Mormon Coffee

At the April 1916 General Conference Charles W. Penrose, a member of the First Presidency, stated:

“There still remains, I can tell by the letters I have alluded to, an idea among some of the people that Adam was and is the Almighty and Eternal God. He is the father of his race, of course, the great patriarch over the human family, and being begotten unto him, he is the father of us in our earthly condition, in our mortality, and stands as the primal patriarch. But God says He put him there… [T]he notion has taken hold of some of our brethren that Adam is the being that we should worship. This has been explained, I think, from this stand several times, but notwithstanding that, peculiar ideas get into people’s minds, not always because they are stubborn and willful and wicked or that they desire anything that is wrong, but because it gets into their heads and it is a very hard job to get it out of their heads, like the Scotchman who asked the Lord to keep him in the right path so that he might not go ‘wrong, for the Lord knew that if he once got anything into his head, it would be a mighty hard job to get it out of him.’ That is the way it is with lots of our folks, not because they are all Scotchmen, however, the idea has obtained in the minds of some of the brethren and we ought to get right concerning it. I am sorry that has not been rectified long ago, because plain answers have been given to brethren and sisters who write and desire to know about it, and yet it still lingers, and contentions arise in regard to it, and there should be no contentions among the Latter-day Saints. It is all right for people to have their own views and express them, if they will do it in a proper spirit; it is all right for people to stand up for what they really believe to be true, but when this spirit of contention comes, then, as we are told in the Book of Mormon, it is of the devil. Now, if Adam, as claimed by some of our brethren, is the being that we should worship, to whom we should pray, who was that person that put Adam at the head of his race? … I want to draw a clear distinction between these individuals that we may stop this discussion that is going on to no purpose. Who is Adam? Adam is our father, certainly. He is the great father of the race, but we have had fathers that corrected us at home and we gave them reverence. Yes, that is right, but do we worship them and pray to them? Oh, no. Then why should we want to pray to Adam, who away back in the remote centuries was at the head of his race and in that sense is our father? … God help us to see and understand the truth and to avoid error! And don’t let us be too strong in our feelings in regard to our opinions of matters.” (>>)

Further Reading

• Adam-God (MormonWiki.org)
• Brigham Young’s 1852 Adam-God Sermon
• “Adam-God” - Brigham Young’s Theory or Divine Doctrine?
• Adam-God (FairWiki.org; pro-Mormon perspective)
• Adam-God and the “Lecture at the Veil” (FairWiki.org)

Comments (8)

When I talk with Latter-day Saints about sin and salvation, the conversation inevitably turns to the LDS idea of meriting God’s grace via personal worthiness coupled with repentance. During these conversations I find that, generally speaking, Mormons don’t seem to think about sin in the same way God talks about it in His Word. They don’t seem to grasp the seriousness of sin. They don’t seem to recognize the depth and breadth of the corruption of men’s hearts.

God says there are none righteous (no, not one). He says there are none who do good; that the intentions and desires of men’s hearts are evil continually (Romans 3:10; Psalm 14:3; Genesis 6:5).

Christian preacher Charles Spurgeon explained:

“The essence of sin lies in its being committed against God. When men are fully convinced that they have disobeyed the Lord, and that this is ‘the head and font of their offending,’ then they are brought to a true perception of the character of sin. Hence David’s penitential psalm has for its acutest cry, ‘Against Thee, Thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in Thy sight’ (Psalm 51:4). Yet the sword of sin cuts both ways, it not only contends against God but against His creatures too. It is a double evil. Like a bursting shell, it scatters evil on every side. Every relationship which we sustain involves duty, and consequently, may be perverted into an occasion for sin. We are no sooner in this world than, as children, we sin against our parents; as members of a family we sin against brothers and sisters; and against playmates and acquaintances. We launch into the outside world, and…[our] sins dash like raging billows. As our various relations are multiplied, our sins increase also: we sin against a husband or wife, against a servant or against a master, against a buyer or a seller. On all sides the roots of our soul suck up sin from the earth in which they spread. We sin in public and sin in private, sin against our poverty and against our wealth. Our sin, drops on all who come under our shadow. As the sea surrounds all shores, so sin beats with deadly waves upon all connected with our life. Our hundred-handed sin assails both heaven and earth, time and eternity, great and small, old men and children.”

Our sin is so deep and so wide; the temptations so persistent; our righteous determination so prone to faltering. Like Paul, our proper response to a knowledge of our sin should be,

“Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)

For deliverance is what we need. Repentance and trying hard to please God won’t cut it. Our sinfulness is too ingrained. The roots are way too deep.

Until we recognize, as Paul said, that “nothing good dwells in [us]” (Romans 7:18), we will not recognize our true hopelessness before God. Instead, we’ll think we can progress in righteousness (though perhaps in baby steps) by strengthening our resolve to prove our worthiness — which lies hidden somewhere within us. We’ll show God how good we can be, and He will welcome us into His kingdom. When I talk with Mormons, I find that this is the way many think about themselves and about their sin. But, according to God’s Word, this is not the way God thinks.

Isaiah heard the seraphim crying out, in the presence of God’s holiness, “Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isaiah 6:3). In that moment, Isaiah recognized his true hopelessness. He said, “Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips…” (Isaiah 6:5). God purged Isaiah’s sin and took his iniquity away. God, in His mercy, delivered Isaiah, just as He will deliver all who recognize their hopelessness and call upon Him.

Let my cry come before you, O Lord;
give me understanding according to your word!
Let my plea come before you;
deliver me according to your word.
(Psalm 119:169-170)

Comments (57)

In an article describing the way leadership vacancies are filled within the LDS Church, a recent issue of Church News explained,

“On the Mount of Transfiguration in the incident recounted in Matthew 17:1-11, Peter, James and John received those keys, defined as “the rights of presidency, or the power given to man by God to direct, control and govern God’s priesthood on earth” (’Keys of the Priesthood’ in Guide to the Scriptures). Thus ordained, Peter, James and John filled the role that the First Presidency does today in directing the affairs of Christ’s Church on earth following His death.

“In this, the latter-day dispensation, the three apostles came to earth as resurrected beings and conferred the keys of the kingdom upon the Prophet Joseph Smith, thus restoring priesthood authority to the earth (see Doctrine and Covenants 27:12-13). The organization of the Church soon followed, on April 6, 1830″ (Church News, October 6, 2007, pages 8-9).

According to the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual Religion 324-325,

“The future of the Apostle John, sometimes called the Beloved or the Revelator, is a mystery to the Christian world. Confusion comes because of the statement in John 21:20-23…

“From this statement questions naturally arise: Did John die? If not, what is his status? If he did, why did Jesus make the statement? The issue has been debated for centuries among the various Christian sects…

“Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery finally solved the issue through an appeal to the Lord…

“The result of their inquiry is given in the heading of [Doctrine and Covenants] section 7” (page 17).

According to Doctrine and Covenants section 7, John never died. So I was surprised to see him described as “a resurrected being” in an official LDS Church publication.

If John never died, he could not now be a resurrected being, could he? Does the designation of John as a resurrected being signal a change in LDS doctrine?

Apparently the mystery continues into these latter days.

Comments (23)

Mormonism and traditional Christianity view the acts of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden very differently.

According to Mormonism:

To the first man and woman on earth, the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Moses 2:28; see also Gen. 1:28; Abr. 4:28). This commandment was first in sequence and first in importance. It was essential that God’s spirit children have mortal birth and an opportunity to progress toward eternal life. Consequently, all things related to procreation are prime targets for the adversary’s efforts to thwart the plan of God.

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose…

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).

…Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68)…

Note the different perspective and the special wisdom of Eve, who focused on the purpose and effect of the great plan of happiness: “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (Moses 5:11). (Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, 11/1993, pages 72-73)

Contrast Mormonism’s “celebration” of the “glorious necessity” of the Fall with the event as understood according to traditional Christianity:

Genesis 1:26-7 introduces us to the original divine pattern for man’s life. He was the image-bearer of God… God originally made man to reflect his holy character and his position as bearing rightful rule over all his creatures. In that respect he is like God.

It is an amazing thing to think of man set in the world in order to be God’s personal representative upon the earth. The opening chapters of Genesis breathe something of this quiet spirit of wonder. Man is given creative powers (Gen. 1:28); he exercises dominion (Gen. 1:26); like God he is a creative workman (Gen. 2:15).

But in Genesis 3 something happens in each of these areas to distort God’s gracious plan. A virulent disease begins to spread through the whole of man’s life from the first moment of his sin. He hides from God in the garden (Gen. 3:8-10); his relationship with his wife, and hers with him, is distorted into one of ugly, back-biting recrimination (Gen. 3:13-17); the ground is cursed and man’s daily labour becomes a burden rather than a pleasure (Gen. 3:17-19). All this is sad enough, but it is accompanied by a change in the image of God.

…We might well be justified in thinking that there could be no greater disaster than that the likeness of God should be exterminated. But in fact there is. What if the image of God, in which his greatness and glory are reflected, becomes a distortion of his character? What if, instead of reflecting his glory, man begins to reflect the very antithesis of God? What if God’s image becomes an anti-god? This, essentially, is the affront which fallen man is to God. He takes all that God has lavished upon him to enable him to live in free and joyful obedience, and he transforms it into a weapon by which he can oppose his Maker. The very breath which God gives him thousands of times each day he abuses by his sin. The magnitude of his sin is also the measure of his need of salvation. The wonder of God’s saving purpose lies in the fact that he longs more than we imagine to restore what has been lost. But the old creation must pass away, and a new one be established; what was lost in Adam must be restored in Christ… (Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Christian Life, pages 11-13)

Summarized, according to these two views, the Fall was either:

• a glorious necessity that opened the door to eternal life (i.e., Godhood); or

• a sin that opened the door to a virulent disease distorting the image-bearers of God into ugly anti-gods.

In the Mormon view the disobedience of Eve and Adam is described as courageous “wisdom” deserving of “honor” for the transgressors.

In the biblical view, the disobedience is recognized as “sin” resulting in a broken relationship with God, marital discord, and discontent with what was once satisfying daily labor. As Christian theologian R.C. Sproul put it,

“Because of their disobedience, Adam and Eve became fugitives from even the gaze of God. We have been running ever since.”

Conversely, in the Mormon view the Fall was a positive disobedience. Yes, it brought about “pain, suffering, sin, evil and death” on earth, but “without the Fall…the whole plan of salvation would have been frustrated.”

An LDS author wrote,

“In contrast to most readers of the Bible, we believe that Adam and Eve both should be commended for what they did to bring about the Fall.” (Robert J. Woodford, “‘In the Beginning’: A Latter-day Perspective,” Ensign, January 1998)

And 10th LDS Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith explained,

“When Adam was driven out of the Garden of Eden, the Lord passed a sentence upon him. Some people have looked upon that sentence as being a dreadful thing. It was not; it was a blessing. I do not know that it can truthfully be considered even as a punishment in disguise.” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:113)

When considering the Mormon view of the Fall in light of the biblical view, I can’t help but think of God’s Word through Isaiah:

Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter!
(Isaiah 5:20)

Comments (33)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid criticizes past Mormon leadership. “Members of the church are obedient and followers in the true sense of the word, but these people have taken members of the church down the path that is the wrong path.”

I have often pondered the Joseph Smith History found in the Pearl of Great Price. As he told his story of what led him to seek divine guidance (resulting in the First Vision), Joseph described the spiritual atmosphere in his community. He related how confusing he found the doctrinal claims of various Christian denominations. Add to that the competitive air he sensed in the preachers of those churches, and he didn’t know where to turn. Joseph wrote,

“In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?” (Joseph Smith–History 1:10)

As Joseph continued his story, he described how, while he was trying to sort through these issues, he came across a passage in the Bible (James 1:5) which he understood to be instructing him to ask God which church was right.

Joseph described his encounter with the heavenly beings who appeared in answer to his prayer:

“I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong) — and which I should join” (Joseph Smith–History 1:18).

I have always wondered about this; it looks like a contradiction. On one page of the History, Joseph wondered which of all the denominations was right, or if they were all wrong. On the next page of the History Joseph said up until that time (the First Vision) he had never even considered that they could all be wrong.

Though this has always puzzled me, I just figured there was something in the story that I was missing; that there is an explanation for the seeming contradiction. But after reading the September 2007 issue of the Ensign, I’m not so sure anymore.

In an article called “Seek Learning by Faith” LDS Apostle David A. Bednar tells Joseph’s story. After setting the stage up to the point of Joseph’s reading of James 1:5, Mr. Bednar said,

“Note the questions Joseph had formulated in his mind and felt in his heart — and which he took to the grove…

“‘In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?…

“‘My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right…and which I should join’ (Joseph Smith–History 1:10, 18).” (Ensign, September 2007, page 64)

Mr. Bednar quoted the same two verses from Joseph Smith–History that I quoted above; however, he omitted the words, “(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong).” It is especially puzzling since Mr. Bednar was specifically calling his audience to “note the questions Joseph had formulated.”

Being naturally curious, when I saw Mr. Bednar’s omission I wondered why he chose to leave that part of Joseph’s question out of the quote. And when I noted that the omission neatly removed any appearance of contradiction in the text, I wondered if that was Mr. Bednar’s intent. This, in turn, makes me wonder if perhaps it is a contradiction and there’s not explanation for it after all.

What do you think?

Comments (28)