Man! Brigham Young had a thing for old women!!!
Posted on 12/22/2010 7:23:05 AM PST by Colofornian
To see Cal Grondahl’s Currents cartoon that goes with this post, click here
We Mormons shy away from the old relic called the Adam-God doctrine. In recent years, the late prophet Spencer W. Kimball denounced it from the pulpit, as did the late apostle Bruce R. McConkie in “Mormon Doctrine.” McConkie added that those who said that Brigham Young pushed it had taken Mormonism’s greatest leader out of context.
But the later denials are, to be frank, historical revisionism. Brigham Young did believe Adam was the god of our earth, and that doctrine was pushed with fervor by Young and many church leaders for decades. It was debated by LDS apostles as late as the 1890s. Apostles Heber C. Kimball and George Q. Cannon believed Adam was our God.
Why the Adam-God doctrine never gained enough traction in the LDS Church and was eventually ruefully de-emphasized by Young is mostly due to one man, the LDS apostle, Orson Pratt, who just as fiercely opposed the Adam-God doctrine and backed up his opposition with LDS scriptures. Supporters of the Adam-God doctrine were finally forced into vague defenses along the lines of “God has not revealed the details of this wondrous doctrine.”
The Adam-God debate that flourished for so long among the LDS faithful and hierarchy is detailed in the spring 1982 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. The article, by BYU graduate David John Buerger, is fascinating reading, and makes me wish the LDS Church would offer more information about this historically interesting period of its development. On April 9, 1852, Young said this during a general conference speech: “Now, hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner! 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 is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.”
Young added that Jesus Christ was a spiritual son of Adam: “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. …” Young added that this doctrine would matter in the salvation or damnation of listeners.
As Buerger recounts, leading Mormons, including future prophet Wilford Woodruff, clearly understood that Young had decreed Adam as our God.
In later dispatches, published in The Millennial Star, the church strengthened its Adam-God doctrine by listing a geneology for the creators. In a school of the prophets class, Buerger writes that it was taught that Elohim was Adam’s grandfather, followed by Jehova, Adam’s father, and our God, Adam. Christ, as mentioned, was classified a spirit son of God Adam.
Of course, LDS doctrine today teaches that Jesus Christ is Jehova and that Adam was created out of the dust, as was Eve. Adam-God ran into trouble immediately; members could not find it in the scriptures. Nevertheless, Apostle Willard Richards had a succint reply to doubters. He wrote, “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 is the world of the Lord.”
In an 1854 general conference speech, Young went further: “I tell you more, Adam is the father of our spirits. He live upon the earth; he did abide his creation and did honor to his calling and preisthood (sic) and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did (the same) and they lived, and died upon an earth, and (then) were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life …”
However, one apostle, Orson Pratt, did not buy this new doctrine. He pointed to scriptures, including to what is Section 29, verse 42 in the Doctrine and Covenants and also Moses 4:28 and Moses 5:4-9. In defense, Young claimed that Joseph Smith had taught the Adam-God doctrine. Buerger’s research points to anecdotal evidence from third parties that Smith believed Adam was far more than his peers on Earth (a belief shared today by the current LDS Church) but past sermons of Smith’s also clearly show the first LDS prophet regarded Adam as an inferior to Jesus Christ, which puts him at odds with Young’s beliefs.
Other scriptural problems with the Adam-God doctrine include references to Adam’s death (Moses: 6:12 and Doctrine and Covenants 107:53) Also, Buerger cites Alma 11:45 in the Book of Mormon, where Amulek teaches that a resurrected body can die no more. How, Pratt reasonably wondered, can Adam have a resurrected celestial body and later die?
There were other contradictions to the Adam-God doctrine in theological books penned by apostles Parley P. Pratt and future prophet, John Taylor. Eventually, Young began to slowly abandon efforts to push the controversial doctrine, although he defended it often, sometimes with caustic remarks that skeptics were “yet to grovel in darkness.”
There is one recorded deviation by Young from Adam-God; as Buerger recounts, in an 1861 address to a non-Mormon audience, Young refers to Adam and Christ being created by a Supreme Being. However, this may be an example of the prophet speaking more simply to people — gentiles — he felt too naive to understand the doctrine. According to Brueger’s research, Young continued to teach the Adam-God doctrine, but mainly in more exclusive settings, such as teachings to general authorities.
In 1870, Young, quoted in the Deseret News, again said that God had revealed Adam’s celestial status to him. However, the doctrine’s steam slowly ebbed away. Eventually, Charles W. Penrose, editor of The Deseret News, signaled the church’s rejection of claims that Adam is our God. At first, Penrose said that Young’s personal views were not church doctrine; however, within a few years a church article stated that the debate over Young’s views were of no real value. Eventually, that changed to a view — held today — that Young had been misinterpreted.
The misinterpretation claim, as evidenced, does not survive historical scrutiny. It’s a shame that more information is unavailable on the fierce debate between Young, Pratt and others over the Adam-God doctrine, which comprised one of the most interesting eras in LDS Church history. The decades long controversy is an example of the progressive, brainstorming, exciting nature of the 19th century LDS church, where ideas — polygamy, new scriptures, Christ visiting America, celestial godhood, temples, priesthood revival, prophets, etc. roiled the theological world. It’s evidence of a uniquely American religion that still appeals to inquisitive minds.
Gibson is the Standard-Examiner’s opinion editor. He can be reached at dgibson@standard.net. This column also ran in Currents, the Standard’s digital-only section on politics and culture.
Young taught that Adam was God for over 20 years. Cannon was a member of the First Presidency (highest part of Lds hierarchy) for more Lds "prophets" than any other man in Mormon history (four).
From the column: On April 9, 1852, Young said this during a general conference speech: “Now, hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner! 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 is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” Young added that Jesus Christ was a spiritual son of Adam: “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. …” Young added that this doctrine would matter in the salvation or damnation of listeners.
And so this was...
...the "living 'prophet' of whom Mormons say the earth needs?
...the one whom Lds elected to name its most prominent university after?
Could have just as easily said: within a few years a church article stated that the debate over Young’s views were of no real value are non issues and have been answered a thousand times (yawn).
Top left, 2nd row?
You can see that Adam was a more "favored" god by Brigham than his other gods!
Today’s DILBERT cartoon addresses this I think...
IMO the biggest obstacle for any claims of "misinterpretation" or "inaccuracy" is that the sermon was transcribed by George D. Watt, Brigham Young's own personal secretary and the man who invented "phonography" (part of what is now called shorthand), and Watt remained in Young's good graces long after the publication of the "Adam-God" sermon. For a church that documents absolutely EVERYTHING, no alleged "corrected version" of Young's sermon has ever been printed by a pro-LDS publication in the 150+ years since the sermon was given.
This is a good work; exposing the satanic policy of evil; which is and has been since the garden; twisting and perverting the Word of God.
1 Tim 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Colossians 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body: not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
You will be called a hater; for they use the same tactics as liberals use in politics; backing up lies with more lies.
Stick with your work as one or even a few mormans may see the error of mormon deceit.
Two additional points. 1 - Young made more than one speach about adam-god and 2 - Young is on record iirc, stating that he did review transcripts before publication for accuracy.
If you peruse the Free Republic religion forums you will notice a pattern. There's an anti-Mormon group of people here that spends a great deal of their time attacking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They post regurgitated propaganda on an almost daily basis.
They have a misguided obsession. You can witness many different tactics employed that you might find quite interesting. The straw man argument is a big favorite and is frequently preceded by cherry-picking quotes or other material. After the "quotation" the attacker will misrepresent what has been said or what was meant and then attack their own interpretation.Later they will have the audacity to claim they were "only" quoting our own material.
They will of course insist ad nauseum that they are merely using our sources and are therefore innocent of any deceptive practice. LDS persons have no issue whatsoever having our scriptures or leaders quoted as long as it is presented fairly and accurately. This is rarely (if ever) done.
Another favorite is posting scripture or statements which on their own really present no dilemma. They make something out of nothing while never bringing up a single objection that hasn't been addressed a hundred times before.
You might note a couple of other tactics used to try to antagonize is the use of disrespectful or insulting terms or language and/or pictures. That's a Christlike thing to do right? Yeah I don't think so either. It does speak volumes about them though.
Some of them claim being some sort of special witness to you as being supposedly former Mormons. So someone who is an ex-member of any organization would never have an axe to grind or have reason to try to justify their actions by any means? Perhaps not but perhaps so. The LDS Church gains members from other denominations as well as others faiths all the time. This doesn't make them an expert on anything and you certainly won't hear them attacking their forner Church.
Frequently they cruise the headlines of the day seeking any story that might be twisted into making the Church look bad. Anything will do, just watch the progression of posts following it and see what I mean.
After reading their posts, I invite you to seek the truth about whatever "issue" they seem to be "revealing" or "exposing". I promise that if you do so with honest intent, the "ahah" moments you will have will be many and frequent. You will start to recognize the tactics employed to cleverly twist and attack and will likely chuckle the more you see. In actuality, there's nothing new here. It's all been addressed many times before.
The latest twist in the anti-Mormon propaganda machine is to actually go to the links provided, but then they cherry pick what they want, then quote and straw man attack that. Clever. It almost appears that they are helping you, the seeker of truth out by doing some footwork for you. Not so much. Don't be insulted, look for yourself. It's not the haystack they want you to think.
Here's a few links to get your started from a different viewpoint. I have found that the vast majority of the "issues" brought up can be found and addressed at http://www.fairlds.org/ but here's more:
http://scriptures.lds.org/
http://www.lds.org
http://www.fairlds.org/
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/
http://www.mormonwiki.com/Main_Page
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.html
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml
http://www.answeringantimormons.com/index.htm
http://promormon.blogspot.com/
Now you will likely notice the "you never address or answer our points" posts pop up as usual. All after providing the answers just as you have here.
Sometimes it is claimed that these sites present a needle in a haystack. Far from it. But if you give up before you try you won't know will you? They often state that these sites provide no answer. They just don't want you looking. It is as simple as that.
Will you wear blinders too? Seek truth. Find out for yourself. Want to chat with someone on any topic? A few of these sites provide just that. So do your homework sincere seeker of truth. Listen and read from both "sides". Make up your own mind.
I witness to you of these truths and wish you the best, in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Leaders of the lds intitially said that the "theory" of Adam-god. During a Priesthood session of conference in October of 1976, Spencer W. Kimball labeled Brigham's teaching "false doctrine." He stated, "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 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" (Church News, 10/9/76).
bring'em young taught false doctrine. So a 'true' prophet of 'god' is caught teaching "false doctrine". So how 'true' is the rest of the doctrine he taught?
LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie taught "anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam-God theory does not deserve to be saved." Hmmmmm tell us PD is bring'em young now damned for this teaching? Lets look deeper shall we PD -
Orson Pratt, an apostle, was almost excommunicated for opposing Adam-God doctrine: Minutes of Meeting of Council of the Twelve in Historian’s Office; April 5, 1860, Brigham Young Papers, Church Historian’s office
In late 1890, 1891, 1892, Bishop Edward Bunker Jr. and his father, Edward Bunker Sr. of Bunkerville, Utah, and his counselor Myron Abbot were before church courts. The Bunkers denied Adam-God doctrine; Abbott accepted it. The final High Council Court was held June 11, 1892, and was attended by President Wilford Woodruff and his first counselor, George Q. Cannon. In summary, the Bunkers had their hands slapped for advancing false doctrine and “indulging in mysteries.” Bunker Sr. was advised “to let these things alone.” Abbott, who supported Adam-God doctrine, was cautioned to not become “puffed up in pride” over the victory. See Adam-God Maze, pp. 215-238 for the sources covering the above. Also Unpublished Revelations, pp. 168-175.
Oh but there is more PD - from your LDS link -
From Doctrines & Covenants 27:11 (given by Joseph Smith Aug. 1830) we have: “”And also with Michael or Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days.“”
From Doctrines & Covenants 116 (given again by Joseph Smith, May 19, 1838) we have: “”...Adam shall come to visit his people, the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.“”
From Doctrines & Covenants 138:38: “”Among the great and mighty ones who were assembled in this vast congregation of the righteous were Father Adam, the Ancient of Days and father of all.“” (Oct. 3, 1918, by Joseph F. Smith).
Why lookie here - young knew what he was talking about. And from your 'sources' too. It is apparent that this is the accurate statement
As an outside observer of this controversy, it sure seems to me the Bible story of Adam and Eve makes remarkably little sense if Adam was God.
Thanks. Pray for them.
I agree with you - it makes no sense, but that is what happens when you make up your own theology. It is probably the reason that later prophets had to discount the doctrinal teaching of the prophet young and call it a 'theory' - because word of that old doctrine was getting out and reflecting poorly upon mormonism.
A cursory review of mormon history reveals that major changes to mormon doctrine have occurred when it pushes up against the law of the land and/or when the public relations fallout reaches a level that distracts from missionary recruitment efforts.
Dear Mr. Paragon Defender,
Thank you for the opportunity to learn much more
about Mormonisms. It seems to be a very tricky
religion and often confusing to me.
On the FreeRepublics, I see lots of things posted
directly from the Mormonisms website. But then I
read posts from Mormons that say those things are
propaganda. How can that be? Does Mormonisms put
out propaganda about itself? This doesn’t seem
to make sense. Can you explain this? Is this to keep
the publics from understanding the real secrets of
Mormonisms?
Also, I am confused about how a person could
possibly become a god. I would very, very much like
to become a god. I would like to have powers
and have worshippers. Is there anything in writing
or do you have an interwebs links that would tell
me how I can become a god? I have cash for the
tithes. Is there a minimum tithes? [this may not
matter, but I am Canadian and our Loonie is worth
more than your US Dollar right now. It seems I
will have to do a conversion of Loonies to join
your group and I should probably get a discount
because of exchanging the Loonies]
Other than the New Age Movement (I saw Shirley
McClain on TV), I can’t find any other religion
that can tell me how to become a god. When I first
heard that Mormonisms can tell me how to become
a god, I leaped with excitement. Where is the link
I can follow to get the godhoods?
Also, if this is not one of the deeper-member-secrets
of Mormonisms, can you tell me about “celestial s&x”.
I’ve read once I become a Mormonisms god, I will have
a Mormonisms goddess wife - or even LOTS of Mormonisms
goddesses - for, well, you know. Anyway, if you could
show me a link that gives some details, I would like
to read about that too! For sure! The links you give in
your posts do not cover becoming a Mormonisms god or
the other thing. I’m not sure why?
Thank you for posting this thread for us who are
interested in Mormonisms to learn the very
real stuff that is pretty much held secret from the
publics.
I am excited to learn the deeper mormon secrets!
Very thankfully,
A More Perfect Unions
PS - Mr. PD, I had a very traumatic experience in 4th grade
of falling off a bicycle and hitting myself where it hurts.
Please tell me I do not have to ride a bicycle again, if I
become a Mormonisms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.