- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
was just going to post this 231: The Adam God Historical Subterfuge
[img]http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/god-adam.jpg [/img] 231: The Adam God Historical Subterfuge
Today we sit down with Corbin Volluz and discuss the nuts and bolts of the Adam/God Doctrine. We talk about what Brigham taught, How widely it was taught and implemented, How Leaders and apologists have attempted to explain it, and How leaders have attempted to make it disappear. Once you understand this issue in full it becomes clear that the Church has no choice but to eventually own up and acknowledge Prophets can and have taught false Doctrine and grappling with truth and error is a much more difficult process then we have let on.
http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/” class=”bbcode_url”> Corbin has a blog post that also details the effort to make this teaching disappear. It is found here on rational Faith’s Blog
Corbin Volluz lives western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 23-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
RESOURCES
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_doctrine/Repudiated_concepts/Adam-God_theory https://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/colton/personal/lds/adamisgod.htm https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1976/10/our-own-liahona?lang=eng http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech8.htm http://mit.irr.org/adam-god-doctrine http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2009_Brigham_Youngs_Teachings_On_Adam.pdf http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/AdamGod.pdf https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V15N01_16.pdf http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/MF0176.pdf LookingHard wrote:I hate to step out in front of Bill on this, but I have to say that he just released a very interesting podcast on the Adam God “historical subterfuge” (or “Adam God doctrine / theory”).
Adam God Historical SubterfugeHe is interviewing Corbin Volluz who is someone that I really love the logic that he has along with his study. There is also a really interesting comment from KarlS about the leaked letter (listen to the podcast first and then it will make more sense.)
Bill – accept my apology if I am overstepping by announcing this. I am just so excited. I am going to listen to this again.
glad you liked it. I knew when we were done this was going to be a one of the best.
I listened to most of this. Corbin V. does a great job. Thank you, DB. Ann wrote:I listened to most of this. Corbin V. does a great job. Thank you, DB.
YW.Very good info, I learned something about the Discourses of Brigham Young. I do have a different impression of Hugh B. Brown’s comments quoted in the podcast. I hear him saying “the Adam-God theory is not current doctrine of the church” I don’t see him addressing the issue of Brigham Young ever teaching it at all – he leaves that alone. To my ears he states the current position, and says anything else is wrong. The last podcast on the Adam-God doctrine was FABULOUS! I never really understood it before and couldn’t believe why Brigham Young would have taught such a nonsensical doctrine. It makes sense now. Good job Bill! Tim wrote:It makes sense now.
That is the main thing I came away with also – it makes sense now.I just finished listening to this podcast and had a thought about the new Gospel Principles manual that came out about 7 years ago. I was teaching gospel principles at the time and reviewed the two copies for changes. A major theme was that instead of referencing a quote from JD or DBY, it now referenced the TOTPOTC:BY (Teachings of the President’s of the Church: Brigham Young). The push was that each member could have their own gospel library that was self sufficient and there would be no need for archaic or hard to find (out of print) source materials.
Taken with what was discussed in the podcast about this subject it seems that we now have a Gospel Principles manual that references a book with doctored quotes to make it seem that BY was not teaching Adam-God and was promoting the virtues of monogamous marriage. That book in turn references Discourses of Brigham Young which is yet another layer of doctored quotes to make BY post mortem align with whatever current church teaching is.
I really identified with what Corbin said about this (Adam-God Theory) making much more sense once he started letting Brigham speak for himself rather than try to reconcile how all this might fit into modern church teachings. I believe that understanding polygamy is also not terribly difficult if we just allow for the idea that the church members of that day were practicing a theology significantly different from and in some ways mutually exclusive to our modern understanding.
Trying to make everything in the gospel past, present, and future to harmonize is a game of mental gymnastics in my opinion.
Roy wrote:Trying to make everything in the gospel past, present, and future to harmonize is a game of mental gymnastics in my opinion.
Gymnastics look hard but beautiful. I think “contortions” describes it better. It just gives me a headache.So I listened to some of this- had to quit when it went way longer than the window I allowed, but two points: 1. In the theory, if Adam in the Garden had already been a god and was to die because he partook of the fruit, how did he die when cast out of the Garden, having become immortal beforehand? Couldn’t figure that out.
2. Had a strange sense of deja vu when the theory was explained. I’m pretty sure that as a very young boy, I heard this before in gatherings of my mom’s extended family. I was not very social, and not very rough and tumble and so often stayed close to my mother in these gatherings and heard a lot of stuff I didn’t understand. And I heard it as though this was their current thinking. This was in the early 60’s! Maybe it’s a false memory.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.