Difference between revisions of "Brigham Young and Adam-God theory"

m (→‎FAIR wiki articles)
m (→‎Apologetics: Punctuation)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
*LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume ''Brigham Young Addresses'', has taken a different and unique approach. He believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), and that the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context. ([http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/7AdamGod.htm "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God"])
 
*LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume ''Brigham Young Addresses'', has taken a different and unique approach. He believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), and that the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context. ([http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/7AdamGod.htm "Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God"])
 
*A third approach, championed by LDS apologist Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken. Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. ([http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm "What About the Adam-God Theory?"])
 
*A third approach, championed by LDS apologist Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken. Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. ([http://www.lightplanet.com/response/adam-god.htm "What About the Adam-God Theory?"])
−
*A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it. Stephen E. Robinson takes this approach when he writes:
+
*A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.
  
−
:Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch...A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute-we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here...For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.{{ref|robinson1}}  
+
BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson incorporated the last two explanations into a synthesized approach:
 +
 
 +
:Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.{{ref|robinson1}}
  
 
==Conclusion==
 
==Conclusion==

Revision as of 03:28, 19 November 2005

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

Critics accuse Brigham Young of teaching that Adam, the first man, was actually God the Father. Since this teaching runs counter to the story told in Genesis and accepted by Christians, critics accuse Brigham of being a false prophet. Also, because modern Latter-day Saints do not believe Brigham's "Adam-God" teachings, critics accuse Mormons of either changing their teachings or rejecting teachings of prophets they find uncomfortable or unsupportable.

Source(s) of the Criticism

Response

Origins

Brigham Young gave over 1,500 sermons that were recorded by transcribers. Many of these were published in the Journal of Discourses, the Deseret Evening News, and other Church publications. In about 20 of these he brought up the subject of God the Father's relationship to Adam. Most of his comments fit easily into current LDS doctrine, while a few of them have engendered some controversy.

He made the best known, and probably earliest, controversial statement in a sermon given on 9 April 1852:

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 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. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later. They came here, organized the raw material, and arranged in their order the herbs of the field, the trees, the apple, the peach, the plum, the pear, and every other fruit that is desirable and good for man; the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. The thistle, the thorn, the brier, and the obnoxious weed did not appear until after the earth was cursed. When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal.[1]

Based on these remarks, and others like them, it is evident that Brigham Young's understanding of the relationship between God and Adam was different from the one that has been accepted by most Mormons.

The historical record indicates that some contemporary Latter-day Saints took Brigham's teachings at face value and attempted to incorporate the doctrine into mainstream LDS teachings. This response was far from universal, however, and lost steam after the turn of the 20th century.

Adam-God eventually was incorporated into the teaching of polygamous Mormon offshoots, who consider it a doctrine whose absence in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is proof that the Church is in apostasy.

As far as can be determined, none of Brigham Young's successors in the presidency of the Church continued this teaching, and by the presidency of Joseph F. Smith (1901–1918) there were active moves to put down small groups that taught Adam-God.

One of the earliest statements from the Church was made by Charles W. Penrose of the First Presidency in 1902:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never formulated or adopted any theory concerning the subject treated upon by President Young as to Adam.[2]

In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball declared the Church's official position on Adam-God:

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[3]

Apologetics

There have been a number of attempts to explain Brigham Young's comments and harmonize them with mainstream LDS thought.

  • The most well-known is the approach taken by Joseph Fielding Smith that Brigham was speaking of Adam in the context of him being the presiding priesthood holder over all the human family, and therefore "our Father and our God", similar to how Moses was called a god to Aaron and Pharaoh (Exodus 4:16; 7:1). However, it is difficult to reconcile President Smith's explanation with all of Brigham's Adam-God sermons and how the Saints in Brigham's day understood them.
  • LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, has taken a different and unique approach. He believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), and that the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context. ("Different Thoughts #7: Adam-God")
  • A third approach, championed by LDS apologist Van Hale, is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, but that he was mistaken. Prophets are human beings and like anyone may misunderstand complex doctrinal subjects, especially ones on which there has been little or no revelation. ("What About the Adam-God Theory?")
  • A final explanation is that Brigham Young believed and taught Adam-God, and what he taught was possibly true, but he didn't see fit to explain all he knew or didn't live long enough to develop the teaching into something that could be reconciled with LDS scripture and presented as official doctrine. In this view, we simply don't know what Brigham Young meant, and modern leaders have warned us about accepting traditional explanations of Adam-God, so we should just leave that belief "on the shelf" until the Lord sees fit to reveal more about it.

BYU professor Stephen E. Robinson incorporated the last two explanations into a synthesized approach:

Yet another way in which anti-Mormon critics often misrepresent LDS doctrine is in the presentation of anomalies as though they were the doctrine of the Church. Anomalies occur in every field of human endeavor, even in science. An anomaly is something unexpected that cannot be explained by the existing laws or theories, but which does not constitute evidence for changing the laws and theories. An anomaly is a glitch.... A classic example of an anomaly in the LDS tradition is the so-called "Adam-God theory." During the latter half of the nineteenth century Brigham Young made some remarks about the relationship between Adam and God that the Latter-day Saints have never been able to understand. The reported statements conflict with LDS teachings before and after Brigham Young, as well as with statements of President Young himself during the same period of time. So how do Latter-day Saints deal with the phenomenon? We don't; we simply set it aside. It is an anomaly. On occasion my colleagues and I at Brigham Young University have tried to figure out what Brigham Young might have actually said and what it might have meant, but the attempts have always failed. The reported statements simply do not compute—we cannot make sense out of them. This is not a matter of believing it or disbelieving it; we simply don't know what "it" is. If Brigham Young were here we could ask him what he actually said and what he meant by it, but he is not here.... For the Latter-day Saints, however, the point is moot, since whatever Brigham Young said, true or false, was never presented to the Church for a sustaining vote. It was not then and is not now a doctrine of the Church, and...the Church has merely set the phenomenon aside as an anomaly.[4]

Conclusion

Regardless of which approach the reader prefers to accept, the Church's official position on Adam-God is clear: As popularly understood ("Adam, the first man, was God the Father"), Adam-God is not the doctrine of the Church.

Endnotes

  1. [note] Brigham Young, "Discourse," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt (9 April 1852), Vol. 1 (London: Latter-day Saint's Book Depot, 1854), 50–51.off-site wiki (Emphasis in the original.)
  2. [note] Charles W. Penrose, "Our Father Adam," Improvement Era (September 1902), 873. reprinted in Charles W. Penrose, "Our Father Adam," Millennial Star (11 December 1902), 785–90. (this paragraph from p. 789).
  3. [note] Spencer W. Kimball, "x," Ensign (November 1976): 77.
  4. [note] Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1993). off-site FAIR link See pages 18–21.GospeLink

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

FAIR web site

External links


Printed material

  • Mark E. Petersen, Adam: Who Is He? Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976, 96 pp. ISBN 087747592X
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Brigham_Young_and_Adam-God_theory&oldid=2383"