Adam-God and Mysteries

[Anonymous]

Until recently, I rejected the Adam-God theory and I was concerned that a prophet would teach such nonsense. My concern now is that the theory might actually be doctrine and I am missing out on understanding one the mysteries of the kingdom. Before disregarding this, please consider the following:

1. Perhaps we are continuously fed milk because most members really can’t handle the meat.

2. Brother Brigham did not teach that Elohim (the one with Jesus and Michael during the creation) and Adam are the same. It is my understanding that Elohim essentially became our Heavenly Grandfather, according to the theory.

What do you think about it? Please be candid!

[Anonymous]

I haven’t studied this much but did listen to a few podcast about it and I guess I just don’t believe it to be doctrine. I guess I don’t believe many other things are either. At this stage I am trying to figure out the God and me relationship and get where I am comfortable with my new ideas and believes without complicating things more. I think BY made a lot of stuff up. Maybe he wanted to consolidate his power by introducing some new doctrine like JS seems to have done.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for sharing, church. I also want to figure out my relationship with God, which is why I haven’t been able to let this theory go. I keep thinking “What if Adam really has become my Father?” The marvelous thing about that would be that I would then know who my Heavenly Mother is.

Brigham said that Joseph Smith taught the theory. We don’t have any words explicity teaching Adam is our father, but he taught the general principle in the King Follet discourse:

Quote:

What did Jesus do? “Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself.” So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

[Anonymous]

I have held this theory in the back of my mind with an understanding of acceptance. If it is “True” It does allow that avenue for more information on a heavenly mother. Brigham said out right that Joseph taught him the doctrine. And went on to say that if it was JS who taught it everyone would have accepted it and moved on. I know he took it to the twelve for ratification and it was shut down. The church later declared the doctrine to be heresy.

[Anonymous]

But I also think as Joseph Smith -“If the church knew half the commandments G-d had for them, 1/2 would apostasies and the other 1/2 would just not listen. I think the same is true for all the doctrine that could be had.

[Anonymous]

I don’t believe it, but I’m not going to hang my reputation or exaltation on it.

It absolutely isn’t current doctrine, but that doesn’t mean a whole lot to me.

[Anonymous]

Spencer W. Kimball said in General Conference 1976:

Quote:

“We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”

Source: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng&query=adam+god+theory

[Anonymous]

Sounds just as plausible to me as any other doctrine.

[Anonymous]

church0333 wrote:

At this stage I am trying to figure out the God and me relationship and get where I am comfortable with my new ideas and believes without complicating things more.

I figure if it helps you with your personal relationship with God then go ahead. I personally believe in the trinity – not because I think it is a better description of God than the alternatives, but because I like the idea of my Heavenly Father condescending below all things so that He can personally be there for me in the hour of my need. I imagine if one would find it helpful to imagine God as a woman or Adam – then God would be ok with that too.

[Anonymous]

Does holding to the Adam-God Theory require a belief in a factual, historical person named Adam who was the father of the race? If so, then I’m necessarily excluded. The AGT kind of smacks of “6 thousand year old earth” Mormonism to me.

[Anonymous]

Kumahito wrote:

Does holding to the Adam-God Theory require a belief in a factual, historical person named Adam who was the father of the race? If so, then I’m necessarily excluded. The AGT kind of smacks of “6 thousand year old earth” Mormonism to me.

Consider this by Talmage:

Quote:

To the thoughtful mind there can be no confusion of the beginning spoken of in the opening verse of genesis with the advent of man upon the changing earth; for by the scriptural record itself we learn of stage after stage, age after age of earth processes by which eventually this planet became capable of supporting life — vegetable, animal and human in due course…

In due course came the crowning work of this creative sequence, the advent of man! Concerning this all-important event we are told that scientists and theologians are at hopeless and irreconcilable variance. I regard the assumption or claim, whichever it be, as an exaggeration. Discrepancies that trouble us now will diminish as our knowledge of pertinent facts is extended. The creator has made record in the rocks for man to decipher; but He has also spoken directly regarding the main stages of progress by which the earth has been brought to be what it is. The accounts can not be fundamentally opposed; one can not contradict the other; though man’s interpretation of either may be seriously at fault…

In speaking of the origin of man we generally have reference to the creation of man’s body; and, of all the mistakes that man has made concerning himself, one of the greatest and the gravest is that of mistaking the body for the man. The body is no more truly the whole man than is the coat the body. The man, as an individual intelligence, existed before his earthly body was framed and shall exist after that body has suffered dissolution.

[Anonymous]

Let’s not turn this thread into a discussion of evolution, although I don’t think the Adam-God Theory mandates a young earth view.

Evolution is not rejected officially by the LDS Church, so let’s leave this thread with the AGT only.

[Anonymous]

I love the AGT.

I dont believe it…but I love to dwell on it. It would make an excellent science fiction movie, or star trek episode.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I love the AGT.

I dont believe it…but I love to dwell on it. It would make an excellent science fiction movie, or star trek episode.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Or a whole TV series. Battlestar Galactica… Brigham Young never mentioned Cylons though. War in heaven = war in space? Hmm…

Personally I don’t believe in Adam the same way BY must’ve. I still think there may be an Adam in the sense of the first man to achieve sentience and ponder his own existence. Interesting that if the story is true that it was a woman who first achieved it. I generally take references to Adam and Eve as metaphors for mankind as a whole or for each of us individually. In the temple when we are to consider ourselves as Adam and Eve I think that applies to the whole story.

Anyways, not to talk about evolution, I think that the AGT is interesting. If Adam is God, and Adam is a metaphor for us, then we are God. Each of us. I think JS was probably trying to explain something BY just didn’t get if what BY said about learning AGT from JS is true. If not then BY made it up.

So that’s how I find value in it. And if BY said that Adam is the only God we should worry about then I need to focus on bettering myself.

I know that’s not at all how BY intended it but that’s all I manage to get out of it.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Let’s not turn this thread into a discussion of evolution, although I don’t think the Adam-God Theory mandates a young earth view.

Evolution is not rejected officially by the LDS Church, so let’s leave this thread with the AGT only.

Thanks for keeping us on track, Ray. I agree with what you said.

A recent Mormon Matters podcast set off my investigation into AGT, even though I only read the introduction and some of the comments there. Today I skipped work and went to one of my favorite spots in the mountains and listened to the podcast. It was interesting and I’m sorting out my thoughts now.

[Author]

Posts