Why did Brigham Young believe Adam was God?

[_bcspace]

I believe that the following is the reason why Brigham Young believed that Adam was God:

Pretty tenuous as approaching the throne seems to be the only connection. Because of 1 Cor 6:2, it wouldn't be unreasonable to see Adam on a throne of Judgement just as it wouldn't be unreasonable to see any of the saints (us) on the same throne (Revelation 3:21). But there is nothing to equate Adam with God the Father who shares his throne (Godhood) with Christ and with anyone else who overcomes.

[_SteelHead]

BC, would you like a shovel?

I mean you are already spreading it pretty deep, and a shovel would just make you all the more efficient.

[_Bret Ripley]

... 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.

Exactly. Young's Adam-God teaching was immediately controversial. Young had ample opportunity to explain any sort of misunderstandings that may have existed, but there does not seem to be any record of him doing so.

Here are some pertinent observations recorded by Wilford Woodruff:

"President Young followed & made many good remarks . . . He said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ--Our God was no more or less than Adam, Michael the Archangel." February 19, 1854

"Brother [Orson] Pratt ... could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was ... [He] brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the Earth, begat children and they were earthly ... [Young] told Brother Pratt to lay aside his Philosophical reasoning and get revelation from God to govern him and enlighten his mind ..." September 17, 1954

If Young intended to teach somehing like Adam Sr./Adam Jr., he could have simply explained it to Pratt. Instead, Young essentially told him to stop trying to make sense out of it and just accept it as revealed truth.

"... the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father is a true doctrine revealed from God to Joseph and Brigham." September 4, 1860

Some thirteen years later, Young continued to teach Adam-God without making any sort of Sr./Jr. distinction:

"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle." December 16, 1867

As others have noted, the Adam Sr./Adam Jr. hypothesis is ad hoc and out of harmony with the available evidence.

[_bcspace]

Young's Adam-God teaching was immediately controversial. Young had ample opportunity to explain any sort of misunderstandings that may have existed, but there does not seem to be any record of him doing so.

.........

If Young intended to teach somehing like Adam Sr./Adam Jr., he could have simply explained it to Pratt. Instead, Young essentially told him to stop trying to make sense out of it and just accept it as revealed truth.

Probably the strongest argument against Adam Sr./Jr. And it is attractive because it's easy and quick. But it's importance pales in comparison with the fact that many of BY's statements in and around the cherry-picked ones in favor of Adam God are in direct conflict with the notion as well as the fact that BY would have to had to have rejected or forgotten multiple critical doctrines, some revealed directly by Joseph Smith prior.

[_bcspace]

"At meeting of school of the prophets, President Young said Adam was Michael the Archangel and he was the father of Jesus Christ and was our God, and Joseph taught this principle." December 16, 1867

I think WW well understood the use of name titles in this context:

"Some have said that I was very presumptuous to say that Brother Brigham was my God and Savior. Brother Joseph was his God. The one that gave Joseph the keys of the Kingdom was his God, which was Peter. Jesus Christ was his God and the God and Father of Jesus Christ was Adam."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, as quoted by Wilford Woodruff, in the Journal of Wilford Woodruff,

Which shows the understanding that Adam is Jesus Christ's father in the same way Adam is my father and your father and not that Adam is literally God the Father. And that's part of what's brilliant about Watson's theory, he understood and recognized the typical usage of name titles among the prophets of the time.

[_kamenraider]

So bcspace, you're saying that when Brigham Young said that Adam was the father of Jesus what he really meant was that Adam was the great, great, great, great, (etc.) grandfather of his mother Mary? And that everyone misunderstood him to mean that Adam was the immediate father of Jesus?

Surely you can come up with an example of someone who lived during Brigham Young's lifetime, who heard his teachings about Adam and recorded (prior to Elden Watson providing it) the "proper" interpretation in their journal? Can you come up with any historical evidence that ANY of Brigham's contemporaries interpreted his remarks regarding Adam specifically in the same way as Elden Watson?

[_Darth J]

The quotes from the Millenial Star teaching the Adam-God doctrine cannot be reconciled with belief in the Adam-God doctrine........

Only if not taken by themselves.

I am aware that defenders of the modern LDS Church cannot let Brigham Young's words and the teachings printed in the Millenial Star speak for themselves.

[_bcspace]

Surely you can come up with an example of someone who lived during Brigham Young's lifetime, who heard his teachings about Adam and recorded (prior to Elden Watson providing it) the "proper" interpretation in their journal?

Upset that Watson beat you to the punch?

[_ludwigm]

Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.
[D&C 132:8]

Then the Lord God said: “F” up your house, and mine too!

[Guest]

The quotes from the Millenial Star teaching the Adam-God doctrine cannot be reconciled with belief in the Adam-God doctrine........

Only if not taken by themselves.

Hmmm...and what else should the Saints, at the time when BY preached his message, have taken into consideration when trying to interpret his words?