all of what BY said concerning God the Father and Adam that differentiate between the two, etc. But unlike Scrat, the Adam God chestnut will never make it to the nest.

I'll see your chestnut and raise you an Ad hoc.

[_SteelHead]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't I also remember somewhere reading that Adam didn't die but was carried into heaven ala Moses, in a source from Joseph Smith or BY? Circumventing the reincarnation argument.

But then again I remember reading something about being recast like clay on a potters wheel as often as necessary to eventually receive exaltation, that would hint at reincarnation.

[_zeezrom]

consig,

Fascinating! Thanks.

Zee.

[_bcspace]

Brigham's distinguishing between Adam and God are part and parcel of his Adam-God teaching.

Then you can't say that Adam is God the Father in the sense that He is the same God the Father who begat Jesus Christ.

Our earth has multiple Gods ascending above it, even as we have fathers, grandfathers and greatgrandfathers.

All are fathers and all are Gods. It's just that some are closer in relation to us.

Sure. In one of my JoD quotes, it refers to God the Father as a Gradfather to Adam Jr's (the one who fell) children.

And to think that God is bound by the notion of only one resurrection is absurd.
He's God, remember?

Not if you also accept the LDS notion of Theosis and the fact that God the Father was once a mortal man. In addition the Book of Mormon verse, there is also Romans 6:9. So now we see that Adam God not only rejects the doctrine of the resurrection as Joseph Smith delivered it via the Book of Mormon, but we also see that Adam God also rejects LDS Theosis as Joseph Smith delivered it (and quoted in the GP manual ch 47).

Let's see if Consig can come up with any more doctrines BY would have to had rejected.

I know a bishop who told me once he thought God could take off and put on physical bodies the same way we take off and put on clothes. Now, I don't know if he was right, but he was a smart guy.

Irrelevant. Smart guy doctrine does not make.

We should not be so quick to say what God can and can't do based upon our limited understanding of modern day correlated Mormon Doctrine.

Cuts both ways doesn't it?
lol

[_consiglieri]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't I also remember somewhere reading that Adam didn't die but was carried into heaven ala Moses, in a source from Joseph Smith or BY? Circumventing the reincarnation argument.

But the again I remember reading something about being recast like clay on a porters wheel as often as necessary to eventually receive exaltation, that would hint at reincarnation.

This was solely Brigham's thought, I believe.

And I think Brigham was fluid on the idea of Adam dying. I seem to recall a place where he said that Adam was taken to heaven without tasting death, and another place where he said that Adam came in the spirit to Mary to sire Jesus.

I could be wrong about both of these, though. I am going strictly from memory here.

Perhaps BCSpace could help us out?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_bcspace]

Now someone correct me if I am wrong, but don't I also remember somewhere reading that Adam didn't die but was carried into heaven ala Moses, in a source from Joseph Smith or BY? Circumventing the reincarnation argument.

But then again I remember reading something about being recast like clay on a potters wheel as often as necessary to eventually receive exaltation, that would hint at reincarnation.

Not in any doctrinal work I'll warrant.

[_consiglieri]

Let's see if Consig can come up with any more doctrines BY would have to had rejected.

This, in a nutshell (a chestnutshell, if you like) is the entire problem with your approach, BC. (And that of your mentor, Elden Watson.)

You are not interested in understanding what Brigham Young actually taught.

You want to make Brigham Young fit your procrustean bed of official LDS doctrine.

If Brigham Young said something that conflicts with your idea of doctrine, it couldn't be what he actually meant. This is the crux of your argument.

When you begin with the premise that Brigham Young meant what he said and said what he meant, regardless of what "doctrines" you feel it impacts, his views in this regard are quite plain and consistent over the course of twenty-five years.

In fact, Brigham's views were so plain and consistent that he almost had to oust Orson Pratt from the Quorum of the Twelve for taking public issue with them. A "conflict in the quorum" that never would have happened if people in Brigham's day understood him to be teaching what you claim he taught.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri