Once upon a time I was a member of the Mormon Church. I was converted at age 14 and ardently followed the teachings and lifestyle of Mormonism. I went to Church every Sunday, read the Book of Mormon, and had an active and productive Mormon lifestyle.
In High School, I went to Seminary, and when I turned 19 I could not wait to go on a mission. Unfortunately for me, a few months after my 19th birthday I got in a very bad motorcycle accident; which delayed my mission for two years. But I still went, even though I had serious problems with one of my legs that had gotten smashed by a car.
When I got back, I worked for awhile and then went where many good, active Mormons went: to BYU. I worked full time and had a full college schedule to deal with, along with my callings in the local Ward I went to in Provo. My area of expertise was Church History, and I had made up my mind that when I graduated from BYU I was going to be a Church Historian.
I was so devout that on one occasion I turned down a date with a very beautiful girl that wanted me to take her to a movie called 48 Hours, starring Eddie Murphy. I declined because it was rated ‘R’. So what happened?
My insatiable appetite for knowledge about Church History caught up with me.
When I first moved to Provo and started going to the “Y”, I got an apartment. The first thing that I did was hit the local lumberyard to buy some wood to make shelves. I bought eight-foot pine boards, 1/2 an inch thick, and made myself a set of shelves to hold all of my books. It was eight feet wide and six feet high. I had a lot of books. I collected them, and I filled those bookshelves.
On weekends, I would drive all over Utah hitting bookstores to find interesting out-of-print books on Mormon History. One weekend I found myself in southern Utah in the St. George area, and walked into a bookstore that was owned by a Fundamentalist Mormon. He gave me a book by Ogden Kraut called “Michael—Adam,” written in 1938. I had a long talk with the man about the Church and remember thinking, as I left the store, that he was crazy. When I got home I filed the book away and forgot about it.
A few months later I was preparing for a Sunday School lesson about D&C Section 27 (and the priesthood), and I spied that book about Michael. I read it with fascination, and then disbelief. I thought, “This guy is twisting these references; they don’t say what he says they do.” Yet most of them were in the Journal of Discourses, which I myself had referenced many times over the years.
You see, I was familiar with some of the quotes Kraut used, but didn’t understand them in context. I now had the context, and I fought it tooth and nail. I spent the next few months tracking down and verifying every quote that I could from that book. The more I searched, the more I knew that Ogden Kraut had quoted Brigham Young in proper context. For example, consider this poem by Eliza R. Snow:
Adam, your God, like you on earth, has been
Subject to sorrow in a world of sin;
Through long gradation he arose to be
Cloth’d with the Godhead’s might and majesty.
And what to him in his probative sphere,
Whether a Bishop, Deacon, Priest, or Seer?
Whate’er his offices and callings were,
He magnified them with assiduous care;By his obedience he obtain’d the place
Of God and Father of this human race.
Life’s ultimatum, unto those that live
As saints of God, and all my pow’rs receive;
Is still the onward, upward course to tread–
To stand as Adam and as Eve, the head
Of an inheritance, a new-form’d earth,
And to their spirit-race, give mortal birth–Give them experience in a world like this;
Then lead them forth to everlasting bliss.
Crown’d with salvation and eternal joy
Where full perfection dwells, without alloy.
(Eliza R. Snow, An Immortal, 188-89)
This places Brigham Young’s teachings about Adam in perfect context. According to Brigham Young, this was Mormonism’s Plan of Salvation. To me, it was inconceivable.
I remember how excited I was by this aspect of Mormonism (The Plan of Salvation) when I was converted, and how much my Mormon friends and I drank in things like the book “Life After Life” by Raymond Moody (it was very popular around that time), and going to Mormon productions like “Saturday’s Warriors.”
What I couldn’t wrap my mind around was what I now found Brigham Young actually teaching: that Adam… was God, the Father of our spirits, and the literal Father of Jesus Christ in the flesh. For all those who say that it doesn’t make sense, well it didn’t to me back then either. But then, I wasn’t as familiar with all of Young’s teachings back then. For example, he taught,
“But the fact exists that the Father, the Divine Father, whom we serve, the God of the Universe, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits, provided this sacrifice and sent his Son to die for us; and it is also a great fact that the Son came to do the will of the Father, and he has paid the debt, in fulfillment of the scripture which says, ‘He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world!’ Is it so on any other earth? On every earth!” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71)
Yes, I thought, Jesus’ Atonement covers them all. But you have to keep reading. He then says,
“How many earths are there? I observed this morning that you may take the particles of matter composing this earth, and if they could be enumerated they would only be a beginning to the number of the creations of God; and they are continually coming into existence, and undergoing changes and passing through the same experience that we are passing through.”
That’s fine. I agreed with that. But then Young teaches,
“Sin is upon every earth that ever was created, and if it was not so, I would like some philosophers to let us know how people can be exalted to become sons of God, and enjoy a fulness of glory with the Redeemer. Consequently every earth has its redeemer, and every earth has its tempter; and every earth, and the people thereof, in their turn and time, receive all that we receive, and pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 14:71-72. Bold emphasis added.)
Jesus was unique only to this world! Every world has its Jesus. Every world has its Satan. And every world has its Adam & Eve, each Adam the god of that world, who falls with one of his wives and become mortal again and again, so that they might start the process to redeem the spirit children assigned to each world by giving them mortal bodies.
How does all this work? Well, Brigham Young answered it. We all become Adams. The rest of it (as I found out), Brigham Young did indeed teach as doctrine and called it a revelation from God.
This did not sit well with me and so I started asking around. I went to my Bishop which was a colossal waste of time. I went to my Stake President. Same thing. I went on Campus and received a lot more answers, but was told to keep them to myself. But I didn’t. I went back to my Stake President and demanded answers. He eventually wrote to Church Headquarters and they told him to have me read Mark E. Peterson’s book, Adam, Who Is He?
I read the book and saw that Peterson had been very deceptive in many places. For example, Peterson wrote,
“We do not know what part Michael played in the creation of this earth. President Young did not make it clear.” (Adam, Who is He?, 83)
But Brigham Young made it perfectly clear on more than one occasion. Take this example from a sermon given at General Conference, October 8, 1854 (Wilford Woodruff called this the “greatest sermon ever given to the Latter-day Saints as a people”):
“Elohim looked around upon the eternity of matter, and said to his associates, and those that he was pleased to call upon at that time for his counselors, with regard to the elements, worlds, planets, kingdoms and thrones; said he, ‘Yahovah[,] Michael, see that eternal matter on all sides, this way and that way; we have already created worlds upon worlds, shall we create another world? Yes, go and organize the elements yonder in space;’ not empty space, for there is no such thing, once in a while, [the] earth quakes, and the extensive destruction of combustible matter by fire will come nigh, making empty space for perhaps the millionth part of a second. ‘Yahovah[,] Michael, go and create a world, make it, organize it, form it; and then put upon it every thing in all the variety that you have seen, that you have been in the habit of being associated with in other worlds, of beasts, birds, fowl, fish, and every insect, and creeping thing,”– and finally, the whole eternity of element is full of life, bring it together and make of it living creatures.’
“Yahovah [and] Michael, goes and does as they are told. What I am now going to tell you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you. When Yahovah [and] Michael had organized the world, and brought from another kingdom the beasts, fish, fowl, and insects, and every tree, and plant with which we are acquainted, and thousands that we never saw, when he had filled the earth with animal and vegetable life, Michael, or Adam, goes down to the new made world, and there he stays.” (Essential Brigham Young, 94)
That, along with other things that happened, made me realize that Brigham Young (as well as every other Mormon “prophet”) wasn’t worth following. Many years later, I realized how much at odds the teachings of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were compared to the Bible.
Take this statement, also written by Eliza R. Snow,
“Man is the offspring of the Gods. This is the supreme conception which gives to religion its very soul. Unless man’s divinity comes in somewhere, religion is the wretchedest humbug that ever deluded mortals. But the sublime and most primitive conception of Mormonism is that man in his essential being is divine, that he is the offspring of God–that God is indeed his Father.” (Women of Mormondom, 192)
According to the Bible, this is demonstrably false. We are only divine if and when we take on the divine nature, and become sons through adoption. (See, John 1:12-13, Colossians 1:16, John 3:10, Romans 8:14-17, Galatians 4:5-6, Ephesians 1:5, Galatians 3:26.)
Brigham Young taught that Adam was the Father of the spirits of Mankind. I challenge any Mormon to prove that he didn’t teach it, and that it can’t be clearly understood in the light of Joseph Smith’s doctrinal progression. Here is some ammo for you all to use. I guarantee that I can rebut everything that Brian Hales tries to argue here. Good luck, if any of you dare to take the challenge.
grindael,
Now you and I both know that Young, Smith and the rest of this crew really didn’t mean it, did they? They were just speculating. You know, just some flight of fancy sitting around the camp fire at night staring at the stars sort of playing “let’s pretend”.
Besides, this is all a long time ago and it has no real application to today’s LDS church. Notice I didn’t say “Mormon” church because there are a lot of different Mormon sects, many of whom do not deny anything you point out in your article. They embrace it!
I really appreciate your dedication to bringing these things that were taught, believed and practiced by early Mormons to our attention because its the foundation of these various groups. The LDS folks think that if anyone brings out something that doesn’t flatter their church, it’s persecution. Those of us who labor in ministries such as MC know it’s our duty to point out these things because Mormons are woefully ignorant of the history of their own church.
I’m including a couple of links to a TV appearance by Dr. Walter Martin going back to 1985 towards the end of his life. There are actually five parts but I think part two would be of interest to our visitors and contributors. I love his presentation style. He was straight forward, knowledgeable and pulled no punches.
The portions are about twelve minutes in length.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4-DFSFBeT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0h0ya1DlD4
@grindael
I just wanted to thank you for all you do in exposing the myth that is Mormonism. Your knowledge on topics has affected me over the years to do serious research and soul searching. And your academic tone in addressing all the TBM’s that come here to defend the church is an example to all those that seek truth.
Thanks again.
Grindael
I would just like to second everything that johnnyboy said. It’ll be very interesting to see how the resident apologists react to your excellent article, but I for one won’t be holding my breath waiting for a sensible dialogue to ensue.
Johnnyboy,
I could be better with my tone, but it’s frustrating when people will deny the plain facts. I put this out there, because I believe that very few believing Mormons will address it with evidence. What I ask for is quotes, with reasoned analysis. We rarely get that here, instead getting opinions and general statements that we don’t understand what Brigham said. For example, we have the word of Brigham Young that Joseph taught him so. Here is Edward Tullidge and Eliza R. Snow explaining perfectly what Brigham taught,
Those of Brigham’s day had no trouble understanding what Young was teaching. It is plain and simple.
You know what I’m wondering? I’m wondering how the LDS church members know that what Brigham Young had to say about the nature of God isn’t true?
How did/do they test the words of the prophet and determine that in fact Adam and God weren’t the same persons?
Brigham Young was a prophet of the LDS church wasn’t he. Didn’t what he say come from the mouth of God to (Brigham’s) spiritual ears? How do members of the LDS church know that subsequent prophets and apostles were in error when they stamped Brigham’s doctrine with the words null and void?
While we’re at it, how do the members of the LDS church know that the decree that stopped the practice of polygamy wasn’t wrong?
I would think there would be some serious trust issues with members concerning their leadership when so much of what has been taught and practiced was later renounced.
How do LDS folks know that the gospel disappeared from the earth upon the death of the original apostles? Is there any evidence of this? Can the LDS leadership be trusted when they make such a statement?
Finally, how do LDS members know which version of God that was taught by Joseph Smith was the real one? Was it the first version which pretty much patterned after the standard of orthodox Christianity or the fourth one where Smith declared God a former man and taught that men could become gods.
There are at least two sects of Mormonism that reject a good share, if not most of what Smith taught when he got into full mojo and began his creative experiment.
If I were a Mormon, I’d open my NT, read it, and put my trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and forget all of the foolishness that defines Mormonism.
Adam God Doctrine was a real problem for me. When I discovered it I sought answers from LDS. Some didn’t know a thing. Some said it was Young’s opinion. Other said he was right and its a higher truth that couldn’t be accepted by the faithless Saints so the Doctrine was removed until LDS could be faithful again (he said the same thing about Christ being killed because of polygamy). For me it came down to, either Brigham was wrong and was so far from being inspired he didn’t even know who God was (what kind of prophet is that), or he was right and the LDS Church is in a state of apostasy. Or they had some pretty confused secretaries recording things that never got corrected, which for me was a bit of a reach. My mind was finally free from this mess once I let go of Mormonism and found the real Jesus Christ.
As we can see, No LDS have replied yet, and I suspect they wont, If they do, it will be more of the same, just drive by’s like Alex or silkworm types.
When looking at historical matters, it’s a good practice to put one’s self in the context of that which is being commented on. When we examine BY and his preaching of doctrine, we must ask ourselves, “Can we reasonably accept the premise that BY dominated and controlled the church of which he was the head?” And, “Would he stand up in the pulpit of the Salt Lake Tabernacle and announce that he was to preach a sermon that was mere speculation on his part?”
Let’s look at the historical record:
“On April 9, 1852, Brigham Young, the second president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), rose to the pulpit of the Salt Lake Tabernacle and announced, “It is my intention to preach several discourses this evening, but how many I do not know.” During his speech President Young explained that he was going to speak on the character of the “well-beloved Son of God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have conflicting views.”
“At that particular moment it is doubtful that any of the people present realized that their prophet was about to give one of the most controversial sermons, not only of his life, but perhaps in the entire history of his church. Following a long one-paragraph introduction, Young proclaimed that Adam was Michael the Archangel, and that he was also the Ancient of Days. Young went on to conclude that Adam was, in fact, “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” In this message, Mormonism’s second president explained that Eve was only one of Adam’s wives and that Jesus Christ “was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.” Instead, Young said, He “was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven.”
“Let it also be noted that just four years before his death, Brigham Young declared it was God Himself who gave him the Adam-God doctrine. Apparently Young’s position on the matter was still an issue with some LDS members; otherwise he would not have had to ask, “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God…Our Father Adam is the man who stands at the gate and holds the keys of everlasting life and salvation to all his children who have or ever will come upon the earth” (Sermon delivered on June 8, 1873. Printed in the Deseret Weekly News, June 18, 1873.) How can a Latter-day Saint maintain this was just Brigham’s opinion when he insisted God gave him the teaching?”
BY said that Adam-God was “doctrine”. He didn’t back off and say it was just some speculation he was presenting as a theological exercise.
Conclusion:
“Brigham Young places the honest Latter-day Saint on the horns of a dilemma. If the Mormon wishes to claim Young as a true prophet, he must also accept his Adam-God teaching since a true prophet must have a correct theology concerning God (Deut. 13:1-3). If Young’s teaching is not accepted, then the Mormon must conclude that Brigham Young was a false prophet. The Mormon can’t have it both ways.”
For more link to: http://www.mrm.org/adam-god
The aspect that I find most interesting about BY’s Adam-God doctrine is the inclusion of Michael the Archangel as the Ancient of Days:
We Believe in Our God
We believe in our God, the Prince of his race,
The archangel Michael, the Ancient of Days
Our own Father Adam, earth’s Lord as is plain,
Who’ll counsel and fight for His children again.
– Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Sainsts, 11th edition, 1856, by Franklin D. Richards, Apostle, p. 375;
Sons of Michael, He Approaches
Sons of Michael, he approaches! Rise, the ancient Father greet;
Bow ye thousands, low before him; Minister before his feet;
Hail, hail the Patriarch’s glad reign, Hail, hail the Patriarch’s glad reign
Spreading over sea and main.
Sons of Michael, ‘tis his chariot Rolls its burning wheels along!
Raise aloft your voices million In a torrent power of song;
Hail, hail our Head with music soft! Hail, hail our Head with music soft!
Raise week melodies aloft!
Mother of our generations, Glorious by Great Michael’s side,
Take thy children’s adoration; Endless with thy Lord preside;
Lo, lo, to greet thee now advance, Lo, lo, to greet thee now advance
Thousands in the glorious dance!
Raise a chorus, sons of Michael, Like old Ocean’s roaring swell,
Till the mighty acclamation Through rebounding space doth tell
That, that the Ancient One doth reign, That, that the Ancient One may reign
In his Paradise again!
– 1948 LDS hymnal
This all set off a lot of speculation among the saints and brings into serious question if Mormons can trust their leaders…………………….which they can’t!
You know what? I had never heard the Adam God theory before until I came on this site. If I had than I more than likely would not have joined at all. I can’t believe all of the back flips and twists and turns a persons mind has to make in order to believe in Mormonism. If a person would just understand true scripture better than they would see that it can’t possibly be true. The thing is that all those prophets who preached a false doctrine, they will be judged twice for their teachings. I would hate to be in their shoes.
Old man,
I just replied back to you regarding the temple on the earlier posts.
Thank you catty 🙂
This doctrine was bolstered by in a church hymn , in repetitive preaching by the prophet , and
in the personal testimony ( inner witness ) of sincere LDS , officers and rank and file —-that’s a
pattern . It’s enough to allow us to see that Brigham Young drifted into error , and sadly did not
accept correction from the body of apostles under him . Brigham Young’s behavior is’nt that
unusual for prophets arising in the latter days , the Bible to them is an old ” has been” Standard
( Book of Mormon also ) with it’s testimony about God so it needs augmenting by these new prophets . We can read of the gradual drifting away into apostasy by Brigham Young between his
first preaching about God ( as a Missionary in 1832 ) then to Gods and Goddesses and then to
his Adam God doctrine . Those in his flock that embraced his false teaching were victims of a
broken trust , their prophet promised to guard them from inaccurate doctrines —he failed .
Paul’s words in 2 Tim 4:3-4 are for today , and we see this happen in the lives of the Mormon
people in Young’s flock .
Today , the Mormon people need to acknowledge Brigham Young believed and taught false
doctrine to his flock , it matters not how many embraced it because one is too many .
The way many influential Mormons through the years have tried to excuse his behavior is
telling , because some of their alibi’s are nothing short of dishonesty .
This doctrine , and the way it has been denied , dodged , by Mormons is a very good reason
why anyone should not join the Mormon church . Mormon leaders can create strange doctrines
at any time , it’s safer to anchor one’s belief’s about God in the Bible because it’s the bed rock
of the Christian faith .
cattyjane,
Your point about not joining the LDS church if you had known some of these things particularly “Adam-God” is well taken.
I’ve often thought there should be a requirement that things like this be disclosed to people before they join a religious organization. It would be like the “truth in lending” laws which protect people from hidden undisclosed charges and hikes in interest rates when they borrow money.
The LDS church has a built in escape clause claiming that they can’t tell people certain things until they’re ready. It’s simply a tactic used by the LDS church to seduce people into the cult making it more difficult for them to leave.
What’s gone on with the LDS church leaders is very typical of what cults and aberrant religious groups fall into. It’s all about sex, money and daffy religious doctrines. Smith satisfied his sexual desires by creating his precious doctrine of polygamy. BY became a wealthy man off of his religious connections. Finally, these so called prophets and apostles would dream stuff up and call it revelation no matter how often the wall it was.
Thank the Lord you have been set free from the influence of this religious cult.
Since no LDS person has speaken up yet, I would like to give the response my father gave to me when I tried to talk to him about this subject. He said that I was just confusing terminology. That Adam is being referred to as the father of this world. That when I think it is referring to Adam it isn’t (its referring to Heavenly Father) and when it is referring to Adam it is only referring to him as the father of this world and if we praise him it is because of the great deed he did in the Garden of Eden by allowing us to recieve bodies (something I do take great issue with). I can just see him picking apart any quote I give and telling me that I’m interpreting it wrong. The only quote I think he has a hard time with picking apart is, “our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.” And to that he would say they just recorded BY wrong. Or maybe he would say something like henis first in the family tree and will be crowned God before all of us and we owe becoming gods to him because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. He rejects that Adam-God was ever taught and that the places where it seems to be taught are just big misunderstandings of what is meant. I can’t get through the wall. Grindeal, is there anything you give people who say thing like that?
When someone proposes another god, it’s more than idolatry.
They are literally getting in the face of God and telling Him that they won’t bow to Him but they will have another god of their own choosing. In the case of Mormonism, we have a whole hearted rejection of God and men elevating themselves to His status.
Cleverly, this is done in such a way as to make it appear that this god of Mormonism, wants those that he has given spirit birth to in a pre-existence, to return to him having fashioned themselves into gods; into his likeness. This Mormon god is the proud papa declaring, “Well done good and faithful servants”.
This is of course a whole sale manipulation of the Word of God and a perversion of the Gospel message. It does give the Mormon cover, however, presenting God as the author of this scheme; giving His hearty approval and consent of His creation becoming, in a sense, a Creator.
The devil knows that he couldn’t propose something like this without camouflaging it in a form that would allow those who embrace it to think of themselves as superior in their spirituality and understanding.
Folks who buy into this sort of perversion are prideful and devoid of any sort of spiritual discernment.
The more convoluted and perverted a notion, the more they embrace it thinking that it’s their deep understanding that sets them apart from those who reject the message.
Brigham Young was one of the worst when it came to idle speculation and foolish pronouncements. His Adam-God doctrine was Joseph Smith on steroids.
We can only hope and pray that God will see fit to remove the spirit of delusion that covers the Mormon people. That God, through His Holy Spirit, will bring the Mormon people to a knowledge of Him and in so doing bring them to repentance, forgiveness and salvation.
jaxi,
This is a spiritual battle and it has to be waged in the heavenlies through prayer and might I add fasting.
The walls of resistance can only be broken down by the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul writes in Ephesians about this battle and I take it literally. There are strongholds and forces and diluting spirits. Actually your dad may be closer to being pushed out of the cult than you know.
I’d be in prayer asking God, through His Spirit, to free your dad from the bondage He is in. These Mormon people actually have spiritual chains binding them. They need to be loosed from this darkness and into the light of Christ.
For some reason, my posts have not been working.
So, I will keep it short as a test post.
Grindael- I see that you provide quotations from Brigham Young that provide a distinction between Elohim and Michael/Adam. That is the crux of the issue. And it is stated within these quotations that Michael or Adam is no Elohim.
The concepts that Adam is a god and the father of Jesus should not be too controversial given our doctrine on the faithful becoming gods and the fact that Adam was, in fact, the father of Jesus through Mary.
Thanks.
@fof
If we can twist it to mean whatever you claim it to be and that it’s not too controversial, then why is it considered blasphemy by president kimball? He said anyone who teaches this doctrine is wrong. He did not try and excuse or explain it away. He came out and said “it was wrong.”
You sir, are treading on dangerous ground defending Brighams folly.
FoF, what does that get you to differentiate Elohim and Adam? I noticed the distinction in the material Grindael presented, but it seems Adam, according, to Young, was to be our God in virtually every sense of the word.
I am not sure the distinction and differentiation between Elohim and Adam gets you much if Adam is to be our god.
MJP- the significance of this is is that the critics most often claim that we worship, or at least Brigham Young suggested, that Adam was actual Elohim whom we worship. And that is simply not the case.
We revere Adam as we do all prophets. And as the first man on earth, we do place significant distinction upon him as the father of the human family. But that is totally different from being “our god.” Even considering the fact that the Doctrine and Covenants states that Adam, with others, has been crowned a god through the atonement of Christ.
The main point of my post was that Grindael was making a different argument than critics most often do. And I give him credit for that. We do not believe Adam was/is Elohim, our Eternal Father.
@fof
And yet even if you make the distinction, it’s obvious that Brigham young was gradually trying to “erase” that distinction. Hence Pres. Kimball clearly nipping it in the bud.
Trying to justify Brighams false doctrine is wrong. Adam is not our God. Brigham clearly taught that Adam was “our” God. He was wrong. The end
@fof
Adding to this is the fact that you point out that “some” critics claim we worship Adam as Elohim and that Brigham taught as much. I have never seen that in any real critical sites at all. The only reason you can bodly claim that “this is simply not the case” is due to the fact that the church leaders stopped this teaching from spreading and gaining any legs. Although from the looks of it , they didn’t have to try too hard in convincing people to ditch it. It seems most members back then all replied to Brighams teaching with a loud and boisterous “what the what?!”
And then, I suppose, Elohim Sr. or ?? is our eternal grandfather. Think I’m starting to get it.
@Steve9531
Haha… exactly. You just have to start redefining your terms. It’s like a certain president said “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Grindale, I worked with Ogden Kraut for a few years. His family still has a web site and sells Mormon Fundamentalist literature. I am going to risk posting a link to a little YouTube video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjXUqFjqnlU This is the portion of the Endowment ceremony that has been presented for over 100 years. Mormon doctrine is clearly presented at the 1:40 minuet mark. Elohim speaks to Jehovia about Michael. Three separate personages. Michael has been a companion and co-creator (Organizer) with Jehovia throughout five Creative Days then on the Sixth Michael becomes Adam. Michael is spoken to, co-creates the Earth, Light, Water, plant life, Animal life and then becomes Adam. This version of the Endowment was written by Brigham Young and has been accepted by every Missionary, Seventy, Apostle and Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. It is impossible to deny that Michael is a God and that Adam was Michel in every Temple Endowment Session. Michael must be considered the fourth member of the Mormon Godhead. This video does not reveal any Names, Signs, or Tokens. There is nothing symbolic about it.
FOF,
I see your point, but you are missing one. Brigham Young said that Adam was the Father of all men’s SPIRITS, including Jesus. He is not only the Father of mortal man as being the first man. Brigham taught that Adam was already an exalted man when he went into the Garden of Eden. This is what you are not addressing, and your explanation does not work. The chain of gods according to Young was Michael/Adam (the direct God of this world, the Father of Spirits) – Yahovah (not Christ) – and Elohim, the “grandfather god”. Young also said it did not matter which one we worship because we are all of the same “species”.
LWG,
So we got Elohim, Jehova, Micheal, Holy Ghost. That’s four. And where is Heavenly Mother in all this? Does she count? Or are women just baby making machines like queen ants or soemthing off Aliens. But if its not totally sexist than, That would be five, right? and that’s if there is only one Heavenly Mother, there might be many. So at least 5 or more in the Godhead. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWrGThQJejw
And if you watch the episode of Polygamy What Love Is This? There is an interesting conclusion about 22 minutes made by a former LDS Bishop that makes the Counsel of Gods or God Head even bigger! So since God is just propagating his own species, where is the start of this mess? Or is it really one eternal round as so many claim and today’s Mormons are really the eventual grandparent of the Heavenly Father?
LGW,
Thanks for the reply and link. Brigham Young taught that there were two Godheads. The one from pre-earth, that created the earth, Elohim – Yahovah – Michael/Adam, and the second, Michael, Jesus and the Holy Spirit FOR THIS EARTH. Adam, as a newly exalted God, had his father Yahovah and his grandfather Elohim, help him create this earth. Then, Adam falls and starts the mortal machinery for his spirit children, with Jesus as “Savior” in a long line of Saviors of worlds. Adam and his children, said Young, knew about the “grandfather”, Elohim, who is the one who was in the garden with Adam/Michael after he partook of mortal foods and fell. Jesus, as the Savior and firstborn, inherits this world, that is why Adam (while he was here was subservient to Christ), because Christ will inherit this world and was appointed “Savior” of it, and his father (Adam – the Ancient of Days) turns all over to his firstborn son at the end of the earth cycle. It’s not about seniority, it’s about priesthood keys, and all the keys will be given to Christ FOR THIS EARTH.
@grindael
The Holy Ghost is the odd man out in this God party. Poor old Holy Ghost. How come father Adam God, oops I mean grandpa Elohim, couldn’t find a way to let the Holy Ghost get a body like everyone else? Seems like Holy Ghost gets a bum deal in this plan of salvation.
Get your adam ondi ahman hats on boys and girls!
@Grindael, I agree with the whole idea of the keys being passed as that has been taught, but couldn’t seniority technically still be part of it seeing as Christ was spiritually the first born?
Makes you wonder when Lucifer was born spiritually, and where he fits into this. Some have said he was second to Christ in spiritual birth, or possibly even first, but blew his birthright by being a big show off and wanting to hog all the glory.
JB,
The Holy Ghost in Mormonism was a late addition. In Jo’s early teachings he was “the mind of God”. Not a person at all. Jo then reinvented his doctrine to fit him in. This was not all fleshed out until the beginning of the 20th Century, when Jesus was transformed into Jehovah.
Johhnyboy
Lucifer as a personage doesn’t exist, the name has arisen due to the mistranslation of a passage in Isaiah. That fact alone is proof that the Biblical passages in the BofM were simply copied from the King James Bible which contained the error. Lucifer isn’t to be found in any modern translation. The person referred to by Isaiah was actually the King of Babylon. If you require any further information I’ll be happy to provide it 🙂
Grindael- Once again you have highlighted some of the key distinctions in Brigham’s theology. I wanted to re-post some citations you posted in the thread “There is a Difference between Truth and Error”, you posted-
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God.” (Deseret News, June 18, 1873.)
Young explicitly states that Adam God is a REVELATION. He also said,
“Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism from [sic.] the dead instead Joseph Smith there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb as*.” Manuscript Addresses of Brigham Young. Watt, G.D., transcriber, October 8, 1861.
There is no ambiguity in these plain and straight forward statements, in other words his intent is clear. The original intent of Brigham’s revelation is fundamentally helpful to understanding that what these men taught to their flocks and how their flocks viewed them was just as important to how modern LDS view and interact with their prophets. We know there were disagreements and rebellion against this subject among Brigham and the other ‘seers’ he surrounded himself with e.g. Orson Pratt. So the matter becomes a much deeper issue for the LDS faithful, Brigham Young either is a prophet with the mantle of Priesthood authority or he was a false prophet leading the Mormons into a state of apostasy. Or you can have it both ways like the Mormon apostle Bruce R McConkie explained in a letter of rebuke to former BYU professor Eugene England, it reads in part-
“…people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us…Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the 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.”
I think we can let those being led by the Spirit of God to decide who is in error and those abiding in the Truth.
One other note, there are ‘critics’ attacking the integrity of people on this site, without evidence of dishonesty, that are presenting the other side of the Mormon story. These apologists frequently defend a lot of questionable behavioral patterns of their prophets leading the Mormon people astray yet fail to publicly admit their prophet’s integrity, while it’s clear to many that it is open to criticism. Why is this? The answer, they are masters of cognitive dissonance; those who have broken the chains of that condition are placing their trust in God almighty.
@faithoffathers
Would you be able to clarify/explain Prophet Young’s statement:
“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.” (JOD 1:50-51)
And further on: “It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum, as in all heavenly bodies, and in organizing element, perfectly represented in the Deity, as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.” (JOD 1:50-51)
OK you guys. STOP IT!!!! You’re making my head hurt. Or like James Dean in “Rebel Without A Cause”, “You’re driving me crazy!”
I need a visual. Something that will let me see the relationships here; arrows, boxes, circles etc.
The first time I heard this Michael the Archangel business was listening to Ann Wilde in an interview with John Dehlin for “Mormon Stories”. Now that babe knew her Mormonism inside and out and could riff like BB King on his guitar. I believe she was Ogden Kraut’s plural wife. She had a very interesting life story. Here’s the YouTube link to part one of the interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggq632Z6E24
This gal would bury FOF and the rest of the TBMs with her knowledge of Mormonism and unabashed defense of (Mormon) fundamentalism. She thinks the LDS church went into apostasy. In a way, I find these fundamentalist refreshing, nutty, but refreshing.
Old Man, said: “Lucifer as a personage doesn’t exist,…”
I would like to clarify the importance of this statement for Endowed LDS and all their leaders. The Endowment Ceremony identifies Lucifer for most of the interaction between Adam and Eve in the Garden and then later in the Lone and Dreary world. But in the exchanges between Elohim and Jehovia in the CK, Lucifer is referred to as Satan as in “We found Satan there… See if Satan is there…Cast Satan out… “It is only after Lucifer confronts Peter the question “Do you have any money?” and the statement “You can buy anything in this world for money!” Then Peter says: Satan, we command you to Depart! Lucifer responds: “By what authority!”
The Endowment teaches that they are the same person.
I understand and agree with you about the biblical Lucifer.
The LDS leaders must follow the Endowment model. If the Brigham Young codified Endowment collapses all authority/keys collapse. Marriages are nullified and Forever Families fall, Culture l and Theology falls. I think the Endowment is the weakest link the LDS are dealing with. It has been exposed for just what it is!
The entire endowment video is on You Tube search newnamenoah channel. Both English and Spanish. http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQQAByHVqmp2DGkMk5SsOZw
Let’s face it, Mormons have their backs against the proverbial wall when it comes to defining just exactly this religious fantasy is. In-other-words, Mormonism is not well defined. So “button-button-whose-got-the-doctrinal button” when it comes to Mormonism?
I still get a kick out of these Mormon’s who show-up here, telling us we don’t know anything about Mormonism, and then giving their rendition of what (Mormonism) is. It all pretty much sounds like the themes school kids are writing this week titled “How I Spent My Summer Vacation”. In-other-words, it’s pretty much “whatever” as our Mormon posters just fill it all up with their own meaning.
Hence we get these lame pronouncements about what BY really meant, as if it’s not really plain. But it’s not what the faithful Mormon can fit into their own religious narrative so they shape it to fit their own desires.
grindael has done a marvelous job with this article and his follow-up comments. I think the Mormon posters would be better off just reading and not commenting. The comments made by the LDS types just exposes their ignorance and their inability to think and process information in a normal fashion.
So, Adam-God is our God, an exalted man who comes to this planet with one of his exalted, plural wives after creating this planet and sexually begetting all of us spirit children. Then, in the garden he re-enters mortality by eating the forbidden fruit that, what?, he himself forbade? Then, he dies a mortal death a second time, and what? enters the spirit world? God, a fallen, rebellious man? for the second time?
Along comes Jesus, who is the first to be resurrected, even before the re-moralized Adam-God.
One question, if Adam-God is our God and the father of our spirits, who, pray tell, had tangible, flesh-and-bone sex with Mary in order to produce Jesus? It couldn’t be Adam-God. He’s dead and awaiting re-resurrection through his son , Jesus.
falcon, my head hurts, too. And to think I was mesmerized by the Adam/God doctrine when one of our Language Training Mission instructors taught a lesson on it in priesthood meeting to a gaggle of us green missionaries in Provo during the fall of 1973. And he didn’t teach the doctrine as something false or as something from which to protect the church. He taught it as a truth, a deeper truth, that came through the Prophet Brigham Young.
Pale,
It is also instructive to read what those that experienced Young’s teachings wrote, like Eliza R. Snow, who I quoted above. Franklin D. and Samuel L. Richards who both edited the Millennial Star in England also affirmed the teaching as did many others that we have records of. It is not a matter of just what Brigham taught, it is also a matter of how it was interpreted by those that heard it. It is what it is. I think it is instructive to reproduce Young’s entire 1873 discourse here, (and a link to the actual Deseret News edition) because it is a brilliant summation of his Adam God doctrine, perfected by over twenty years of teaching it. I have never seen any Mormon Apologist, or any Mormon “apostle” or “prophet” quote it at length. They totally ignore it. This is no “theory” that critics or the Fundamentalists have made up, this is Young’s REVELATION to the Church about God:
[The first part of Young’s discourse was about the use of liquor]
Young’s teachings were well understood by others. For example, Franklin D. Richards wrote this for the Millennial Star in 1854:
Heber C. Kimball taught,
Notice that Kimball speaks of us going to other earths, the one, for example that Adam came from, that Eloheim came from, from where Jehovah the Lord came from… and says no, we will not. Those are their earths, not this one. Those are the earths of the Hierarchy of Gods: Adam and the Grandfather God, Eloheim.
Joseph L. Robinson wrote,
This was easy for these men to understand. And here you see that Orson Pratt did not agree. If Young was teaching something that was innocuous, why would they worry that Pratt would apostatize? Pratt had the same view as Mormons do today, and we see that over and over he was said to be wrong.
James Beck wrote in 1861,
Not so. Young taught,
In 1877 Young related this teaching to L. John Nuttal, to be used at the Veil Lecture,
@grindael
The whole “who resurrected who” speech is so mind bogglingly retarded that I am literally sitting in front of my computer with my mouth gaping open at it’s utter stupidity.
WHAT THE WHAT????????????????????????
Wow… I never have read that quote. This goes WAY beyond what I even imagined adam god doctrine to be. And it’s all said with the condescending tonality of “I KNOW MORE THAN YOU-OOOH… NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!”
Gimme a freaking break people!
I love how lds are always saying we misquote everything and we are cluless. So where are the lds? They know we are correct on this and they cannot defend it, so they don’t reply and choose to believe what they want. This is just like the four part trinity topic. They also avoided that and when I asked why, they said, its not a topic we care about.
Maybe I missed it but when did the Mormon god Adam/Michael the Archangel/Ancient of Days, “beget” Jesus in the pre-existence? Did he do it before he came to earth as Adam or after?
I told you guys, I need a visual, a flow chart with each of the players defined and their roles.
You know I think what guys like BY did was start mentally meandering and got so entangled in their own web of convoluted thinking that pretty soon they just threw-up their hands and claim that the listeners just didn’t get it!
But on thing is for sure, this was Mormonism of that era. That’s why when Mormons start to explore it they either just ignore it, to save their sanity and faith in the Mormon system or wonder why these plain and precious truths are no longer viable?
That’s what happened to Ann Wilde who at one point of her life was the Secretary to the president of BYU. This goes back to the 1950s by my calculation. She came to see that the current day LDS church had gone into apostasy because it tubed these “truths”.
So my point, that I made in another post; can anyone identify real Mormonism and the real restored gospel? The SLC LDS, Community of Christ, Church of Christ and the FLDS are all totally different animals. They can’t all have the Mormon truth.
For my money, the SLC LDS isn’t even in the ball game. They don’t know where they’re at wanting badly to hold on to some hybrid version of Mormonism while at the same time trying to pretend that they are Christians. What they are is a religious corporation that’s a cash cow that depends on keeping its members ignorant and submissive.
Many years ago I was exposed to the teachings of the Word of Faith movement.
I’d read their literature, look in the Bible and couldn’t figure out how they were getting their “techniques” for application of faith from the Bible verses they quoted. In addition to this, they teach many aberrant views of the nature of God that are totally unBiblical.
Well this lead me into almost a fanatical study of basic Christian doctrine. That led me into being interested in Christian apologetics as it applied to aberrant heretical groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses.
When I look at our topic here, BY’s “Adam-God” doctrine, I don’t have to get passed much more than a sentence or two to see how totally nuts (BY) was. A person wouldn’t have to be too steeped in understanding Christian doctrine to determine that Young was a religious loose cannon.
Why these SLC LDS folks don’t see it is beyond me. They are basically paying 10% of their income for the “privilege” of doing a whole lot of work within the Mormon temples to garner for themselves something that doesn’t exist.
They wouldn’t even have to do a “compare and contrast” study of the differences between their religion and Biblical Christianity to call their faith into question. All they’d have to do is a study of Mormonism and the various doctrines of the various sects of this movement to see that something isn’t right.
BY was an evil, evil man.
We lived in St George for five years (apparently named after BY’s good friend). We went out to the Mountain Meadows Massacre site one day, and it sent me on a search into who BY was and what role he had in the entire thing. This uncovered many other horrible things about the man. Like Castrating young men, poisoning water holes, the “bee hives”, and when things went sour, he lied about it all. He was a full fledged tyrant. I am honestly not positive about how true some of the stuff is but after learning about his behavior in many other instances I would not be surprised.
So lets name a University after him…
I don’t know if Young was evil, but I do think he was manipulative, and that he clearly taught Adam was our god in every sense of the word.
The LDS reaction to his teaching is in line with about everything else I have seen from the LDS addressing controversial positions in the past: deny it, excuse it, ignore it, sweep it under the rug. Young, to present LDS, could not have meant that Adam is our god in every sense of the word. It’s just not possible. Yet, his words are clear. It takes some mental contortions to work around them.
Alas. LDS are loyal and dedicated. That’s noble. But I wonder at what point does a red flag start to go up for many of these people? At what point will they start to see something wrong?
Hey Falcon, I asked my friend Bart P. (Of Mormon Infographics) to help with a chart. Perhaps we can both work something up.
Johnnyboy,
The resurrection part of the Adam God doctrine by Young is one of the things that is little known by Mormons. I tried to bring this up to FOF, (months ago) but you know how that went. Jesus did not have power to resurrect himself according to Mormonism, (Brigham is right here), because no one can exercise the keys to something that they don’t have. Mormons will claim that their religion is “progressive” but then only apply that selectively. As you see, Franklin D. Richards, states emphatically that there are “truths” that just aren’t in the Bible. Aren’t found anywhere in Mormon “scripture” and are unverifiable. But this is not enough for Mormons today, and yet they will acknowledge that this is ok when it is Jo Smith who gave them. If Young had the “keys” then Young had the right to give revelation for the church and he knew it. In the October 8, 1854 discourse Young also said,
He had fleshed this out by 1877 and said that Adam and Eve “returned to the Spirit World”, so that Adam could father Jesus. Think about it. Can any Mormon baptize anyone who has not been baptized by one with Priesthood Authority and then been given the authority to so so? No. It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. This takes it out of the hands of Christ and puts it back in the realm of PRIESTHOOD. This is what I have said all along, that Mormon PRIESTHOOD TRUMPS ALL THE GODS, because they cannot function without it. It is their LAW. They must bow down to the LAW of the PRIESTHOOD. Just as, (according to Young, a bona fide Mormon “prophet”), the gods are ALWAYS PROGRESSING and do not have “all knowledge” they also must have and attain certain “keys” to operate. These are conferred as a bridge to “exaltation”. Young also said,
When you get your resurrection, you are not yet exalted, but, by and by, the Lord Jesus Christ, our Elder Brother, the Savior of the world, the heir of the family, when he has put down Satan and destroyed death, then he will say, come let us go home into the presence of the Father. What will become of the world then? It will be baptized with fire. It has been baptized with water, and it will then be cleansed by fire, and become like a sea of glass, and be made Celestial; and Jesus Christ, our Elder Brother, will take the whole earth, with all the saints, and go with them to the Father, even to Adam; and you will continue to receive more and more intelligence, glory, exaltation, and power. (ibid, above)
If you think the Mormon Priesthood on earth is complicated, then think of billions of these gods, each in varying degrees of “exaltation” running around the time continuum. These are principles that Mormons love to say their “prophets” know nothing about, but that Young said, “was no mystery to me”. Why are they not forthcoming now? They wouldn’t dare. It would expose just how different Mormonism is to Christianity. Jesus is just another “Savior” to a world where there are countless others and each FIRSTBORN to each new “god” must submit to becoming one, to die a horrible death to save each world because each “god” has to fall to start up the exaltation mechanism. Why? Because it has always been done that way, just like there is no “first cause” or first “god”. If you don’t accept this, then as Young said, You are ignorant like the dumb as*.
@grindael,
Now that this doctrine is laid plainly before the true blue mormons on here, it’s impossible for them to deny it. Even with Mormon justification it remains difficult to go against what Brigham says regarding the subject. Hell, he even quotes JESUS and tries to explain that the lord was wrong when he said he could raise himself. That takes some major MAJOR balls. Like beehive sized balls.
I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the priesthood. I have always understood it to mean that God was constrained by the priesthood. I am amazed at any mormon who believes otherwise or argues that mormonism doesn’t teach this. It does. It is clearly taught in sunday school and gospel doctrine classes. I have heard it taught throughout my life. The funny thing is Joseph Smith for some reason went against this order of keys when he baptized himself and Oliver without having the authority to do so. UH OH! time for a re-do! Whats great is some apologist would rationalize this by thinking ” SEE! joseph realized his fault.. and was re-baptized under the proper authority. The church is true!”
I completely thought that God being subservient to the Law of the Priesthood was perfectly fine and in accordance with the Gospel. The thought never occurred to me that this was blasphemy in any way. This is the kind of mental trickery I don’t have to do to myself anymore.