The Wonderful, Marvelous, Official Adam-God Doctrine

[_Darth J]

On another thread, bcspace has made two incompatible assertions:

1. If the LDS Church prints something in an official publication, it is official doctrine.

2. The Adam-God Theory was never official doctrine.

The above are both common apologist/internet Mormon talking points. Thus, it is my sad duty to inform you that by this standard, the Adam-God "theory" was in fact the official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while Brigham Young was the president of the Church.

As I mentioned in the thread referenced above, the Adam-God doctrine was published in the Millennial Star. Brigham Young University tells us the following about the Millennial Star:

The Millennial Star was the longest running Latter-day Saint (LDS) periodical, published continuously for 130 years until discontinued in 1970 with the overhaul of all the LDS magazines. It was inaugurated by the Twelve at the beginning of their great mission to England. Brigham Young and his fellow members of the Twelve landed in Liverpool on April 6, 1840, the tenth anniversary of the Church. Eight days later they began a series of meetings in Preston in which they resolved to publish a monthly periodical to be called the Latter-day Saints Millennial Star. The prospectus, also reprinted in the first number of the Star, announces that the magazine “will stand aloof from the common political and commercial news of the day.—Its columns will be devoted to the spread of the fulness of the gospel.”

..........

Even though the Star was published primarily for the members of the Church in England, it is an important record of the progress of the whole of Mormonism, especially of the nineteenth century Utah church. Hence, it is difficult to overestimate the value of the Star. “But for this publication,” notes H. H. Bancroft, “it would be impossible to fill the gaps which occur in the record of the Mormon people.” (History of Utah, 407).

Now, some faithful Latter-day Saints may be uncomfortable going to "mormonsareacult.org"-type websites for quotes from the Millennial Star. This is understandable; as Obiwan has taught us, don't give in to hate. That leads to the dark side.

No, sorry, wrong Obi-Wan. Anyway, as Obiwan the board member has taught us, anti-Mormons are a priori liars. How blessed we are, then, that we can go to BYU's digital collections to see what was printed in the Millennial Star, and rest assured that we have accurate, unbiased digital scans of this official church publication.

Let's start with an excerpt from the November 26, 1853 Millennial Star. You can read the entire thing, free from anti-Mormon biases and lies, on BYU's digital collections here.

When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. 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.

Italics and capitalization in original. The 11/26/1853 edition of the Millennial Star goes on to say:

Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven. now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.

As you read through the teachings of the prophet Brigham Young in this official church publication, you will see that the Prophet is indicating that Elohim is the father of Adam, and therefore Elohim is actually Heavenly Grandfather, while Adam is the being who is our Heavenly Father. So much for the assertion about "Adam, Sr. and Adam, Jr.," as well as that old apologetic chestnut that people wrote it down wrong when they transcribed Brigham Young's sermons (hard to reconcile that ad hoc claim with the Church officially publishing what was supposedly written down incorrectly).

On December 10, 1853, the official church publication known as the Millennial Star printed an editorial entitled, "Adam, the Father and God of the Human Family."

Among other things, this editorial further clarifies that Elohim is the supreme God over all the Gods from various worlds---Heavenly Grandfather, in other words---but our own Heavenly Father---the person we are referring to when we say "Heavenly Father" or the unqualified term "God"---is Adam.

As the great Eloheim is supreme and Almighty over all his children and kingdoms, so is Adam as great a ruler, or God, in his sphere, over his children, and the kingdom which they possess. The earth and all things upon it were created for Adam, and it was given to him of his father to have dominion over it. In that dominion he will be sustained throughout all eternity.

Again, I would hate to send anyone to one of those bigoted, dishonest anti-Mormon sites that takes everything out of context or just plain lies, so instead you can go read this at BYU's digital collections.

One of the things that becomes clear from this official doctrine set forth in the longest-running official publication of the Church is that Adam-God is not some arbitrary, idiosyncratic idea that just popped into Brigham Young's head one day. As you read through the inspired teachings of the second prophet of the Restoration, it becomes clear that Adam-God explains the concepts of eternal progression, godhood, and the plan of salvation. This doctrine makes plain the identity and destiny of the human family.

Some people found the Adam-God doctrine troubling, which the Millennial Star acknowledged. Its answer to such hesitation was,

If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church for this objection to be removed, tell such, the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord. That is vastly stronger proof than Christendom can give.

Italics in original.

This was reported in the minutes of a special church conference in the August 25, 1854 edition of the Millennial Star. You can read the above quote right from this official church publication, including its full context so you can make sure that this is talking specifically about the Adam-God doctrine, on the truthful, reliable, and bias free digital scans from BYU here (page 534).

There are other examples of the Millennial Star indicating that Adam-God was the official doctrine of the Church taught in an official church publication, but I think what we have here is a good start.

Unfortunately, some people try to subvert the order of the priesthood by suggesting that the Adam-God doctrine was not accepted by the Quorum of the Twelve. Such people trying to ignore that "the Lord's house is a house of order" point to Orson Pratt's public dissent from the Adam-God doctrine.

Such people are either unaware of the facts or deliberately ignoring the facts. Orson Pratt was nearly disfellowshipped over his public dispute with the Prophet (who, as we know, is the only person authorized to receive revelation on behalf of the Church). Only by admitting his fault and agreeing to stop contradicting the teachings of President Brigham Young did the Quorum of the Twelve sustain a vote not to take disciplinary action against Elder Pratt. For those not familiar with this history, I recommend the following:

http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... OSHOW=2878

In summary, since so many apologists and internet Mormons have staked a claim on the position that "official publication = official doctrine," it is indisputable that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot make this claim about what constitutes official doctrine while also claiming that Adam-God was not the official doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under the leadership of the Prophet Brigham Young.

The reason for dismissing Adam-God as "not official doctrine" is that otherwise uncomfortable questions are invited about whether the Church really can teach things, claiming these things to be the word of the Lord, that are later repudiated as being false. Such questions are uncomfortable because then we have to wonder what, if anything, "continuing revelation" really means, whether there are things currently being taught as truth that might be false, and whether the Prophet really can, contra Official Declaration 1, lead the Church astray. This is particularly unsettling with such fundamental doctrinal questions as who Heavenly Father is.

In any event, however, the facts of the matter for those claiming that "publication means doctrine" have, I think, pretty much killed, buried, and nailed the coffin shut on the idea that the Adam-God "theory" was never the official doctrine of the LDS Church, and then thrown the coffin into Mount Doom, before dropping Mt. Doom under the continental plates.

[_Dr. Shades]

Isn't it wonderful?

[_Buffalo]

Point, set, match.

[_Joseph]

You guys, YOU guys... it doesn't count because it is old stuff. Only new stuff counts and then only if it is in the church magazines and books from the past 3 years or less.
Old stuff, old prophets, old wives tales.
New stuff is where it is at, that and cookies from widows for future prophets.

[_Runtu]

If I recall correctly, the Adam-God theory was taught as doctrine in the lecture at the veil in the temple for many years. I suppose bcspace will tell us now that what is taught in the temple is not doctrine.

[_Fence Sitter]

The multiple Adams defense does have some advantages when you think about it. It allows for Adam to have multiple wives without being a polygamist. Maybe there was more than one Joseph Smith Jr?

[_just me]

Isn't it wonderful?

Oh, it is wonderful....wonderful, to me!

[_Darth J]

The multiple Adams defense does have some advantages when you think about it. It allows for Adam to have multiple wives without being a polygamist. Maybe there was more than one Joseph Smith Jr?

Although it does have that drawback of requiring deliberate ignorance of what Brigham Young really said.

[_Runtu]

Although it does have that drawback of requiring deliberate ignorance of what Brigham Young really said.

I always liked McConkie's statement that Brigham Young did indeed teach Adam-God, except when he wasn't teaching it.

Marvelous, indeed.

[_Darth J]

Although it does have that drawback of requiring deliberate ignorance of what Brigham Young really said.

I always liked McConkie's statement that Brigham Young did indeed teach Adam-God, except when he wasn't teaching it.

Marvelous, indeed.

Here is this instance of the McConkie Mulligan quoted from the FAIR wiki, so you know it's true:

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the [polygamous] cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works.

It certainly must be difficult for Adam-God deniers to require Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to be lying just like the anti-Mormons about Brigham Young really teaching this.

By the way, the FAIR wiki is wrong about the Adam-God doctrine. From the same entry:

Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: as popularly understood, Adam-God (i.e., "Adam, the first man, was identical with Elohim/God the Father") is not the doctrine of the Church.

As BYU's digital scans of the longest-running official church publication show, Brigham Young did NOT teach that Adam was Elohim. He taught that Elohim was another personage who was in effect our Heavenly Grandfather, while Adam was Heavenly Father (you know, the one we say prayers to).

ETA: And in true Moplogist fashion, this FAIR wiki says, "In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it." And then they quote a BYU professor as a church leader (a BYU professor who falsely states that Adam-God was never a doctrine of the Church).