Conference tecrus::mormonism

While visiting relatives in Salt Lake City last summer, I researched the
sermons of Brigham Young concerning his statement that Adam was a God.
Through the facilities of the Public Library, I was able to study the
Journal of Discourses (I since have purchased my own set), early issues
of the Deseret News, and a Church publication called the Millennial Star.

In a few days, as soon as I can formally describe my research results, I will
post my findings to this note.  Until that happens, I am keeping the note
write-locked because I want to provide a background of information as a basis
of discussion.

After providing the background, I will remove the write-lock and delete this
reply.  This will be done before I post my own opinions about the topic.

Allen

  -- moderator

As we must study the Bible in context with itself, so must we study history in
context with itself.  If we take isolated passages, we can easily misconstrue
the correct meaning of the passages.

Thus, in order to understand what Brigham Young really did teach about God, we
must look at sermons and writings that cover his entire career, not just at a
few passages from one talk.  In addition, we must understand the basic
doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints about God and the
nature of man.

My plan is to first present background information about God and Adam from
both the viewpoint of the Church and from Brigham Young.  I will next review
the LDS vision of the destiny of man.  Finally, I will present from original
sources the statements by President Young about Adam which are involved in the
controversy of Adam-God.

At that point, I will release the write-lock and open the note for general
discussion.  Hopefully, this background information will enable us to have a
rational discussion without the confusion that has often accompanied
discussions of this topic, confusion that has existed in both the Mormon and
anti-Mormon camps.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there is a
Godhead or group consisting of the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.
These three glorified personages are separate and distinct but one in unity
and purpose.  The term "God" can correctly be applied to each individually or
to the group collectively.

The Father and Jesus Christ both have glorified bodies of flesh and bone while
the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit.  The Holy Ghost acts as a messenger
or minister for the Godhead, bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, bringing
revelations from the Godhead, and bringing comfort and guidance.

The Father is our Heavenly Father in that He is the father of our spirits.  In
addition He is the father of Jesus' physical body.

Jesus Christ, being the only begotten of God in the flesh, lived a perfect
life and performed his Atonement providing the resurrection from the grave and
forgiveness and removal of sin.  He acts as a mediator and intercedes with the
Father in our behalf.

Adam is not a member of the Godhead but was the first man to be created and is
thus the father of the human race.  Prior to the creation of the earth and his
creation as Adam he was known as Michael.  Through his partaking of the
forbidden fruit in the Garden, the earth was changed from an immortal or
eternal state to a condition of mortality in which sin and death could exist.
Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, death is overcome through the
resurrection, sin was overcome through the blood of Christ, and the earth will
eventually be returned to a condition of immortality as it was in the Garden
of Eden.

Note 4 discusses this in more detail.

Every good and perfect gift cometh from God.  Every discovery in science and
art, that is really true and useful to mankind has been given by direct
revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it.
(Journal of Discourses 11:41)

He is our Heavenly Father; he is also our God, and the Maker and upholder of
all things in heaven and on earth.  He sends forth his counsels and extends
his providences to all living.  He is the Supreme Controller of the universe.
At his rebuke the sea is dried up, and the rivers become a wilderness.  He
measures the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meteth out heaven with a
span, and comprehendeth the dust of the earth in a measure, and weigheth the
mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance; the nations to him are as a
drop in a bucket, and he taketh up the isles as a very little thing; the hairs
of our heads are numbered by him, and not a sparrow falleth to the ground
without our Father; and he knoweth every thought and intent of the hearts of
all living, for he is everywhere present by the power of his Spirit--his
minister, the Holy Ghost.  He is the Father of all, is above all through all,
and in you all; he knoweth all things pertaining to this earth, and he knows
all things pertaining to millions of earths like this.  (JD 11:31)

If there is anything that is great and good and wise among men, it cometh from
God.  If there are men who possess great ability as statesmen, or as
philosophers, or who possess remarkable scientific knowledge and skill, the
credit belongs to God...  (JD 11:123)

All that the Lord requires of us is a perfect submission in our hearts to his
will.  (JD 18:238)

We are nothing, only what the Lord makes us.  (JD 5:343)

We believe in one God, one Mediator and one Holy Ghost.  (JD 10:192)

I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted
with God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim.  You are all well acquainted
with Him, for there is not a soul of you but what has lived in His house and
dwelt with Him year after year; and yet you are seeking to become acquainted
with Him, when the fact is, you have merely forgotten what you did know....

If you do not believe it, cease to call Him Father; and when you pray, pray
to some other character.  (JD 4:216)

Our faith is concentrated in the Son of God, and through him in the Father;
and the Holy Ghost is their minister to bring truths to our remembrance, to
reveal new truths to us, and teach, guide, and direct the course of every
mind, until be become perfected and prepared to go him, where we can see and
converse with our Father in Heaven.  (JD 6:98)

Jesus is our captain and leader, Jesus, the Savior of the world--the Christ
that we believe in.  (JD 14:118)

I testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the world; I
have obeyed his sayings, and realized his promise, and the knowledge I have of
him, the wisdom of this world cannot give, neither can it take away.
(JD 18:233)

My faith is placed upon the Lord Jesus Christ, and my knowledge I have
received from him.  (JD 3:155)

Our Lord Jesus Christ--the Saviour, who has redeemed the world and all things
pertaining to it, is the Only Begotten of the Father pertaining to the flesh.
He is our Elder Brother, and the Heir of the family, and as such we worship
him.  He has tasted death for every man, and has paid the debt contracted by
our first parents.  (JD 12:69)

And what shall we say of our Heavenly Father?  He is also a man in perfection,
and the father of the man Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits;
(JD 11:42)

The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit of the Lord Jesus
Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the flesh.  (JD 7:286)

The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who
is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between
Jesus Christ and you and me.  (JD 4:218)

All who will take this course will know by revelation that God is our Father;
they will understand the relationship they hold to him and to their fellow-
beings.  The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?"  But the Gospel
tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we serve.  Some
may say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve."  So we are, and they are the
children of our Heavenly Father.  We are all the children of Adam and Eve,
and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens, the
highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of.
(Journal of Discourses 13:311)

I shall...refer to our first parents, Adam and Eve, who were found in the
Garden of Eden, tempted and overcome by the power of evil, and consequently
subject to evil and sin, which was the penalty of their transgression.  They
were now prepared, as we are, to form bodies or tabernacles for the reception
of pure and holy spirits.

When Father Adam came to assist in organizing the earth out of the crude
material that was found, an earth was made upon which the children of men
could live.  After the earth was prepared Father Adam came and stayed here,
and there was a woman brought to him.  There was a certain woman brought to
Father Adam whose name was Eve, because she was the first woman, and she was
given to him to be his wife.  (JD 16:167)

It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind,
as we know one another.  Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him
upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents.  The Father
frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him;
(JD 9:148)

We all belong to the races which have spring from Father Adam and Mother Eve;
(JD 14:111)

The Lord sent forth his Gospel to the people; he said, I will give it to my
son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; 3:94)

"What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him
in the Garden of Eden?"  Before he had time to reply, I asked him what
resemblance Jesus bore to man, in his incarnation? and, "Do you believe Moses,
who said the Lord made Adam in His own image, and after His own likeness?
This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide, that the
Lord made Adam like Himself, and the Saviour we read of was made to look so
like Him, that he was the express image of His person?"
(Millennial Star, July 8, 1854, p. 431)

We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the Earth.  Who is he?
He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "Go ye and
make an earth."  What is the great mystery about it?  He came and formed the
earth.  (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

As discussed in detail in note 4, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints teaches that each of us are a child of God.  When we pray to our
Heavenly Father, we address Him as "Father" because He is the father of
our spirits.

We lived with God in Heaven prior to being born into mortality.  While there
we learned and progressed.  The time came, however, when in the wisdom of God
it was necessary for us to leave His presence and live by faith.

Our time in mortality is a time of growth.  We are experiencing both good and
evil influences, and we are using our free agency to choose which we will
follow.  We are living by faith and learning to recognize spiritual influences
from God and to trust them.  We are learning to be more like the Savior Jesus
Christ.

After death, our spirits go to a place of waiting, until they are again
reunited with our physical bodies in the resurrection.  During this time,
those who have not had a full chance to hear of Christ receive that chance
while waiting as spirits.  

After the resurrection, we stand before God and receive in His judgment to our
place in His "many mansions".  Those who receive the grandest judgment become
heirs with God and joint heirs with Christ and have fulfilled the Savior's
commandment to become perfect.  As Peter said, they have partaken of the divine
nature.  They have received all that the Father hath.  They have become gods.

This is explained in more detail in notes 4.50 through 4.68, and many Biblical
references are given in those notes.

[His discourse consisted of several short sermons on various topics.  Given
below is his sermon about God and Adam]

My next sermon will be to both Saint and sinner.  One thing has remained a
mystery in this kingdom up to this day.  It is in regard to the character of
the well-beloved Son of God, upon which subject the Elders of Israel have
conflicting views.  Our God and Father in heaven, is a being of tabernacle,
or in other words, He has a body, with parts the same as you and I have;
and is capable of showing forth His works to organized beings, as, for
instance, in the world in which we live, it is the result of the knowledge
and infinite wisdom that dwell in His organized body.  His son Jesus Christ
has become a personage of tabernacle, and has a body like his father.  The
Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Lord, and issues forth from Himself, and may
properly be called God's minister to execute His will in immensity; being
called to govern by His influence and power; but He is not a person of
tabernacle as we are, and as our Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ are.
The question has been, and is often asked, who it was that begat the Son of
the Virgin Mary.  The infidel world have concluded that if what the Apostles
wrote about his father and mother be true, and the present marriage discipline
acknowledged by Christendom be correct, then Christians must believe that God
is the father of an illegitimate son, in the person of Jesus Christ!  The
infidel fraternity teach that to their disciples.  I will tell you how it is.
Our Father in Heaven begat all the spirits that ever were, or ever will be,
upon this earth; and they were born spirits in the eternal world.  Then the
Lord by His power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man.  We
were made first spiritual, and afterwards temporal.

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.  When the Virgin Mary
conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness.  He
was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.  And who is the Father?  He is the first
of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his
Father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and
the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the
earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the father, and so on in
succession.  I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the
whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the
superstitious and over-righteous of mankind.  However, I have told you the truth
as far as I have gone.  I have heard men preach upon the divinity of Christ, and
exhaust all the wisdom they possessed.  All Scripturalists, and approved
theologians who were considered exemplary for piety and education, have
undertaken to expound on this subject, in every age of the Christian era; and
after they have done all, they are obliged to conclude by exclaiming "great
is the mystery of godliness." and tell nothing.

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.

Again, they will try to tell how the divinity of Jesus is joined to his
humanity, and exhaust all their mental faculties, and wind up with this profound
language, as describing the soul of man, "it is an immaterial substance!"  What
a learned idea!  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.
Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of
them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or
damnation.

I have given you a few leading items upon this subject, but a great deal more
remains to be told. Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that
Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.  I will repeat a little
anecdote.  I was in conversation with a certain learned professor upon this
subject, when I replied, to this idea--"if the Son was begotten by the Holy
Ghost, it would be very dangerous to baptize and confirm females, and give the
Holy Ghost to them, lest he should beget children, to be palmed upon the Elders
by the people, bringing the Elders into great difficulties."

Treasure up these things in your hearts.  In the Bible, you have read the
things I have told you to-night; but you have not known what you did read.
I have told you no more than you are conversant with; but what do the people
in Christendom, with the Bible in their hands, know about this subject?
Comparatively nothing.

(Journal of Discourses 1:50-51)

The sermon given by Brigham Young on April 9, 1852 and reproduced in the
previous reply was reprinted in the Millennial Star.

In the editorial section of that issue, the editor made the following comment.

    OUR FATHER ADAM.--The extract from the 'Journal of Discourses' may startle
    some of our readers, but we would wish them to recollect that in this last
    dispensation God will send forth, by His servants, things new as well as
    old, until man is perfected in the truth.  And we would here take occasion 
    to remark, that it would be well if all our readers would secure a copy of
    the 'Journal of Discourses' as it is issued, and also of every standard
    work of the Church; and not only secure these works, but attentively read
    them, and thoroughly study the principles they contain.  Those of the Saints
    who fail to obtain the standard publications of the Church, will not be
    likely to prove very intelligent Saints, and will be very liable to wake up
    some day, and find themselves wonderfully behind the times, and consequently
    will not be able to stand the day of trial, which will come upon all the
    world.  Without the intelligence that comes through the Holy Priesthood, the
    Saints cannot gain salvation, and this intelligence is given in the various
    publications of the Church.  Who then will endanger his salvation by being
    behind the times?  Not the wise, certainly. (p. 780)

The editorial section was signed

    S. W. Richards, President [of the Church in the British Isles]
    Daniel Spencer, Counsellor

    (pp. 769-770)

ADAM, THE FATHER AND GOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY

The above sentiment appeared in 'Star' No. 48, a little to the surprise of
some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared blasphemous
to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with
the more candid and comprehensive mind.  A few reasonable and Scriptural ideas
upon this subject may be profitable at the present time.

Then Adam is really God!  And why not?  If there are Lords many and Gods many,
as the scriptures inform us, why should not our Father Adam be one of them?
Did he not prove himself as worthy of that high appellation as any other being 
that ever lived upon the earth?  Certainly he did, so far as history informs
us, unless we can except the Son of God.  We have no account in Scripture that
Adam ever wilfully transgressed, when we consider him independent of the woman.
The Apostle informs us distinctly that the woman was in the transgression, being
deceived, but Adam was not deceived.  Adam fell, but his fall became a matter
of necessity after the woman had transgressed.  Her punishment was banishment
from the Garden, and Adam was necessitated to fall, and go with her, in order
to obey the first great command given unto them--to multiply and replenish the
earth; or in the language of the Prophet Lehi, "Adam fell that men might be."
The fall of Adam, therefore, was virtually required at his hands, that he might
keep the first great command, and that the purposes of God might not fail, while
at the same time, the justice of God might be made manifest in the punishment
incurred by the transgression the woman, for whom the man is ever held
responsible in the government of God.

The scriptures inform us that Christ was as a lamb slain from before the
foundation of the world.  If, therefore, the plan of salvation was matured
before the foundation of the world, and Jesus was ordained to come into the
world, and die at the time appointed, in order to perfect that plan, we must
of necessity conclude that the plan of the fall was also matured in the councils
of eternity, and that it was as necessary for the exalting and perfecting of
intelligences, as the redemption.  Without it they could not have known good
and evil here, and without knowing good and evil they could not become Gods
neither could their children.  No wonder the woman was tempted when it was said
unto her--"Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."  No wonder Father Adam
fell, and accompanied the woman, sharing in all the miseries of the curse, that 
he might be the father of an innumerable race of beings who would be capable of
becoming Gods.

With these considerations before us, we can begin to see how it is that we are
under obligations to our father Adam, to a God.  He endured the suffering and
the curse that we might be; and we are, that we might become Gods.  Through
him the justice of God was made manifest.  Jesus came into the world, endured,
and suffered, to perfect our advantages for becoming Gods, and through him the
mercy of God abounded.

By the first man, Adam, came death, the triumph of evil; and by the second,
came life everlasting, the triumph of good.  Each was necessary in the order
he appeared; if the first Adam had not performed his part, the second could
not have had his work to do.  Both acted the part assigned to them, in a most
Godlike manner, and the Great Eloheim accepted the work at their hands as His
own, "for by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things, both
spiritual and temporal: firstly, spiritual--secondly, temporal, which is the
beginning of my work; and again, firstly, temporal--and secondly, spiritual,
which is the last of my work."  Thus the great I AM owns all things--the
temporal and the spiritual, the justice and the mercy, to be His own work.
Then why may not Adam be a God, as well as any of his sons, inasmuch as he has
performed the work to which the Great Eloheim appointed him?

In ancient times they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, because
of which Moses became a God unto Pharaoh.  The Almighty was not so jealous of
His godly title but that He could say to Moses--"See, I have made thee a God to
Pharaoh."  And if John's saying be true, God has purposed to make him that
overcometh, a pillar in the temple of God, and to "write upon him the name of
my God."  "His name shall be in their foreheads."

This is the hope of all Saints who have a just conception of the future; and
why should we not be willing for father Adam to inherit all things, as well
as for ourselves?  He is the first, the Father of all the human family, and his
glory will be above all, for he will be God over all, necessarily, standing as
he will through all eternity at the head of those who are the redeemed of his
great family.  Though all the sons should, through their faithfulness, become
Gods, they would still know that the Son was not greater than the Father.

Were we to trace this subject in all its bearings, we should find the principles
of the Godhead planted in every righteous and well-organized family upon the
earth, and that they only require cultivation to cause their expansion and
development to be equal to anything we can now conceive of as adding power and
glory to the God of all worlds.  The Great Eloheim rules over worlds.  He is
God over them, because of His right and power to rule, govern, and control.  The
exercise of this power is a natural right in the order of Priesthood, which 
belongs to every Patriarch, or Father, in the human family, so long as he rules
subordinately to the laws of Heaven.  According to the order of that God by
whom we are ruled, a man is not only permitted to hold full jurisdiction over
his own family, but he is held responsible for any violation, by them, of the
revealed will of Heaven.  A man that controls a work, is the only one that can
be held responsible for that work.  It would be most unjust to require
responsibility where there is no power to govern and control.  Every man who has
a family, and power to control them, is exercising the rights and powers of a
God, though it may be in a very small capacity.  There are two grand principles,
by virtue of which all intelligent beings have a legitimate right to govern and
hold dominion; these are, by begetting children from their own loins, and by
winning the hearts of others to voluntarily desire their righteous exercise of
power extended over them.  These constitute a sure foundation for an eternal
throne--a kingdom as perpetual as God's.  No usurped power, to be maintained by
the shedding of blood, is connected with such a government.  It is upon this
foundation that the throne of Michael is established as Father, Patriarch, God;
and it is for all his children who come into this world, to learn and fully
understand the eternity of that relationship.

Could we view our first Parent in his true position, we should find him acting
in a similar capacity to the whole family of man, as each father does to his
individual family, controlling, at his pleasure, all things which relate to
the great object of their being--their exaltation to thrones and Godlike powers.
We can conceive, from Scripture, principle, and analogy, that Adam's watch-care
is ever over mankind; and by his own approbation and direction Gospel
dispensations have been revealed from heaven to earth in different ages of the
world; that he was the first that ever held the keys of Gospel power upon the
earth, and by his supervision they have been handed down from age to age, 
whenever they have been among men; that under his direction a Deluge once
swept the earth of the wickedness which was upon it, and laws were given to
Israel, as a nation, to lead them to Christ; and that he will in the end call
men to judgment for the privileges which have been extended to them in this
world.

Hear what the Prophet Daniel says upon this subject--"I beheld till the thrones
were cast down, and the Ancient of days (Adam) did sit, whose garment was white
as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool; his throne was like the
fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.  A fiery stream issued and came
forth from before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand
times ten thousand stood before him; the judgment was set, and the books were
opened........And behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of
heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people,
nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting
dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be
destroyed."--(Dan. vii. 9, 10, 13, 14)

Again, the word of the Lord through the Prophet Joseph, gives additional
importance, if possible, to the part which Adam acts relating to his children,
which reads as follows--"But, behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth
shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall
all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth;
yea, even all."

From the forgoing we are enabled to draw important conclusions, that before
the coming of the Lord Jesus in the clouds of heaven, to take the reins of
government upon the earth, Adam comes and gathers around him all that have
ever held keys of power under him upon the earth, in any of the dispensations
thereof to man; he calls forth the dead from their graves, at the sound of his
trump; he brings them to judgment, and they render unto him an account of
their several stewardships; the books are opened that a righteous judgment
may be rendered by him who now sits upon his throne, not only as the Father,
but the judge of men; and in that capacity thousands minister unto him.  An
august assemblage are now gathered in one grand council around the great
Patriarch of all Patriarchs, consisting of his sons, who have been faithful in
that which was committed to them; and all this preparatory to that great
event, when the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven should be
given to the Saints of the Most High.  Daniel saw that the Saints possessed
the kingdom, by virtue of which Adam was once more in possession of the
dominion given unto him before the fall, which was over every living thing
that moved upon the earth, which rendered him the universal Sovereign and Lord
of all.

At this important period, when Adam is reinstated with full power upon the
earth, seated upon his throne, as Daniel saw him--a glorious and an immortal
God, one like the Son of Man comes in the clouds of heaven (as oftimes
represented by the Apostles), to the ancient of days, and receives from him
dominion, glory, and a kingdom; in other words, Michael, having accomplished
the work committed to him, pertaining to this world, delivers up an account
of his stewardship over the same, to that character represented as Yahovah
in the creation of the world, who reigns in unison with those upon the earth,
until his work is fully accomplished--til the last great contest with the
enemy, who has been released for a little season, is won; then he in turn
delivers up the kingdom to the great Eloheim, that in the language of the
Apostle, "God may be all in all."

This final surrender, we are to bear in mind, does not detract from the
Godlike power and dominion of our first Parent, nor of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In the Patriarchal order of government, each and every ruler is independent in 
his sphere, his rule extending to those below, and not to those above him, in
the same order.  While the God of unnumbered worlds is acknowledged to be his
God and Father, Adam still maintains his exalted position at the head of all
those who are saved from among the whole family of man; and he will be God over
all those who are made Gods from among men.  Each and every God will be honoured
and adored by those over whom he reigns as a God, without any violation of the
laws of heaven--without any encroachment upon that command which saith, "thou
shalt have no other Gods before me," for the glory and honour of all true
Gods constitute the glory, honour, power, and dominion of the great Eloheim,
according to His own order of government.

We can conceive of no higher, or more perfect order of government than that
which is embraced in Patriarchal authority.  By virtue of this order, all Gods,
whether in heaven or in earth, exercise a righteous power, and possess a just
dominion.  In this order, all are both subjects and rulers, each possessing
Almighty rights and powers--Almighty rulers over those who have descended from
them, at the same time rendering all honour and power to those from whom they
have descended.  What a glorious system of order is here portrayed--one in which
an innumerable succession of Gods, Patriarchs, and rulers, can reign forever in
the greatest possible harmony that can be comprehended by intelligences, while
each is independent in his position, as is all intelligence.  As the great
Eloheim is supreme and Almighty over all His children and kingdoms, so is Adam
as great a ruler, or God, in his sphere, over his children, and the kingdom
which they possess.  The earth and all things upon it were created for Adam, and
it was given to him of his Father to have dominion over it.  In that dominion
he will be sustained throughout all eternity.

In relation to this earth alone and its inhabitants, Michael and Gabriel have
perhaps held the greatest keys of dominion and power.  They were, both in their
day, Fathers of all living, and had dominion given unto them over all things.
Gabriel, or Noah, held the keys of this power under Michael, and to him he will
render an account of all things before Michael renders an account of his
stewardship to Him whose dominion reaches over many worlds, and who is God
over all Gods.  These two important personages have ever been watchful of the
interests of their children, hence we find them ministering from time to time
to holy men upon the earth--Gabriel often appearing unto Daniel, and opening
to his view the most wonderful visions of the future, by which he could act
as a God to the people, outvie the wisdom of the astrologers, and so control
the elements that the burning furnace could have no power over him; Michael
also coming to the release of Gabriel, when he was withstood one and twenty days
from answering Daniel's prayer.

We also read of Michael disputing with the Devil about the body of Moses,
probably because the Devil was not willing that Moses should be translated,
inasmuch as he had sinned; but even in this, Michael was the great deliverer.
Again we read that Michael shall stand up for the children of his people in a
time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation, and at that time
every one that shall be found written in the book shall be delivered, and
those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake.

From these and many other scriptures, we find that those important personages
are clothed upon with no mean authority, and that Michael has power to deliver
men from the power of the Devil, which is death; that by the sound of his own
trump--the trump of the archangel, the nations of the dead shall awake and
come forth to judgment, and there render an account to the ANCIENT OF DAYS
seated upon his burning throne.  Then shall the nations know that he is their
Judge, their Lawgiver, and their God, and upon his decree hangs the destiny of
the assembled dead.  Yes, our Judge will be a kind and compassionate Father,
by whom none can pass, but through whom all glory, dominion, and power, will
be ascribed to the great ETERNAL.

(pp. 801-804; the article is unsigned)

In an article titled "Priesthood from Adam to Joseph", the following
comments about Adam were made.  The author was not identified.  The
editor of the Star was F. D. Richards.

After Adam and Eve had partaken of the seeds of mortality, it appears from the
Scriptures that the GODS held a council on the subject.  We read in 
Gen. iii. 22--"And THE LORD GOD said, Behold, the man has become as one of US,
to know good and evil."

From this we learn that Adam was not only in form like unto the Gods, as
previously stated, but that this knowledge of good and evil was that which would
exalt him among the Gods; and then that his resemblance to the Gods might be
complete, THE LORD GOD bestowed the right to exercise full power and dominion
over the earth, and all its creations.

"And God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air; and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."--Gen. i. 28.  If
THE LORD GOD has ever withdrawn from Father Adam the authority here bestowed
upon him, He has not seen fit to make it known to the world.  While there is
nothing to refute, the whole tenor of revelation substantiates, the supposition,
that Adam has continued to bear rule over the earth, and control the destinies
of his never-ending posterity.  From the time he received his commission in the
Garden of Eden, he has been labouring diligently to fulfill the instructions
there given him by THE LORD GOD concerning his dominions, and to bring them
under subjection to his will.  This will be fully accomplished when every knee
shall bow, and every tongue confess that he is the God of the whole earth.  Then
will the words of the Prophet Brigham, when speaking of Adam, be fully
realized--"He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom WE have to
do."  Having now observed how Adam the first man became a God, we inquire why
may not millions of his children receive the same Godlike knowledge and power?

(pp. 194-195)

To bring the truth of this matter close before you, I will instance your
fathers who made the first permanent settlement in New England.  There are
a good many in this congregation whose fathers landed upon Plymouth Rock
in the year 1620.  Those fathers began to spread abroad; they had children,
those children had children, and their children had children, and here are
we their children.  I am one of them, and many of this congregation belong
to that class.  Now ask yourselves this simple question upon natural
principles, has the species altered?  Were not the people who landed at 
Plymouth Rock the same species with us?  Were they not organized as we are?
Were not their countenances similar to ours?  Did they not converse, have
knowledge, read books?  Were there not mechanics among them, and did they
not understand agriculture, &c. as we do?  Yes, every person admits this.

Now follow our fathers further back and take those who first came to the
island of Great Britain, were they the same species of beings as those who
came to America?  Yes, all acknowledge this; this is upon natural principles.
Thus you may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and Eve, and
ask, "are we of the same species with Adam and Eve?"  Yes, every person
acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding.

But when we arrive at that point, a veil is dropt, and our knowledge is
cut off.  Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father
of our spirits in the eternal world.  He is a being of the same species as
ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and
He is heavenly.  He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of
being that we are.  Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our
heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many.  I do not
care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him
our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we
are of one species--of one family--and Jesus Christ is also of our species.
(JD 4:216-217)

Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father
Adam.  There are many who know that doctrine to be true.  Where was Michael
in the creation of this earth?  Did he have a mission to the earth?  He did.
Where was he?  In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him
there.  Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam,
what a humiliating circumstance it would be!  Just wait till you pass Joseph
Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you
pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he
will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;"
and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam,
how strange it will appear to your present notions.  If we can pass Joseph
and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys
of this dispensation; I will let you pass;"  then we shall be very glad to
see the white locks of Father Adam.  But those are ideas which do not
concern us at present, although it is written in the Bible... (JD 5:331-332)

[When I copied the pages, I did not get the first part of this article and
do not know who the speaker was.  However, the editor was George Q. Cannon]

[The context of the sermon concerns Priesthood leaders excommunicating
church members.  The speaker is counseling the leaders to perform
excommunications when necessary in such a manner that the person who is "cut
off" will desire repentance and full fellowship.  He then gave an example of
a man who was supposedly excommunicated for a reason that the speaker was not
sure was wise.]

I have heard of a man who was cut off because he would not believe that Adam
was our Father and God.  "Well, but was it no so?"  Its being so does not
change the fact that we are sinners and need salvation, and such preaching does
not help men and women to repent of their sins....As for believing that Adam
was our God, I do not know but that we are gods; only, if it is so, we are
very young yet.  But could we ever feel that we are the children of a God who
watches over us with more care and solitude than we can bestow upon the little
ones who call us fathers here on the earth, would not our desires and object
be to win the continued love of such a Parent by leaving off everything wrong,
while we would seek to fill up the whole aggregate of our judgments with the
knowledge that is pure and holy, that we might become like that Father and be
prepared to dwell with him.  Then it is well to think that God is our Father;
and whether it be Adam or anyone else, ever struggle upwards, upwards; always
keep your hearts and faces upwards, and let every struggle you make be to
carry you to the harbour of rest, the haven of peace, where you may enjoy the
felicity awaiting the faithful children of our God.  May the Lord bless you.
Amen. (p. 100)

After spending a lot of time studying the sermons of Brigham Young, I think I
finally understand what he was saying when he said Adam was our god.


What Brigham Young Believed and Taught
--------------------------------------

Brigham Young believed in a Godhead consisting of Heavenly Father, Jesus
Christ, and the Holy Ghost.


THE FATHER:

Heavenly Father is a glorified personage with a body of flesh and bones.  He
is known as Eloheim.  He is the Supreme controller of the universe and
everything follows his command.  He is the father of our spirits and is also
the father of Jesus' physical body.


JESUS CHRIST:

Jesus was the first-born of God's spirit children and is thus our elder
spirit-brother.  He is the Redeemer of the world, the Messiah, the Christ.  He
died for Adam's sin and tasted death for everyone.


ADAM:

Adam is a separate person from God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy
Ghost and is subordinate to them.  Prior to the creation of the earth he was
known as Michael, and he assisted the Godhead in forming the earth.  He was
the first mortal person and is thus the father of all living persons.  Because
he was the first patriarch, he holds the Priesthood keys under Jesus Christ.
Because of his status during the creation of the earth, he was a god, serving
under the Father and Jesus.  Because of his righteousness as a mortal, he has
obtained his exaltation and is thus a god eternally.


What Did Brigham Mean By Adam Is Our God
----------------------------------------

It is clear from the sermons and writings given in the preceding replies that
when Brigham said Adam was our god he was referring to a Priesthood hierarchy.
We believe that the history of the earth has consisted of a series of
dispensations.  A prophet or a patriarch is over each dispensation as the
mortal Priesthood leader; Jesus Christ, of course, is over all dispensations
as the Heavenly Priesthood leader.  Adam was the leader over his dispensation.
Noah over his.  Moses over his.  Joseph Smith over this last dispensation.

We believe that the prophet or patriarch of each dispensation will return his
Priesthood keys to the leader of the previous dispensation.  Adam, being the
leader of the first dispensation, will receive all of the keys and will give
them to Jesus Christ.  Thus, in terms of a Priesthood hierarchy, Adam is the
Priesthood leader over the earth, Jesus Christ being the Heavenly Priesthood
leader over him.

Brigham Young believed that Adam had received his exaltation and was a god.
Thus it was proper for him to call Adam our god, meaning Adam is our earthly
Priesthood leader over all dispensations.

Genesis teaches that God gave Adam dominion over all the earth, and Brigham
believed that that commission was an eternal one.  Thus, as an exalted god,
Adam is god in the sense that as an exalted god he has dominion over all the
earth.

Brigham Young did not mean that Adam has replaced our Heavenly Father or Jesus
Christ in our worship, reverence, and spiritual lives.  I think the authors of
anti-Mormon literature are guilty of a serious breach of ethics when they
distort Brigham's teachings about Adam.

(This note is now write-enabled and open for discussion)

    "Adam is Micahel the Archangel and he is the Father of Jesus Christ
    and is our God and Joseph taught this principle."  (Brigham Young,
    December 16, 1867, Wilford Woodruff Journal, Church Archives)
                                                     
    "Some has thought it strange what I have said concerning Adam. 
    But the period will come when this people if faithful will be willing
    to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and God,
    but not the Father of their spirits, for that was our Father Adam."
     (Brigham Young, December 11, 1869, Wilford Woodruff Journal, Church
    Archives.)
    
    "The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God
    and Father of all the inhabitants of this earth."  (Heber C. Kimball,
    April 30, 1862, Sacred History, Solomon F. Kimball, Church Archives)
    
    "Friday 9th April 1852....Another meeting this evening.  President
    B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God
    to us.  that he came to this world in a resurrected body &c more
    hereafter."  (Diary of Hosea Stout 2:435)
    
    "I have learned by experience tht there is but one God that pertains
    to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth--the
    first man. [Adam]  That first man [Adam] sent his own Son to redeem
    the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood
    shed, that our sins might be remitted."  (Heber C. Kimball, Journal
    of Discourses 4:1, June 29, 1856)
    
    I don't know Allen, seems pretty clear to me that Brigham actually
    meant that Adam was our Father, that he was the Father of Jesus,
    that he is our God and Father of all the spirits on the earth.  
                                                                 
    If Adam is the Father of Jesus, as has been taught, and was
    conceived in the like manner as all flesh in the Garden of Eden:
    through sexual intercourse, then Jesus was not conceived by or through
    the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, Father Adam, had an incestial
    relationship with his daughter Mary to produce Jesus.  Therefore,
    Jesus was not born of a virgin, therefore, you believe in a different
    Jesus then I do.
    
    Thus the reason for my report.
    
    Leza
    
    
    

Leza, in your reply you referred to statements by three persons, Wilford
Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, and Hosea Stout.  I am going to make separate
replies to discuss the remarks of each person.

In this reply I am discussing the remarks of Wilford Woodruff.

I don't have access to the manuscript of the Wilford Woodruff Journal which
is in the Church archives.  Since Elder Woodruff was actually referring to
statements by Brigham Young, I am going to discuss those statements from the
context of other statements made by President Young.

Before I begin, however, let me elaborate on the concept of "context".  The
anti-mormon literature which you are reading is infamous for taking statements
by LDS leaders and verses from LDS scriptures out of context.  That literature
removes a statement or a verse from the context in which it was given and
presents the statement or verse in a different perspective than that intended
by the author.  Only by studying the context in which the statement or verse
was originally given can one understand the meaning intended by the author.

The principle of context is especially important in a discussion of the Adam-God
theory.  In order to understand what Brigham Young meant when he said Adam was
our God, we must study many his writings and see how his statement fits into the
overall picture of his beliefs.  If we do not place the statements of Brigham
Young, which the anti-mormon literature has isolated, back into the perspective
in which Brigham made the remarks, then we are guilty of being insincere in our
search for truth.

Now, let us look in detail at your quotations of Wilford Woodruff's digest
of Brigham Young's statement.

"Adam is Michael the Archangel"  That is correct, we do believe that.

"and he [Adam] is the Father of Jesus Christ"  In .4 I posted statements from
Brigham Young about God and Jesus.

    I want to tell you, each and every one of you, that you are well acquainted
    with God our heavenly Father, or the great Eloheim.  You are all well
    acquainted with Him, for there is not a soul of you but what has lived in
    His house and dwelt with Him year after year; and yet you are seeking to
    become acquainted with Him, when the fact is, you have merely forgotten what
    you did know....

    If you do not believe it, cease to call Him Father; and when you pray, pray
    to some other character.  (JD 4:216)

    And what shall we say of our Heavenly Father?  He is also a man in
    perfection, and the father of the man Jesus Christ, and the father of our
    spirits; (JD 11:42)

    The Being whom we call Father was the Father of the spirit of the Lord Jesus
    Christ, and he was also his Father pertaining to the flesh.  (JD 7:286)

    The Saviour was begotten by the Father of His spirit, by the same Being who
    is the Father of our spirits, and that is all the organic difference between
    Jesus Christ and you and me.  (JD 4:218)

It is clear from Brigham Young's sermons that he believed (a) that God the
Eternal Father was named Eloheim, (b) He was the father of all our spirits, and
(c) He was the father of Jesus' physical body.

The only way that Brigham could have meant that Adam was the father of Jesus'
physical is if Adam and Eloheim were the same personage.  Let us look at
Brigham's statements about Adam from the information I posted in .5.

    Some may say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve."  So we are, and they
    are the children of our Heavenly Father.  We are all the children of Adam
    and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens,
    the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any knowledge of.
    (Journal of Discourses 13:311)

    It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind,
    as we know one another.  Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed
    him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents.  The
    Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with
    him; (JD 9:148)

    The Lord sent forth his Gospel to the people; he said, I will give it to my
    son Adam, from whom Methuselah received it; 3:94)

    "What resemblance did our father Adam bear to his God, when he placed him
    in the Garden of Eden?"  Before he had time to reply, I asked him what
    resemblance Jesus bore to man, in his incarnation? and, "Do you believe
    Moses, who said the Lord made Adam in His own image, and after His own
    likeness? This may appear to you a curiosity; but do you not see, bona fide,
    that the Lord made Adam like Himself, and the Saviour we read of was made to
    look so like Him, that he was the express image of His person?"
    (Millennial Star, July 8, 1854, p. 431)

    We say that Father Adam came here and helped to make the Earth.  Who is he?
    He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him by Eloheim, "Go ye and
    make an earth."  What is the great mystery about it?  He came and formed the
    earth.  (Deseret News, June 18, 1873)

It is very clear from Brigham Young's sermons that he believed that Adam was not
the same personage as God the Father, the great Eloheim, and therefore Brigham
Young did not mean that Adam was the father of Jesus' physical body.

"and [Adam] is our God"  As I summarized in .14,

    It is clear from the sermons and writings given in the preceding replies
    that when Brigham said Adam was our god he was referring to a Priesthood
    hierarchy.  We believe that the history of the earth has consisted of a
    series of dispensations.  A prophet or a patriarch is over each dispensation
    as the mortal Priesthood leader; Jesus Christ, of course, is over all
    dispensations as the Heavenly Priesthood leader.  Adam was the leader over
    his dispensation.  Noah over his.  Moses over his.  Joseph Smith over this
    last dispensation.

    We believe that the prophet or patriarch of each dispensation will return
    his Priesthood keys to the leader of the previous dispensation.  Adam, being
    the leader of the first dispensation, will receive all of the keys and will
    give them to Jesus Christ.  Thus, in terms of a Priesthood hierarchy, Adam
    is the Priesthood leader over the earth, Jesus Christ being the Heavenly
    Priesthood leader over him.

    Brigham Young believed that Adam had received his exaltation and was a god.
    Thus it was proper for him to call Adam our god, meaning Adam is our earthly
    Priesthood leader over all dispensations.

    Genesis teaches that God gave Adam dominion over all the earth, and Brigham
    believed that that commission was an eternal one.  Thus, as an exalted god,
    Adam is god in the sense that as an exalted god he has dominion over all the
    earth.

"Joseph taught this principle."  I'm not aware of any statement by Joseph Smith
that Adam was our god.  Documentation is needed before this statement has value.


"...adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and God"  In the
same sense as Brigham Young considered Adam our God, i.e. our exalted
Priesthood leader over all dispensations, we can consider Joseph Smith as the
exalted Priesthood leader over this last dispensation.

"but not the Father of their spirits, for that was our Father Adam."  This
was discussed above.

In conclusion, I believe their is no excuse for anyone to say that Brigham
Young believed that Adam was God the Eternal Father and was the father of
Jesus' physical body.  If people do say that they are very guilty of taking
statements by Brigham out of context, because his sermons are very clear in
teaching that Adam is not God the Father, is not the father of Jesus' physical
body, and is not the God we worship.  The anti-mormon literature that propagate
these distortions are not seeking truth; they are written by persons who have
only one purpose, to fight the LDS Church.

Leza, you gave two quotations from Heber C. Kimball, one from a family
record which is presently in the Church archives and one from the Journal of
Discourses.

First, lets look at the statement from the family record.  I don't have access
to the Church Archives to obtain the full statement by Heber, so I can't study
the context of what Heber was saying.  However, lets take the quotation as an
isolated quotation (i.e. not necessarily in context with Heber's full discourse)
and compare it with Brigham Young's statements.  Heber was a counselor to
Brigham, and it is a reasonable assumption on our part that the two men may have
had similar views on this matter.

    "The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that He was the God
    and Father of all the inhabitants of this earth."  (Heber C. Kimball,
    April 30, 1862, Sacred History, Solomon F. Kimball, Church Archives)
    
Brigham certainly taught and we believe today that Adam is our father in
the mortal sense, that he was the first mortal person on this earth and is
thus the father of the human race.  As has been explained in previous
replies, Brigham believed that Adam had become exalted in the Celestial
kingdom and was thus a god.  As the Patriarch over the whole human family
(in the mortal sense), Adam was the exalted Priesthood leader over the
human family; in terms of a Priesthood hierarchy, there is God the Father,
Jesus Christ, Adam, etc.

Without having the full discourse by Heber, as well as time to study all of
his sermons in the JD and in other books, we can not say what he meant by
the phrase "and Father of all the inhabitants".  Based on the isolated
quotation you gave, there is certainly no basis for an assumption or
interpretation that Heber meant the father of our spirits.  We have already
seen that Brigham did not teach that, and there is no basis to believe that
Heber taught it.

Next Let us look at the statement from the JD.

    "I have learned by experience that there is but one God that pertains
    to this people, and He is the God that pertains to this earth--the
    first man. [Adam]  That first man [Adam] sent his own Son to redeem
    the world, to redeem his brethren; his life was taken, his blood
    shed, that our sins might be remitted."  (Heber C. Kimball, Journal
    of Discourses 4:1, June 29, 1856)
    
In giving us the quotation, you inserted "[Adam]" as your interpretation
that Heber was talking about Adam being the father of Jesus.  I read the
full sermon, and there is no basis at all for your assumption that Heber
was referring to Adam.  The context is very clear that he was referring to
God the Eternal Father.  Only if one assumed that Heber believed that
God the Eternal Father and Adam were the same personage could he or she
justify inserting "[Adam]" in the text.  I skimmed through all of the other
sermons by Heber in volume 4 of the JD to see if Heber believed that Adam
was God the Eternal Father.  He mentioned both God and Adam in a number of
places, and in every case he was talking about God being God and Adam being
the first mortal man, that is separate persons.

We have already seen that Brigham Young did not believe that Adam was God the
Eternal Father, and unless you have evidence to the contrary, there is no
basis for an assumption that Heber believed that.  Certainly, the isolated
quotation you gave does not justify that belief.

Let us speculate on what Heber did mean when he said that God the Eternal
Father was "the first man".  I use the word "speculate", because we are
discussing a historical document, and unless we have other historical
documents to give us evidence, any discussion and conclusions drawn about
the matter is speculation.

I think the sermons of Brigham Young, as given in previous replies, give us
the meaning to Heber's statement.

    All who will take this course will know by revelation that God is our
    Father; they will understand the relationship they hold to him and to their
    fellow-beings.  The world may in vain ask the question, "Who are we?"  But
    the Gospel tells us that we are the sons and daughters of that God whom we
    serve.  Some may say, "We are the children of Adam and Eve."  So we are, and
    they are the children of our Heavenly Father.  We are all the children of
    Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the
    heavens, the highest Intelligence that dwells anywhere that we have any
    knowledge of.  (Journal of Discourses 13:311)


    Now follow our fathers further back and take those who first came to the
    island of Great Britain, were they the same species of beings as those who
    came to America? Yes, all acknowledge this; this is upon natural principles.
    Thus you may continue and trace the human family back to Adam and Eve, and
    ask, "are we of the same species with Adam and Eve?"  Yes, every person
    acknowledges this; this comes within the scope of our understanding.

    But when we arrive at that point, a veil is dropt, and our knowledge is
    cut off.  Were it not so, you could trace back your history to the Father
    of our spirits in the eternal world.  He is a being of the same species as
    ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and
    He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of
    being that we are.  (JD 4:216-217)

Brigham Young believed that we are of the same species as God, meaning that God
is the literal father of our spirits, and those who become heirs of God and
joint heirs with Christ receive all that the Father hath and become like him.
From this viewpoint, Heber's statement that God the Eternal Father was the
first man makes sense.  Again, this is speculation, as is your assumption that
Heber meant God the Eternal Father was the first man [Adam].

    "Friday 9th April 1852....Another meeting this evening.  President
    B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God
    to us.  that he came to this world in a resurrected body &c more
    hereafter."  (Diary of Hosea Stout 2:435)
    
In giving us the quotation from Hosea Stout, Leza, you didn't tell us
who Hosea Stout is or where his diary is located.  In giving your sources, You
should tell us what books that you are actually reading, or at least give the
reference to the original source and say "as quoted in such and such".
Your sources are not the JD, or Wilford Woodruff's journal, or Hosea Stout's
diary.  Your sources are the specific books you are reading.  If you have a
photocopy which you yourself made from an original source, then you can give
the original source as your reference.  But, if you have a photocopy which
someone else made and published in a book, then you should either give that
book as your source or say "photocopy as published in such and such".

I don't know who Hosea Stout was.  He was not one of the prominent men of the
Church during Brigham Young's time.  Fortunately, his reference to Brigham
Young was the sermon which I have given in .7, so I am going to ignore
Hosea's interpretation of Brigham's remarks, since I don't know who Hosea
was, and directly discuss Brigham's sermon.  The reference for this discussion
is JD 1:50-51.

    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.

We have already discussed what Brigham meant when he said Adam is our father
and our god and the only god with whom we have to do.  Adam is our mortal
father and is our exalted Priesthood leader, the exalted Patriarch of the human
family.  The phrase "and the only God with whom WE have to do" does not imply
that God the Eternal Father and Jesus Christ are not above Adam in the
Priesthood hierarchy.  The phrase has the same type of meaning as a private in
the army saying that his drill sergeant is the only person with whom he has to
do, even though there is a company commander above the sergeant, etc.

    When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him
    in his own likeness.  He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost.  And who is the
    Father?  He is the first of the human family;

Again, as we have already discussed, the sermons of Brigham Young are very
plain that he did not believe or teach that Adam was the father of Jesus'
physical body.  Then what did he mean by "He is the first of the human family"?
We have already discussed that Brigham taught that we are of the same species
as God, thus making God the "first of the human family".  Brigham's perspective
was not just limited to our mortal family-tree but included our Heavenly Father
as the first personage on our family-tree.

    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.

This is an important statement, because it clearly brings out that Brigham
taught that God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, and Adam were three separate
personages.  This statement is especially significant since it is in the same
sermon as the statements usually quoted in the anti-mormon literature.

   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.

The writings of Brigham Young make it very clear that "that same character
that was in the garden of Eden" was God not Adam.  In fact, he even said that
in the next phrase, "and who is our Father in Heaven".

    It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind,
    as we know one another.  Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed
    him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents.  The
    Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with
    him; (JD 9:148)

Referring to God as a "character" may seem a bit irreverent to us, but Brigham
used that word on a number of occasions to refer to God.  I guess it was one
of the colloquialisms of his time.

In summary, in order to understand Brigham Young's comments made on April 9,
1852 we have to understand the full context of his teachings as given in his
many writings that are in the public record.  In doing so, we realize that
Brigham Young taught that God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, and Adam are
separate personages.  God the Eternal Father, not Adam, is the father of
Jesus' physical body.  Adam is our god in the sense that he has become
exalted in the Celestial kingdom and is the Patriarch over the human family,
but he is not the God we worship and pray to.

    If Adam is the Father of Jesus, as has been taught, and was
    conceived in the like manner as all flesh in the Garden of Eden:
    through sexual intercourse, then Jesus was not conceived by or through
    the power of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, Father Adam, had an incestial
    relationship with his daughter Mary to produce Jesus.  Therefore,
    Jesus was not born of a virgin, therefore, you believe in a different
    Jesus then I do.
    
I think, Leza, that the only people who believe in the incestuous relationship
you described are the authors of the anti-mormon literature you have been
reading!

Allen

    re: .2,.14,.16
    One serious ommission exists in all of this discussion about the
    Adam-god-theory and that is related to the historical and doctrinal
    context of the times. LDS doctrine has unfolded over an extended
    period of time. Joseph Smith's early beliefs and teachings about
    the Godhead [ as reflected in the Lectures on Faith] were quite
    different than his later beliefs and teachings. And Brigham Young's
    beliefs about Adam during the period of time that the famous sermon
    was delivered were quite different than present formal church doctrine.
    Perhaps the best discussion of the Adam-God Doctrine in existence
    is a doctoral dissertation done in the late 1960s by Rodney Turner,
    a member of the religion faculty at BYU. Bro Turner's conclusions
    were simply that BY taught a doctrine that was very popular for
    a few brief years, but which was discarded as not correct [for a while
     the doctrine was even denied to have ever been taught at all] .
    As you know, today the Church does not accept nor teach the Adam-god Theory.
        Brigham Young and Orson Pratt were constantly bickering,in print
    no less, about doctrines of the Church and their clashes make for
    interesting reading. As it turns out church doctrine as it has
    developed,is closer to Orson Pratt than to Brigham Young.
    My experience over the years, is that frequently people have had
    a difficult time realizing that the doctrines of the church have
    been of an "unfolding" nature, commencing in one form and as time
    passed,developing into more sophisticated and articulate forms.
    Numerous examples includes such things as Joseph Smith on the Godhead
    cited above, the very name of the Church, even the basic organization
    structure of the Church, et al. This "unfolding" or developmental
    nature of church doctrine is completely consistant with the concept
    of continuous revelation. 

    Me again--I got interrrupted.
    Mainstream Christians are critical of Latter-day Saints because
    changes in our doctrines, practices and approaches over the years
    seem to contradict our claim to continuous revelation. Yet in reality
    that claim to continuous revelation both accepts the need for change
    and acknowledges that truth and knowledge develop, rather than being
    dumped in completed form in our laps.
    Of course, most of what is thought of as mainstram Christianity
    today, actually developed over many hundreds of years and didn't
    begin to jell until at least the 10-13th centuries. As such, people
    often have difficulty with a church which claims truth, and yet
    which shows a decided developmental nature. The fact that Adam-god
    gives so many people trouble, both members and non-members alike,
    shows that our maturity around how truth unfolds, or develops or
    evolves [ or all of the above] has not kept pace with our information.
    Revelation is a participatory experience [ not simply one where we
    prove worthiness and God drops us a revelation] which requires that
    we draw upon experience, existing knowledge, and respond in context
    of the times in which we live.

    re:20-21
              -Interesting comments!
    
    Just a few questions on note .20-.21.  I am well aware of the
    contention between Brigham Young and Bro. Orson on this doctrine,
    another point of disagreement was the origin of Adam. Orson felt
    that Adam was made of the dust of this world. Brigham Young
    stated that Adam was created of dust of another world, not Earth.
    
    Question I have is: knowing that the Adam-God theory was taught,
    at what point was it changed, abandoned, and present doctrine
    taught? Also, I sense that there might be a little different
    interpretation today of this doctrine than what was clearly
    understood and taught by the church then, given that Brigham Young
    was a Prophet of God. Also I need to know about the church denial
    phase, when did the church acknowledge that the doctrine was taught?
    Lastly, any information, writings to show if indeed this doctrine
    is still in effect, but not publicly taught. I've never read any
    thing to suggest anything has changed, nor any pronouncements
    from the Prophet or GA's to that effect. (Assuming that you
    see B. Young as teaching it in a literal sense)
    
    Kevin
    

    Re.22
    In 1953, as a almost new member of the Church, I wrote President
    David O. McKay about the Adam-God Doctrine (After all, why not go
    to the top when seeking information) and I received a reply from
    Joseph Anderson who, at that time, was functioning as a secretary
    to the First Presidency. Bro. Anderson said that Brigham Young had
    never taught Adam-God so the denial phase was still operational.
    I surmise that it had to end when Rodney Turner's dissertation came
    out. I didn't end with any kind of "announcement" or "decision",
    it just sorta pooped out.
    Yes, Brigham Young was a Prophet of God, but being a prophet, even
    being THE prophet doesn't mean you're always correct--you still
    have the same kinds of constraints the rest of us have when it
    comes to the operation of mouth, mind and spirit. There is an old
    Marion G Romney Story which we've all been told which goes something
    like this: he was advised by President Heber J. Grant to keep his
    eye on the prophet because the Lord would never let the prophet
    lead the people astray. . .
    I believe that story occurred, and I believe its correct: the Lord
    will not let the prophet lead the people astray, but I believe it
    for very different reasons that are frequently given. The story
    is used almost exclusively to suggest that the prophet is always
    right. Both our history and doctrine show that Church Presidents
    have often made serious mistakes. I THINK THE VALUE OF THE STORY
    IS THAT WHEN OR IF A PROPHET SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF LINE,
    THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CHURCH JUST WON'T RESPOND--THERE WON'T BE
    THE SURGE OF SUPPORT NECESSARY FOR THE IDEA OR CONCEPT OR WHAETEVER
    TO SUSTAIN ITSELF. For example, when Alf Landen ran for the U.S.
    Presidency the Church formally supported him; and the membership
    rose up and nearly did to the Deseret news what Joseph smith did
    to the Nauvoo Expositor; they cancelled subscriptions right and
    left and vented their anger. To this day the church has never formally
    supported another presidential candidate. This same concept is true
    with respect to other Church leaders besides the president as well:
    e.g. Joseph Fielding Smith's comment that man would not make it
    to the moon, Ezra Taft Bensen's comments that You cannot be a liberal
    democrat and a good LDS too, nearly everything Spencer W. Kimball
    wrote about homosexuality,[which was all written before he became
    president of the Church] etc.etc.
    	In the mid-fifties when the priesthood quorums were studying
    the great apostasy (over a period of 4 years), there was a great
    emphasis on the fact that we do not believe in the infallibility
    of the Prophet. Since that time, however, there has been an interesting
    shift. Although it is not spoken, there is a growing popular notion
    that because the prophet is THE prophet, he can never be wrong when
    it comes to matters of doctrine (which is precisely the doctrine
    of infallibility that we used to reject).
    	As a result of that earlier training I have no trouble when
    the church puts its foot in its mouth because I know that its directly
    run by people, and people blow it every now and then [ I AM impatient,
    however, with the notion that suggests  because the Church is true,
    everything Church leaders do MUST be the right things at the right
    time]. I have a friend who works with the Brethren who paraphrases
    an old statement: "The Church Must be true. If is wasn't the General
    Authorities would have destroyed it a long time ago." Great truth
    in that sentence. Great truth.
    John
     

    re.23
    
    Thanx, John for your comments in your last reply. As I said before,
    I have read much on the Adam-God doctrine, and contrary to the earlier
    notes by Allen, felt that Brother Brigham had taught the literal
    doctrine. He publicly stated it in clear terms several times over
    a period of years, and his contemporaries understood it in the
    literal sense. The response from your letter to David O. McKay
    surprises me in a way, yet, given human nature, is not that sur-
    prising.  Yes, this is the Lord's church, and it survives in spite
    of our efforts.  And so it goes....one great eternal round! 
    
    

This is an interesting discussion!  

Kevin & John,

In the previous replies you have made specific statements that Brigham Young
did teach "the Adam-god doctrine".  I'm concerned that we may have different
meanings to that phrase, and I think that before we continue this discussion
we need to clarify what we mean by the phrase "Adam-god doctrine".  Rather
than make blanket statements about Brigham teaching "the Adam-god doctrine",
I think we would be better off talking about Brigham's statements on
specific concepts about Adam and/or God.

The points usually brought out in anti-Mormon literature about Brigham Young
and the Adam-god doctrine are that Brigham taught (1) Adam has replaced God
the Eternal Father in our worship, and (2) Adam was the father of Jesus'
physical body.  As I summarized in .14, I don't think Brigham taught either
of those points.  I've presented in my previous replies quite a few statements
by Brigham about Adam being God, and I presented them verbatim from original
sources so we could study the context of Brigham's statements.  I expect there
are even more primary statements from Brigham about Adam being God, but the
ones I posted are the ones I located in the two days I had available.

It seems to me the next step in our discussion is to get a copy of Rodney
Turner's dissertation.  Does anyone following this note have a copy?  If not,
I'll write to the BYU library and inquire about getting it.  Also, there is
a group in Michigan (I believe that is the state) that provides
copies of dissertations; does anyone have an address of that organization?

Allen

re .23
>   I received a reply from Joseph Anderson who, at that time, was 
>   functioning as a secretary to the First Presidency. Bro. Anderson 
>   said that Brigham Young had never taught Adam-God so the denial 
>   phase was still operational. I surmise that it had to end when Rodney 
>   Turner's dissertation came out.
     
    It seems to me, then, that either the LDS Church leadership had been 
    surpressing Brigham Young's teaching of this doctrine, or that Joseph 
    Anderson was lying to you, or both.
    
    I find your term "denial phase" very interesting...

    Ed

Just a caution, Ed.  The phrase "Adam-god doctrine" can have different
meanings to different people.  Based on my present "collection" of statements
by Brigham Young, I would deny that Brigham taught that we worshiped Adam
instead of God the Father, or that Adam was the father of Jesus's physical body.
If Bro. Anderson were thinking of those concepts when he answered the question,
then his denial would be correct (this is likely since those concepts are
found in anti-Mormon literature).  On the other hand, if Bro. Anderson was
denying that Brigham said that Adam was our God, then I too would be concerned,
because, as the replies which I posted earlier clearly bring out, Brigham did
say on many occasions that Adam was our God.  The point is not whether Brigham
said "Adam is our God", but what he meant by that phrase.  The point is what
did Bro. Anderson mean by his answer, not what words did he use.

Allen

    re.24-.28
    The terms "Adam-God Theory" and" Adam-God Doctrine" are both used
    throughout the literature to refer to the teaching. For about 3
    years it was considered "doctrine" by significant numbers of church
    members.
    
    One of my concerns is that while we seem comfortable with the concept
    that there is continuous revelation, we become very nervous ( or
    seem to be very nervous) at the idea that what we may consider to
    be basic doctrine is in reality developmental in nature. For instance,
    it was James E. Talmage (sp?) who penned the now- official pronouncement
    by the 1st Presidency on the Godhead, and although the doctrine
    had been unfolding or "cooking" for many years, his statement (1915
    I think but I may be wrong inasmuch as I don't have a copy of the
    document easily at hand) BECAME the church doctrine. 
    All of our doctrines are not complete, i.e. the doctrine of Atonement,
    the doctrine of Agency, and are still developing [ For perhaps the
    best single statement on the Atonement EVER written, see Eugene
    England's classic "That They Might Not Suffer" published several
    years ago in DIALOGUE].One of the difficulties with a developmental,
    or revelatory process is that earlier statements by whoever, be
    he prophet or poet, may be based on incomplete data. And, as such
    may inaccurately reflect what later emerges as the whole picture.
    The classic example is the Church's doctrine with respect to people
    of color. For a generation, everybody who could write, including
    some apostles and Church Presidents delivered almost every kind
    of imaginable excuse for why the blacks could not have the priesthood,
    and everybody was simply speculating---yet the speculation was regarded
    by many as doctrine [which it wasn't].

    
    It seems to me that there some questions that still need to be
    answered here. First, a clarification on whether the doctrine
    still applies today or has been rejected in total.  In the responses
    that I have heard so far it would seem to have been rejected. 
    Secondly, the letter from the 1st Presidency on the denial of
    the doctrine being taught.   I need to hear a little more on this.
    Is Bro. Anderson representing the 1st Presidency, or just himself
    here.  I suspect that John wasn't the only person that received
    a letter on this subject, it would seem that, in the 50's the 
    official stand was such.  Third, we need to hear more about
    Prof. Turner's dissertation, as brought up by Allen.
    The thing that strikes me is that the doctrine as taught by
    Brigham Young wasn't just a few isolated statements, but was
    taught and believed by some of the prominent folks in the church
    then. It was accepted as gospel.  The implication here is that
    to be an LDS , one has to change as doctrines change, notwithstanding
    Rich's comments on God's doctrine and "church doctrine".  Good 
    comments, Rich.
    
    The rub here is that where, for example, admitting blacks into
    the the priesthood is considered an example of an "unfolding,
    evolving, developing doctrine", the departure from the Adam-God
    doctrine seems to me to be restrictive in nature, where a
    "Truth" was taught in the most EMPHATIC terms, by the Prophet,
    over a period of years, then abandoned.  I suspect if Bro. Brigham
    were here today he'd be "mildly surprised" at the change in the
    Church.  Here's a hypothetical question for you all.  If the
    Bishop of your Ward stood up in Sacrament Meeting addressed
    your congregation and said this Sunday, " Bros. and Sis. ,
    I just received word from the 1st Presidency that you are not
    to go home today. You are to gather your families and proceed to
    walk to Jackson Co. Missouri, the trip to commence at the end of
    Sacrament Meeting.  How many of you would do it without question.
    How many would seek a clarification of "policy". ask to see the
    "marching orders" from the Prophet, no less. How many would go
    home to gather up their gold, how many would sadly shake their
    head and leave the congregation, not making the trip. does it sound
    far fetched?  Open for discussion, brethren!
    
    Kevin St Thomas
    
    (not the doubting one!)      
    

This note was beginning to fragment into a new, but related, topic on changes
in the Church.  I have moved the replies that pertain to changes as a general
topic to a new note (203), and I have left the replies that pertain to changes
as part of the Adam-god discussion in this note.  Thus, there is duplication
between the two notes.

Persons wishing to discuss changes in the Church as part of the Adam-god
discussion should continue to use this note, and persons wishing to discuss
changes as a general topic should use note 203.

Allen
  -- moderator

Re .20

>    And Brigham Young's
>    beliefs about Adam during the period of time that the famous sermon
>    was delivered were quite different than present formal church doctrine.

Please explain what Brigham taught about Adam that is quite different than
present formal church doctrine.

Allen

    Allen,
    
    I know that you directed this at John, but just a brief interjection;
    There is a book compiled, edited and published by Fred C. Collier
    called The Teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3. that contains
    much on this subject.  Included is the discourse of 9 April 1852,
    as well as other discourses some of which were printed overseas
    and not locally.  A later discourse that further elaborates on Adam
    -God is the one at  given at Gen. Conference 8 Oct 1854, I believe
    this discourse is much more revealing in detail and scope than the
    first.  Here the Prophet is very plain in his words and what the
    intent is. In another reply, I will go into some detail and elaborate
    on some of this doctrine.  Interestingly enough, one account of
    the discourse written by Joseph Lee Robinson states that some there
    did not believe him, notably Orson Pratt.  In all, there were 4
    accounts of this particular discourse given that day.
     

Hi Kevin,

The discourse of April 9, 1852 is already posted in 55.7.  In 55.8 through
55.12, I give verbatim other references to Adam-god that I found.  I missed
the October 1854 conference while doing my research and will appreciate getting
either a copy of it from you or at least the pertinent parts.

Allen

    Hi Allen,
    
       The discourse is in the mail.  Hope you find it of interest.
    Let us know of your thoughts on it.
    
    Kevin

Kevin,

I have the discourse; thanks!  I did a quick reading of it (quite interesting)
but will hold my comments until I've studied it in context with Brigham's
other comments on Adam.  I'm currently involved with another project that is
taking most of my spare time, so there will be a delay before I get back on 
this.  

It would be helpful if you could post some background material about Collier
so we will understand who he is and what his biases are.  Also, he uses a
complicated footnote system, and it wasn't readily apparent to me where he got
the discourse from.  Perhaps you could discuss that.  I'm interested in that
because that discourse isn't in the Journal of Discourses.

Allen

    Hi,
    
    I haven't had an opportunity to reply lately, however I'll
    take a little time here to explain a little about this book.
    Fred Collier, the author, is described as an "anachronistic
    Mormon" in the intro to the book. What he is in the process of doing
    in these works (this is vol. 3 of 7) is to show the development
    of LDS doctrine in the mid-nineteenth century and give us
    a better idea of the Prophet Brigham Young's thoughts and doctrine
    he presented to the saints during his time.  He doesn't have
    an ax to grind against the church (as far as I can tell).
    However, he paints a picture for us that is different than what
    we have read previously, or have been taught. In these volumes,
    he has exhaustively researched Brigham's speeches and reproduced
    them in their original form from church archives. He has taken
    these from Brigham's tenure as member of the council of the twelve,
    as the Prophet, and as the Governor of the Territory.  I believe
    from my reading, that his is a valuable work, for he does not try
    to convince us of anything, he simply has compiled, and presented
    this info for us to digest and ponder on. Some might say that the
    material he presents might suggest an implied bias.  However, I
    believe that the material speaks for itself. The compiler here has
    also used an extensive footnote system, which utilizes all the standard
    works, Journal of Discourses, various diary entries by church leaders
    that are in the church archives, references from books now not
    available to the public or otherwise out of print, such as The Seer,
    and Great First Causes, by Orson Pratt, and references from books
    out of Nag Hammadi Library and Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha of
    the Old Testament.  
    
    The name of the book is: The Teachings of President Brigham Young
    Vol. 3.  Collier has his own publishing company, and he has produced
    other works, which center around early doctrine in the church,
    I am in the process of gathering some of his other publications.
    The value in them is that it saves me the many years of time it
    would take me to acquire this material myself.
                        
    Collier has spent seventeen years in the gathering of material
    for this work, which suggests to me a labor of love, rather
    than for any material motive.  I believe that Collier has done
    more here.  He has shown that The Prophet Brigham Young taught
    a comprehensive doctrine the better part of his life.  It contrasts
    with the popular view of Brigham where he viewed by many to be
    a coloniser-administrator, yet not a great revealer of truths.
    Collier in his material shows Brigham as building on the doctrine
    and teachings of Joseph Smith. In his other works, (which I am in
    the process of acquiring) he is said to link up early doctrine
    as taught by  Joseph Smith with later doctrine and show their con-
    sistancies.  Again, the material here comes from the Church Archives
    and are from the Prophets themselves or reported by Watt and other
    contemporaries.  It is my belief, that the truths that were revealed
    were all encompassing, touching every aspect of the Saints lives
    then. The truths still pertain, just are not practised by the
    Church.  This is not saying that the Church is in error, no, just
    that changes have occurred. 
    
    I will report on some of the particulars as it pertains to Adam-God
    doctrine in my next reply. Also, Allen, I believe that many elements
    in your early replies are consistant here. I am suggesting that
    there may be a dualism at work here; A two-fold meaning to many
    of the things that Brigham taught. I'll touch on this in my next
    reply.                      
    
    Kevin St Thomas
    replies up to .19 are cons 

    re .41:

 � It is my belief, that the truths that were revealed were all
 � encompassing, touching every aspect of the Saints lives then. The truths
 � still pertain, just are not practised by the Church.  This is not saying
 � that the Church is in error, no, just that changes have occurred. 

   "Truths that still pertain yet are not practised by the Church", yet 
   the Church is not in error because of this. Sounds kind of strange. In 
   fact, it sounds a great deal like the same thing Mormons claim was 
   behind the demise of early Christianity, except that, of course, that 
   early Church was in error, while the modern Mormon Church somehow is not.

   Ed
    

Ed, 
    
    What I see as the situation today is that many of the truths still
    apply yet the Church; meaning members, that is, are not practising all
    of the truths as brought forth by Prophets in their fullness.
    Check any Ward's statistics for percentage of full tithepayers,
    or check for average families' debt situation, or whether food
    storage counsel is followed. I guess these problems existed even
    in the early church, human nature as it is. Yet today there is
    a greater urgency of following counsel of the prophets. As for
    debt, we have been counseled often on the need to not go into
    debt, yet most of us are, right? The prophets' counsel is for
    not just the saints, but for all people of the world.  Just look
    at the U.S. debt today or even consumer debt, if we followed
    this counsel as a people, maybe things would be different.  
    
    I read alot of the early teaching of the prophets--- the reason
    why is that I believe their teachings still apply today. Especially
    those pertaining to us as individuals. I believe revelation builds
    on truths, rather than replace one truth with another.
    If there are inconsistancies, I seek out to reconcile them through
    study and prayer, I think that the Adam God doctrine was taught
    for a purpose, the writings I've seen to this point seem to
    indicate that he taught the literal doctrine.  Now examine what
    he has taught, rather than dispel it as being wrong up front.
    To do that requires study and research. I believe the average
    person today is not prepared to do so, due to time constraints.
    One may find that they see it meaning as Allen found it to be.
    Or they might find something else, as I have found.  The point
    is that they've studied it out. I haven't finished studying it
    yet, the jury's out. It may take another 2, 5, or 10 years or
    a lifetime for me to find the answers. This note file will not
    give people all the answers, although Allen's comments sure help
    alot! You see, I seek out truth, wherever it may be.  It may
    shake my testimony, most of the time it builds on it.  
    
    Kevin

    
    Hi!
    
    Hope those who had requested info from me have gotten it.  I sent
    the actual "Lecture at the veil" to some to give them an idea of
    where I was coming from.  To those who haven't been in this con-
    ference lately, the "Lecture at the Veil" was instructions given
    at the Veil at St George Temple from 1877 to approx 1905.  In it,
    the concept of Adam being the father of Jesus was alluded to.
    The interesting point was that even then, it was controversial--
    There was, in 1891, a High Council court convened, to investigate
    the charges that in one ward, many were teaching that the doctrine
    taught at the veil was false, note the word doctrine, not opinions,
    or hearsay or idle ramblings or off hand remarks by the prophet.
    
    The high council essentially corrected the individuals for not
    supporting this doctrine, but left it to the 1st Presidency to
    judge the case. The 1st Presidency of the church did something
    that I found fascinating. They (Pres. Geo. Q. Cannon) stated that
    "it was not necessary that we should [teach] or endorse the doctrine
    that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ."
    "Counsel was given for the Elders to teach what they knew, not that
    which they did not".
    
    Also "showed the folly of some men because they cannot look up and
    prove  by the Bible the glorious Revelations that God has given
    they receive them doubtfully. Showed that God had, and would yet
    reveal many glorious things that men could not prove, and search
    out of the old Bible."
    (Diary of Charles Lovell Walker, vol2. pp. 740-741)
    
    I think this clears it up for at least myself.  It remains for each
    of us to decide whether to believe it or not. I happen to believe that
    it was doctrine and believe it to be true.  It is not necessary
    to try to prove it or not, by the scriptures or not, since it was
    new revelation.  I sense that the reason it is not taught today
    is due to the fact that we do not understand it and could find
    ourselves in many doctrinal arguments. BUT, we should not deny it
    just because we do not understand it. It's just one of those
    "mysteries" that are left for us to ponder over in our hearts.
    
    If anybody wants more info please contact me personally through
    the mail with your requests. I want to leave that avenue open for
    all. Thanks, Allen, for cleaning up the replies requesting info.
    Above all, keep searching, for the truth shall set you free.
    
    Kevin.......
    
    
    
     

Thanks to the information provided by Kevin, this note has sure taken a
direction that I didn't anticipate!

First, I have an apology to give.  Leza and Garth:  You were right and I
was wrong.  Brigham Young did teach that Adam was our Heavenly Father and
the Father of Jesus' physical body, although I'm not sure that either of
you clearly understand what he meant--I sure didn't.

Kevin sent me two documents by Brigham that clearly explained his teachings
about Adam being God, a October 8, 1854 discourse and the sermon that was
appended to the lecture at the veil (not the lecture itself).  After reading
those documents, I had to agree with Kevin that Brigham did teach that Adam
was God.  I then went back and read my earlier replies to this note to see
why my research had led me to the wrong conclusion.  In comparing Brigham's
discourses that I had posted with the two that Kevin supplied, I discovered
that Brigham had used some terminology differently than I had assumed he had.
Specifically, he used the name 'Eloheim' to refer to the "chief God" of a
family of Gods while I assumed he was referring to our Heavenly Father.  He
used also used the term "Heavenly Father" to refer to this "chief God" while
I assumed he was referring to the father of our Spirits and to the father of
Jesus' physical body.  

I'm going to briefly review Brigham's teachings about Adam being God, and
then I will comment on them.

Brigham believed that people who become exalted become gods.  He spoke of
an individual, referred to as Michael, who had lived as a mortal, had died,
and had been resurrected as an exalted person.  Michael's Heavenly Father
was Eloheim.  Michael and his exalted wife had spirit children.  Acting under
the direction of his Father in Heaven, Eloheim, he created a world.  When
it was time for him to place Adam in the Garden, he himself went down and
became Adam.  Thus, while Adam was in the Garden, he was there as a
resurrected person.  After partaking of the fruit, his resurrected body
became mortal (same for Eve), and he and Eve populated the earth.  After he
completed his work as the mortal Adam, he returned to Heaven as a God, and as
such he was the father of Jesus' physical body.  The God who spoke with Adam
in the Garden and afterwards was Eloheim.

So, Brigham did teach that Adam was our Father in Heaven, our God, and the
father of Jesus' physical body.  In trying to understand this from the
viewpoint of Brigham Young, we have to divorce ourselves from the sectarian
concept of "one God" and think of the Mormon concept of many gods, i.e.
exalted persons.  People who have criticized the church for the Adam-god
theory have, I feel, the concept that there is only one God and that Brigham
was replacing that one God with the man Adam.  Instead, Brigham was teaching
that there are many Gods but only one God as far as we are concerned, and that
the God who was our Father in Heaven came to earth and became mortal as Adam,
similar to Jehovah coming to earth as Jesus.

My thoughts.  I have problems with Brigham's ideas.  As far as I understand
the scriptures, once a person is resurrected, that condition is final and
there is no allowance in the scriptures for a resurrected body to become
mortal again.  LDS doctrine (as it stands today) does teach that Adam did
have an immortal body of flesh and bones while in the Garden, but that body
was not a resurrected body.  The scriptures also teach that only Jesus
Christ lived a perfect life; thus, the mortal man Adam committed sins.  It
seems to me that Brigham was teaching that our Heavenly Father became mortal
and committed sins, i.e. in a way we have God committing sins.

I think John's comment in .20 sums it all up.

    Perhaps the best discussion of the Adam-God Doctrine in existence
    is a doctoral dissertation done in the late 1960s by Rodney Turner,
    a member of the religion faculty at BYU. Bro Turner's conclusions
    were simply that BY taught a doctrine that was very popular for
    a few brief years, but which was discarded as not correct

    
    Hi!
    
    I just got the chance to read Allen's reply and feel the need to
    explain that while Bro. Brigham taught this doctrine, from my
    readings, he was not the first to do so. There is some corre-
    spondance, diary entries of leaders, that seem to indicate that
    the Prophet Joseph Smith may have privately taught this also.
    I am currently researching this area, specifically during the 
    Nauvoo period and checking to see what turns up.  In my earlier 
    reply I stated that I believed it to be true. I am now searching
    for further evidence that it was taught....remembering that much
    was taught privately by Joseph and not revealed to the gen. church 
    membership,Pres. Young being one of the private group, as well as the 
    Council of Fifty, who were privy to such things....I still remember
    reading Heber C. Kimball stating that "Brigham let the cat out of
    the bag"; that seems to indicate that it was taught earlier, at
    least privately. I'll report on what I find with the goal of imforming
    those who wish to learn more about such matters.
    
    There's one thing I need to say and that is I have really enjoyed
    this conference and hope that it has been rewarding and enlightening
    to everyone as much as it has been to me.
    
    Kevin
    
    period, and 

We'll be interested in your research-results, Kevin.

>    I still remember
>    reading Heber C. Kimball stating that "Brigham let the cat out of
>    the bag"; that seems to indicate that it was taught earlier, at
>    least privately.

When I read that statement from Kimball in the material you sent me, I thought
it was quite interesting.  The statement doesn't indicate that the doctrine
was taught earlier, but it does indicate that it was known within Brigham
Young's First Presidency.


Keep us informed.

Allen

    Hi!
    
    I have one reference that refers to a statement that Helen Mar Whitney,
    one of the Prophet Joseph Smith's wives, made in defense of the
    Prophet toward attacks from the Reorganized Church coming from the
    Prophet's son, Joseph Smith III. Seems as though the RLDS Church
    was much opposed to the Adam-God doctrine that Brigham Young taught.
    Helen Mar Whitney replied to them, stating that Brigham wasn't the Author
    of the doctrine. From my readings, coming from the book "The Trinity
    and The Holy Spirits, The Doctrine as Joseph Taught it" it states
    that "in order to substantiate her assertion, she quoted from several
    of the Prophets Nauvoo discourses, some of which  she had copied
    from the diary of William Clayton when a young girl, In concluding
    she remarked that if the prophet's son, (ie, Joseph Smith III)
    "feels it his duty to proclaim against this people and deny the
    doctrines which his father felt authorized of God to teach as
    revelation from on high, I shall only regret it for his own and
    his father's sake" "                                      
    
    The book that reveals this info is "PLURAL MARRIAGE AS TAUGHT BY
    THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH", by Helen Marr Whitney, pg 30-37. 
    That is my first reference, admittedly not from the Prophet himself
    but one that is in defense of the Prophet, from, from what I can
    gather, is one of his plural wives, (perhaps one of Newel K. Whitney's
    daughters). I do know that Sarah Ann Whitney was married to him,
    for I have the revelation concerning it. The interesting thing here
    is that the diary of William Clayton was the source, one of the
    Prophets contemporaries. I often come across references to this
    diary.  Incidentally, the diary, I understand, is today locked up
    in the First Presidency's office safe, so I cannot readily refer
    to it, nor most any other church member. We only have second hand info,
    unfortunately. The key here is that this woman felt prompted to
    correct the Prophet's own namesake, his son, and defend the Prophet 
    and the Church against this attack, at the same time attributing
    the teaching to where she found it to come from.   
    
    I have a couple more references that come from the Prophet's
    contemporaries that I will post in the next few days and if any
    body has any comments, please do so. It'll take a little time to
    gather additional material, because I'm calling across the country
    and having things sent by the infamous "US Mail". Some people spend
    their extra money on cars, trips, etc. I buy books! I am blessed
    by an understanding wife and a charge card! BTW, if anybody's
    interested in obtaining some of these references, again, send me
    mail and I'll give you addresses, info. etc.  
    
     
   Kevin 
     
    
    

Kevin,

Please give us some background information about the books you are reading
so we can determine for ourselves if they are reliable historical sources
(you've already done this, but we need to do it too).  I'm not familiar
with "The Trinity and the Holy Spirits".

Allen

>    ... (perhaps one of Newel K. Whitney's
>    daughters). I do know that Sarah Ann Whitney was married to him,
>    for I have the revelation concerning it. 

Fawn Brodie (No Man Knows My History) uses William Clayton's diary as the 
reference indicating that Joseph Smith was married to Helen Mar Kimball 
(daughter of Heber C. Kimball, later the wife of Horace K. Whitney) in the 
spring of 1843.  The references she uses for Sarah Ann Whitney include 
implications of a revelation, but do not include the revelation and one
indicates that it was not published.  How did you obtain a copy of the 
revelation?

By the way, it has already been mentioned in another note (90) that William 
Clayton's diary was apparently the source of misinformation regarding 
translation of the Kinderhook plates.  I feel that though he was a
faithful Saint, he may have been prone to color his diary entries with the 
hope of somehow helping in the defense of the Church.  Thus, I don't
regard his diary as a reliable source of historical information.  

Ms. Brodie also indicates that Sarah Whitney was married (sealed) to Joseph
Smith in 1846 (p. 472).  As Ms. Brodie points out, none of the plural wives
of Joseph Smith claimed to have children by him, though she asserts
they did, citing selected inferences.  As Hugh Nibley points out in 'No
Ma'am, That's Not History', Ms. Brodie indicates that some of the
marriages were entirely spiritual and by inference tells which were
spiritual and which were not (p. 38).  I believe that Joseph Smith was married 
'for time' only to Emma and was 'sealed' to Emma as well as all of the other 
women.  This seems to me more consistent with sources other than William 
Clayton's diary.

As to the teaching, it seems to me that Joseph Smith may well have speculated
concerning Adam-God theory.  But, there are apparently only indirect, 
unathorized sources that indicate that he ever taught it.  It was not found 
in the Scriptures during Joseph Smith's time.  I feel that Brigham Young and
other Church leaders may well have mistakenly taken this speculation as 
doctrine.  This fits under the category of 'mistakes of men' that can 
accompany scriptural text (B of M title page).  

Also, if I put myself into a faithful Saint's shoes at that time, what would
I think?  If God was Adam, how does that affect my salvation?  I don't think
that would have much to do with it.  Changes related to this in the temple 
ceremonies would probably not have upset me.  It seems to be in conflict with 
my understanding of the Scriptures, so it could well be that I would reject the
teaching.  But, I would probably *not* reject BY as a prophet of God or reject
the temple ceremonies.  This is not unreasonable as it was apparently the 
attitude of many of the Saints at the time.

In a similar manner, I recall that a more recent prophet commented that he 
thought that we shouldn't have sent a man to the moon, exhibiting some 
disregard for the technological advances that developed (sorry, can't provide 
a reference).  I think he was wrong, but I still believe he was a prophet of 
God.  Whether he thinks that we should have put a man on the moon has nothing 
to do with my salvation.  Also, I have noted minor changes to the temple
ceremonies over the past ten years or so.  It has not shaken my faith one iota.
The message of salvation through the way of Christ remains unchanged.


Steve

    Hi again!


Thanx  Steve for the bit of info on Helen Mar Kimball.


>By the way, it has already been mentioned in another note (90) that William 
>Clayton's diary was apparently the source of misinformation regarding 
>translation of the Kinderhook plates.  I feel that though he was a
>faithful Saint, he may have been prone to color his diary entries with the 
>hope of somehow helping in the defense of the Church.  Thus, I don't
>regard his diary as a reliable source of historical information.  

I feel it would depend on the subject, and whether it was corroborated
by other sources.

>As to the teaching, it seems to me that Joseph Smith may well have speculated
>concerning Adam-God theory.  But, there are apparently only indirect, 
>unathorized sources that indicate that he ever taught it.  It was not found 
>in the Scriptures during Joseph Smith's time.  I feel that Brigham Young and
>other Church leaders may well have mistakenly taken this speculation as 
>doctrine.  This fits under the category of 'mistakes of men' that can 
>accompany scriptural text (B of M title page).  

As I said before, it wouldn't need to be in scriptures to be revelation
to Joseph, and also I don't feel that any diary entry about such a subject
would be necessarily inaccurate in of itself, considering the subject.
We still today do not know what private teachings might have occurred during
this period, except for contemporaries' journal entries and some revelations
concerning the Council of Fifty.
 
>Also, if I put myself into a faithful Saint's shoes at that time, what would
>I think?  If God was Adam, how does that affect my salvation?  I don't think
>that would have much to do with it.  

Not your salvation, but what of your exaltation? 

>This is not unreasonable as it was apparently the attitude of many of the 
>Saints at the time.

And apparently the current attitude too. Let me ask you a question, If
the Lord came down today and told you that his father was Adam, what would
you do? Say he convinced you of the truthfullness of it, now go out and
try to tell the world, think they'd believe you. What do you think that the
Prophet taught in his last days that convinced some of his closest friends
that he was a fallen Prophet-- if you have doubts, read some of the Prophets 
last discourses and start thinking about what the Prophet was trying to pre-
pare his people for. Given the discourses, and other references, I beleive
what the Prophet had in mind was more than mere speculation, and the saints
weren't then ready to receive it. If he had lived longer he might well have
taught it, then again would they have accepted it? 

Kevin

    Howdy, Kevin,
    
    We have some disagreement.  Corroboration is only as good as the
    sources.  And, I feel that Joseph Smith was careful to make sure
    that the revelations for the world were proclaimed and published.
    The Adam-God 'revelation' is peculiarly unproclaimed and 
    unpublished by the Prophet as a revelation to the world, though
    he may well have specualated publicly about it.
    
    As to your question.  In a sense, Adam was the father of Christ
    through Mary.  Though I realize your question was probably 
    rhetorical, I can accept that Joseph Smith speculated on Adam-God
    theory.  I do not believe he received revelation concerning it.

    By the way, I am still interested in the source of the copy of the
    revelation leading to the marriage of Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann 
    Whitney.  Thanks!
    
        
    Steve

    Steve,
    
    I can understand your point, and of course accept that different
    views exist. It's an area where many have speculated, and no doubt
    will in the future.
    
    Please give me a few days to have a chance to post some more sources
    and lets see where the discussion leads. I'd like to hear what you
    and others in the conference think of the things that I post. Again
    I sense that Brigham wasn't the author of this doctrine and would
    like to try to establish who the true Author is, and determine
    whether it was received through God or is prophetic speculation.
    I have my feelings on this, of course. 
    
    As to revelations being proclaimed there are many that have not
    published to the world. That's where much of my study has been around.
    These are in the "Thus saith the Lord format", so I feel that in
    spite of not being published by Joseph, they still carry the earmark
    of revelation. 
    
    Kevin
    
    
    

  re .45

� I think John's comment in .20 sums it all up.
� 
�     Perhaps the best discussion of the Adam-God Doctrine in existence
�     is a doctoral dissertation done in the late 1960s by Rodney Turner,
�     a member of the religion faculty at BYU. Bro Turner's conclusions
�     were simply that BY taught a doctrine that was very popular for
�     a few brief years, but which was discarded as not correct

I entered a reply to this topic, which was moved by the moderators 
because they thought it was more suitable under the heading of "attitudes 
towards the prophets" or something similar (I don't remember exactly). It 
seems to have gotten lost in the muddle of "well, after all, prophets are 
human too, and can make mistakes, etc, etc..." which is not what I had in 
mind at all.

My point is, how can you justify discarding something that was taught as 
doctrine by one of the Mormon Church's very own "living prophets"? 
Doesn't that violate the most basic of Mormon beliefs? 

I see a real problem here. Either BY taught this doctrine or he did not. 
If he did teach it as a doctrine, and not just a personal opinion, then 
no Mormon has the option of "discarding" it as "not correct". Either BY 
was correct when he taught it, or he was not. If he was not, then he was 
in error, and clearly a faulty, if not false, prophet. If he was a true 
prophet, and taught what was true, then who could possibly contradict him 
in this matter, and who would dare to disregard, much less discard, this 
teaching? And why is this no longer taught by the Mormon church?

Like I said, I see a real problem here...

Ed

    Re: Note 55.54 by CASV02::PRESTON

    Hi Ed,
    
    You raise some difficult questions, for which I do not yet have all the
    answers. I have found this discussion very interesting, not having
    delved into it this subject much previously. 
    
    For the present, I regard this alleged teaching as a "curiosity". Since
    it is not found in the Standard Works of the church, which are those
    works that we regard as scripture, and which include the Holy Bible,
    the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, it
    is not a teaching which I, or any other member of the church is bound
    to accept at this time. If it was taught by Brigham Young, I find it
    interesting that it was not regarded important enough to be included in
    the Standard Works. 
    
    For myself, I am not yet ready to accept the notion that Adam is the
    same person as Heavenly Father, to whom we pray in the name of Jesus
    Christ. I will accept it if and when the Holy Ghost bears witness to me
    that it is true, and/or it is included in the Standard Works of the
    church, neither of which has happened yet. Even Brigham Young taught
    that church members should pray to know if what he said was true (in
    reference to his teachings in general, and not specifically this
    alleged teaching). 
    
    I can accept that Adam is a god, in the same sense that we all may
    become gods, as has been discussed elsewhere in this conference. I can
    also accept that Adam is the father of Jesus, through his lineage, but
    not his literal father of whom he was begotten. I can also accept that
    Adam has a stewardship over this earth, and that he presides, as the
    first patriarch, over the children of men, under the direction of God
    the Father and Jesus Christ. 
    
    This morning I read in Bruce R. McConkie's book, Mormon Doctrine, the
    section that discusses the Adam-God Theory, the text of which is found
    below. He also makes reference to another work, Doctrines of Salvation,
    which I do not have. I would be interested to know what it says, if
    someone else has it. 
         
         ADAM-GOD THEORY. 
         
         See ADAM, ANCIENT OF DAYS, BIRTHRIGHT, CELESTIAL MARRIAGE,
         EXALTATION, GOD, GODHOOD, MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL, PATRIARCHAL
         CHAIN, PATRIARCHAL ORDER, PLURALITY OF GODS. Cultists and other
         enemies of the restored truth, for their own peculiar purposes,
         sometimes try to make it appear that Latter-day Saints worship
         Adam as their Father in heaven. In support of their false
         assumptions, they quote such statements as that of President
         Brigham Young to the effect that Adam is our father and our god
         and the only god with whom we have to do. This statement, and
         others of a similar nature, is perfectly consistent and rational,
         when viewed in full gospel perspective and understood in light of
         the revelations relative to the patriarchal chain binding exalted
         beings together. Full and detailed explanations of all important
         teachings on these points are readily available. (Doctrines of
         Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 96-106.) 
         
         Faithful members of the Church worship the Father, in the name of
         the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, and view Adam in his
         proper high place as the pre-existent Michael, the first man and
         presiding high priest (under Christ) over all the earth for all
         time, and as the one who will again lead the armies of heaven in
         the final great war with Lucifer. There is a sense, of course, in
         which Adam is a god. But so also, in the same sense, are Abraham,
         Isaac, and Jacob; Moses and all the ancient prophets; Peter,
         James, and John; and all the righteous saints of all ages,
         including those of both high and low degree. 
         
         All exalted beings become joint-heirs with Christ and inherit the
         fulness of the Father's kingdom. Having entered in at the gate of
         celestial marriage, and having pressed forward in righteousness,
         overcoming all things, they pass by the angels and the gods "to
         their exaltation and glory in all things. ...Then shall they be
         gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from
         everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they
         be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall
         they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are
         subject unto them." (D&C 132:19-20.) Of all these Adam is the
         chief, presiding (under Christ and the Father) in the patriarchal
         order over all the rest. There is no mystery about this doctrine
         except that which persons ignorant of the great principles of
         exaltation and unfriendly to the cause of righteousness have
         attempted to make. (Mormon Doctrine, pp. 18-19) 
    
    Regards,
    Rich

    Thanks, Rich. I didn't particularly want to pose such a pointed
    question, but I guess I wanted to make sure I prompted a response.

    I know that this raises some difficult questions, because, if it
    can be proven that Brigham Young taught this doctrine, then he was
    either wrong, or the present LDS church is wrong in not teaching
    it, neither of which can be a comfortable conclusion for Mormons.
    
    Ed    

    
    	In Doctrines of Salvation, Vol 1, page 96, the prophet Joseph
    Fielding Smith states that Brigham Young may have been "misquoted".
    Seeing that there were no recording devices at that time, it could
    very well be.  Starting at page 96 are discources about the Adam-God
    Theory in which President Smith states that Adam was NOT the father
    of Jesus Christ.  Since I do have a copy of the book, I could try
    and answer any questions that it may provide an answer to.
    
    Charles
    

    
      I think this is an example of the fact that the Lord does not give us
    the entire body of truth at one time.  It has been mentioned in the
    conference in other notes that the prophet Joseph Smith taught in the
    early days of the church that our Father in Heaven was a spirit.  (see
    the lectures on faith)  This was later corrected by revelation and the
    correct doctrine was added to the body of standard works.
    
    I see this as exactly the same situation.  The Lord does not give
    us all truth in one lump.  We get it line upon line as we are ready
    to receive it.  The Lord also makes us struggle sometimes to find
    out what the truth is. (see D&C section 9)  When the Lord decides
    that the time is right he reveals his will to us.
    
    later,
    Russell Murray
    

    re: .58
    
    I think J.F. Smith missed the boat on this one. There was no misquote
    as far as I can see and from my different sources and the different
    times it was stated. I have sent out other info to people concerning
    these other references. Maybe J.F. Smith misinterpreted it. Anyway
    I believe Ed deserves an answer on his question, it is a valid one.
    
    On Bruce McConkie and his ref. in MORMON DOCTRINE, I've read it
    and discount it too, given that it was written in the mid 50's prior
    to the dissertation by Rodney Turner, and others. When one researches
    this thoroughly one finds it was taught, and subsequently abandoned
    by the church, never "officially denied any prophet", although
    correspondance exists that indicates it might have been rejected
    by the 1st presidency secretary Anderson in the 50's ,(thanx, John).
    Visions of kinderhook all over again. One does not know who to believe!
    
    Anyhow, all my info comes from historical documentation I've found,
    and they appear to be factual. As I said before, I'll submit any
    new info that I get, (subject to review and study). I've several
    items that show that this doctrine was kicking around prior to 1852
    and as late as 1905. Theres too many references by ole Brigham himself
    to suggest misinterpretation, so there you are.
    
    re: .59
    
    I take your point on new revelation, If no new revelation has come
    concerning adam-god, do we assume, (given it's revelation) that
    it's still correct? BTW, before we get any new truth, maybe we need
    to digest Adam-God for awhile. Besides, if we reject it as revelation
    who's to lose, not God, but what about us? Maybe we should give
    Joseph and Brigham the benefit of the doubt. 
    
    Kevin
                                    
    

	I couldn't assume it is correct because it's not true.  Why
	should I give Brigham the benefit of the doubt over more recent
	Church authorities who teach that the doctrine is false ?

    RE.54
    I think there are a couple of assumptions that we sometimes make
    regarding "The Prophet", which I believe are unwarranted. 1) That
    the prophet is infallible, therefore everything his asserts as doctrine
    in fact, constitutes doctrine, and 2) if the prophet teaches something
    as doctrine that turns out not to be doctrine means that he is a
    false/fallen prophet. There are numerous instances in church history---
    in the public lives of virtually every President of the Church where
    the individual (From Joseph smith to Ezra Taft Benson),the
    President has taught something that has later been quietly set aside.
    We don't make it a practice of publicly castigating our Presidents
    for doctrinal faux pax (sp): what we do is let the issue die of
    its own weight. Brigham Young very forcefully said that never, never
    in mortality would John D. Lee's membership be restored (John D.
    Lee of Mountain Massacre fame) but in 1964-65, his temple work was
    done. Nearly every President has said the negro would not get the
    priesthood until after everyone else, but in 1978 all that changed.
    There are lots and lots of similar examples.Joseph Smith believed
    and taught--as truth--quite a number of things that have never been
    accepted as church doctrine. I know its very easy to say, "Well,
    he's either a Prophet or he's not: what he says is either doctrine
    or its not." But its not that simple a matter (life would be much
    less complicated if it was--we could then just do as we're told, pass
    "Go" and collect our two hunderd dollars).
     The reality of church leadershiop doesn't dichotomize like that.
     Human beings don't function along a binary mental or spiritual dimension.
    
    I can fully support President Benson as a prophet, and accept his
    teachings, but that doesn't mean I have to buy his looney-tune
    politics, and because I don't  buy those politics doesn't mean I
    don't support him as a Prophet--as THE prophet.
    
    There is a wonderful Brigham Young quote where he warns of just
    such dangers; where he warns us not to become so dependent upon
    our leaders that we don't think things out for ourselves.
    
    One of the fundamental differences between us and other religious
    institutions that claim divine leadership is that we reserve the
    individual right to know for our selves whether we're being taught
    the truth or led down the garden path by a charismatic.
    
    I forget the notes numbers, but one was quoting McConkie and the
    other was quoting J.F. Smith (Elder McConkie's father-in-law) who
    suggested that BY was either misquoted, or we just didn't understand
    the doctrine. Well, gang, both those brethren were DEAD wrong! BY
    was neither mis-quoted, and you have to perform a lot of scriptural
    contortions to accomodate the Adam-God theory to the gospel as we
    know it.
    
    Our history is that we don't publicly say brethren are wrong--its
    politically incorrect (PI). So what we do is quietly, slither off
    into the night hoping that people will let the matter rest: then
    come along guys like me and dig it up.
    
    That's part of all our humanness. 
                              

    (The references I list here are not necessarily to prove what I believe
    but more to shed futher insight into my beliefs.)

    I figure when the Lord wants to speak, he does so through His prophets 
    (Amos 3:7).  When the prophets speak, they usually (D.C. 68:3-4) but don't 
    always (D.C. 10:1-2) have the Lord's thoughts.  Sometimes they have ideas 
    of their own that the Lord willingly supports (Ether 3:1-4).  Sometimes 
    they don't (D.C. 3:6) or they have ideas that are contrary to the wishes 
    of the Lord (Jonah 1:1-3).  So, a prophet of the Lord may not be perfect
    and may not always be in harmony with the Lord, but he is still a prophet.

    It's easy for critics to point to a few apparent weaknesses or personal 
    faults and conveniently sidestep the truly remarkable accomplishments of 
    those who have served as prophets of the Lord.  This approach seems to have
    plagued the prophets of the Lord throughout history (Exodus 4:10, 
    Jeremiah 7:25, John 6:42, 2 Cor. 12:10), and it will probably continue to 
    plague them.  The Lord has a tendency to do His work with imperfect 
    or weak servants (1 Cor. 1:26-27, D.C. 1:23, 124:1, 133:59).  There 
    seems to be a tendency among critics to condemn the Lord's servants by 
    their real or imagined imperfections and thereby indirectly condemn the 
    things of the Lord.  

    There is also a tendency for critics to judge the Lord's servants based on
    faulty understanding of the Scriptures (Matthew 23:13-35, 2 Nephi 29:3-10). 

    There are better tests for a prophet than pointing out personal faults and 
    weaknesses.  These tests can cut through the blindness of misunderstanding
    (James 1:5, Moroni 10:4-6)�.  But, these require faith and objectivity 
    which few critics attempt to exercise, choosing rather to
    seek signs of the servants of the Lord (Matt. 12:39, 24:24, Mark 8:11-12, 
    D.C. 63:7-12) and otherwise deride.  Such critics are seldom satisfied 
    with logical dissertations (which usually result in non-zero probabilities 
    of either side being wrong) or with any appeal to exercising faith in an
    appeal to the Lord for understanding.  At least, I've never seen it happen.
    I believe that a critic, in spite of any assurances to the contrary, will 
    be critical of the servants of the Lord (at least the living or more 
    recent ones) unless the critic chooses to add faith and objectivity to his 
    approach, or there is divine intervention (a rare event - Acts 9:1-20, 
    Alma 27:1-32).

    More directly pertaining to this topic, it seems to me that we are focusing
    a bit heavily on one rather small aspect of the period of the Church wherein
    BY acted as prophet of the Lord.  Upon this some are attempting (at least
    implicitly) to pass judgement on BY as a prophet, on Joseph Smith as a 
    prophet, or on the Church as a whole.  All of this without consideration 
    for the other contributions of BY or of Joseph Smith, and with little or 
    no aknowledgment on the part of critics of the application of faith or of
    the objectivity necessary for confirmation of prophetic stewardships from 
    the Lord as outlined in the Scriptures.  This is not a productive direction 
    for this (or any) religious topic, IMHO.

    
    Steve

    
    �I know that some use Deut. 18:21-22 as a test for false prophets.
    Upon closer examination, my current understanding is that a prophet
    can sometimes speak in the name of the Lord presumptuously (too
    bold or forward; taking too much for granted; showing overconfidence,
    arrogance or unashamed boldness).  The faithful are encouraged to
    not fear a prophet that speaks this way.  Both BY and Paul may fit
    at times into this category, in my opinion.  I *don't* think this is with
    reference to FALSE prophets.  These are handled in Deut. 18:20 and
    were put to death!  (Nowadays, we are more tolerant, of course.) 
    So, in answer as to how Mormons handle it when a prophet gets 
    presumptuous, the Scriptures say that we should not fear him.  
    They don't say that we should no longer regard him as a prophet of 
    the Lord.  And, Deut. 18:19 is clear that we should hearken unto
    the words of the Lord, presumably from a prophet of the Lord.  
    Any thoughts?  Moderators, feel free to move this note if you want.

When we read Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie about the Adam-god
theory, we have to realize that they were familiar with very limited comments
from Brigham Young and didn't have the "full picture" of BY's teachings about
Adam-god.  The information that we now have that clearly shows that
BY did teach the Adam-god theory has come forth since those Brethren published
their books.

In replies .7 through .13 to this note, I have given the comments of BY about
Adam-god that are available in the Journal of Discourses, the Millennial Star,
and the Deseret News.  This is basically the information that Joseph Fielding
Smith and McConkie had knowledge of.  The Salt Lake Public Library has the
JD and the 'Star, and microfilm of the 'News.  I searched all issues through
the death of BY, and I think I found "everything" that was published in those
three sources during the life of BY about Adam-god.  After reading all of that
information, I wasn't convinced that BY taught Adam-god, and I can understand
how Joseph Fielding Smith and McConkie could also have thought that BY did not
teach it.  In that information, BY spoke of Eloheim being separate from Adam.
Since the word "Eloheim" is used in the Church today to reference our
Heavenly Father, then it was clear (so I thought) that BY was teaching that
Adam was separate from our Heavenly Father.  The thing I didn't understand
was that BY used "Eloheim" to reference our Heavenly Grandfather (or Heavenly
Great Grandfather, or...; it isn't clear how many generations back BY was
thinking of;  he said it didn't really matter, anyway, which particular
generation of Gods we were talking about since they were all of the
same species).  Also, BY used the phrase "Heavenly Father" to refer to Adam's
God, so I thought  BY was teaching that Adam was separate from my Heavenly
Father.  I didn't realize that BY was using "Heavenly Father" to refer to
my Heavenly Grandfather.

I'm posting this reply, because I think we need to realize that Joseph Fielding
Smith and McConkie did not clearly understand what BY taught, and we also need
to avoid heavy criticism of those two Brethren for their incorrect statements
in their books about the Adam-god theory, because they had incomplete
information.

Allen

The two documents that convinced me that Brigham Young did teach the Adam-god
theory are his October 8, 1854 discourse and his sermon that was attached
to the lecture at the veil.  Both documents have recently been published.
In my next two replies, I will give the key points from those documents
about Adam-god.  In my third reply, I will give key points from a phamplet
called "What about the Adam-God Theory" by Van Hale.  In this phamplet, Hale
gives an excellent view of the significance of this topic to Mormons today;
I highly recommend his phamplet for all persons concerned about the Adam-god
theory.

Allen

    
    Hi!
    
    Thanx Allen, you said it better than I could. We seem to be covering
    old ground again in the replies. I suggest that if the members of
    the conference haven't read all the entries already, they might
    go back and read the earlier ones, to get a feel of what's been
    covered. I will concentrate my replies on reporting on what took
    place during the Nauvoo period concerning this doctrine, and what
    the Prophet Joseph and Brigham have been reported as saying to this.
    I will refrain from passing personal judgement  on whether or not
    this came from God or not. I pray that you all will do the same.
    
    Ed, you out there? Have your questions been answered yet?
              
    
    
    Kevin

    ....If anybody would like these documents, please drop me a line
    in the mail and I'll send it out to you all. 
    
    Kevin

    re.64
    But please remember, Joseph Fielding Smith was Church historian
    and had access to everything in the historian's office. Also Bruce
    R. had the same access. Had they prefaced their comments with
    "According to our understanding. . ." it would have been very
    different. But they didn't. I don't criticize either the integrity
    or the calling of these brethren ( I once took a class from Bruce
    R. McConkie and have great respect for his scholarship and wisdom),
    but in the case of Adam-God, they just didn't do their homework.

re -1

Good comment, John.

    I like *this* direction a lot better.  Thanks!
    
    Steve

Brigham Young gave a discourse on October 8, 1854 as part of the October
General Conference.  During that talk, he explained his beliefs about
Adam being God.  The discourse is published in a book called "The
Teachings of President Brigham Young".  I've forgotten the name of the
author (Kevin, please fill us in on that).  I've extracted the portions that
pertain to Adam from pp. 343-365.  This discourse was recorded by George
D. Watt; two references are given: BYP and HDC, but since I don't have
the book itself, I don't know what those references are (Kevin, can you
identify them for us?)

    I wish the congregation to understand in connection with my sayings
    thus far, that the Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father, in
    Jesus Christ His son, in the Holy Ghost[,] God's minister, and in the 
    Celestial Law, or, in other words, the ordinances of the House of God,
    which if obeyed, are calculated to save intelligent beings, exalt them,
    and bring them back into the presence of their God.

    I will tell you what I believe still further than this; though I do not
    pretend to say that the items of doctrine, and I shall advance are
    necessary for the people to know, or that they should give themselves any
    trouble about them whatever....

    Now if you believe what you have heard me say you will believe there is
    lords many, and gods many; and you will believe that unto us, the 
    inhabitants of this Earth there is but one God with whom we have to do,
    and according to the tenor of the Bible, we believe there are many[,]
    very many who have entered into Power, Glory, Might, and Dominion, and
    are gathering around them Thrones, and have power to organize elements,
    and make worlds, and bring into existence intelligent beings in all their
    variety, who if they are faithful and obedient to their calling and
    creation will in their turn be exalted in Eternal Kingdoms of the Gods.
    Do you believe that?  You and I have only one God to whom we are
    accountable, so we will let the rest alone, and search after the one we
    have to do with; let us seek diligently after Him, the very being who
    commenced this creation....

    There has never been a time when the creations of worlds commenced, they
    are from eternity to eternity in their creations and redemption.  After
    they are organized they experience the good and the evil; the light, and
    the dark, the bitter and the sweet, as you and I do.  There never was a
    time when there were not worlds in existence as this world is, and they
    pass through similar changes in abiding their creation preparatory to
    exaltation.  Worlds have always been in progress, and eternally will be.

    Every world has had an Adam, and an Eve; named so, simply because the first
    man is always called Adam, and the first woman Eve, and the Oldest Son has
    always had the privilege of being Ordained, Appointed and Called to be the
    Heir of the Family, if he does not rebel against the Father, and he is the
    Saviour of the family....

    But let us turn our attention to the God with which we have to do.  I
    tell you simply, He is our Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus
    Christ, and the Father of our spirits.  Can that be possible?  Yes, it
    is possible, He is the Father of all the spirits of the human family....

    Eloheim [BY did not identify exactly who Eloheim was in the Council of
    the Gods] looks round 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";....

    Yahovah Michael goes and does as he is told.  What I am now going to tell
    you, will no doubt astonish the whole of you.  When Yahovah 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 [what BY is saying is that Yahovah Michael was a
    resurrected, exalted person when he created the Earth, and that he went
    to the earth as Adam]....

    "Then the Lord did not make Adam out of the dust of the earth."

    Yes he did, but I have not got to that part of my discourse yet.  Adam
    was made of the dust of the earth.

    "Was he made of the dust of this earth."

    No[,] but of the dust of the earth where on he was born in the flesh; that
    is the way he was made; he was made of dust....I say he was not made of
    the dust of the ground of this Earth, but he was made of the dust of the
    earth where he lived, where he honored his calling, believed in his
    Saviour, or Elder Brother, and by his faithfulness, was redeemed, and
    got a Glorious resurrection....

    I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits.  He lived upon an
    earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and
    Priesthood; 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....

    Now, many inquiries will be made about the Saviour, such as, "Who is
    he? Is he the Father of Adam? Is he the god of Adam?....Many inquire,
    who is this Saviour?  I will tell you what I think about it, and as
    the [Southerners] say I reckon, and as the Yankees say I guess; but I
    will tell you what I reckon.  I reckon that Father Adam was a
    resurrected being, with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial
    Kingdom they were crowned with Glory[,] Immortality and Eternal Lives,
    with Thrones, Principalities and Powers: and it was said to him[, "]It
    it your right to organize the elements; and to your Creations and
    Posterity there shall be no end, but you shall add Kingdom to Kingdom,
    and Throne to throne; and still behold the vast eternity of unorganized
    matter.["]

    Adam then was a resurrected being; and I reckon, (sic)
    
    Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by
    Adam, and born of Eve.

    "How are we going to know this?"

    I reckon it.

    And I reckon that Adam came into the Garden of Eden, and did actually eat
    of the fruit that he himself planted; and I reckon there was a previous
    understanding, and the whole plan was previously calculated, before the
    Garden of Eden was made, that he would reduce his posterity to sin, misery,
    darkness, wickedness, wretchedness, and to the power of the Devil, that
    they might be prepared for an Exaltation, for without this they could not
    receive one....

    Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he with his wife Eve partook of the
    fruit of this Earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of
    Earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children....

    But, I reckon that Father Adam, and Mother Eve had the children of the
    human family prepared to come here and take bodies; and when they come to 
    take bodies, they enter into the bodies prepared for them, and that body
    gets an exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowned
    in Father[']s Kingdom.

    "What, into Adam's Kingdom?"

    Yes....

    I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam;
    when you see your Mother that bore your spirit, you will see Mother Eve.
    And when you see yourselves there you have gained your Exaltation; you
    have honored your calling here on the Earth; your body has returned to
    its mother Earth; and somebody has broken the chains of death that bound
    you, and given you a resurrection....

    [speaking of Christ's atonement] 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....

    We have all come from one father even Adam, both the black and the white,
    the grizzled and the gray; the noble, and the ignoble; and the time will
    come, when they will all come back again into His presence.


The book also gives accounts from three persons who heard Brigham Young 
speak.  I will give those accounts in my next reply.

John Pulsipher recorded his understanding of Brigham Young's October 4
sermon.  His record is found in JPS, BYU Library (Kevin, what is JPS?).

    Every person must have a father and mother or they could not be.  So
    we had a grandfather or we would have had no father, and our grandfather
    had a father and grandfather and great-great-great-great-greatgrandfather
    so far back there is no beginning--They always existed on some world--and
    when this world was made--our God who is Adam came and commenced the
    peopling of it--Though He is God and had lived and died and been 
    resurrected on some other planet--and obtained his exaltation and begat
    Spirits of children enough [to] people this world he came down--and
    brought some of the animal and vegetable productions of some other world
    so they might grown and increase here--He by eating the mortal fruits of
    the Earth, produced mortal children or commenced the increase of men on
    the Earth which is the bodies for the Spirits to live in.

    There never was a time when worlds were not created--The work of creation 
    was always in progress.

    An Adam and Eve is necessary for every world.  The oldest Son, if
    faithful, is the Saviour of the family--There are Lords many and Gods
    many but the God we have to account to, is the father of our
    spirits--Adam--All the inhabitants of the Earth are made of one flesh--
    whether they are black--white--blue or streaked.
    ("The Teachings of President Brigham Young", pp. 369-370)


Thomas D. Brown recorded his understanding of the sermon, and his remarks are
found in "Journal of the Southern Indian Mission", pp. 88-89 (Kevin, any idea
where this can be found?)

    There are Lords many and there are Gods many, and the Father of our Spirits
    is the Father of Jesus Christ: He is the Father of Jesus Christ, Spirit
    and Body and he is the beginner of the bodies of all men: neither can you
    have a Father, without having a Grandfather:....

    Eloheim spoke, "Yehovah, Michael--see matter all around, go and organize
    a world."  Yehovah Michael went and carried material: Then Michael came
    down with his wife, and began to people it.  Michael had his body from the
    dust of the planet he was begotten on, he obeyed his Lord, was faithful
    and obedient, died, and was resurrected,....Adam's descent was to organize
    people and redeem a world, by his wife he peopled it by his first born he
    redeems....

    All [referring to the people of the earth] are the children of Father Adam.
    When Jesus has done his work he will take this planet back to his Father.
    ("The Teachings of President Brigham Young", pp. 371-372)


Joseph Lee Robinson recorded his understanding, and his remarks are found in 
the Joseph Lee Robinson Diary, typescript, Utah State Historical Society.

    [Brigham Young said] That Adam and Eve were the names of the first man
    and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve
    were the natural Father and Mother of every spirit that comes to this
    planet, or that receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are
    brothers and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father.
    ("The Teachings of President Brigham Young", p. 373)

In 1877, Brigham Young gave a sermon in his home in St. George, Utah, and
that sermon was added to the "Lecture at the Veil".  In that sermon,
Brigham Young said,

    In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this
    earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it....

    We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and
    etc.

    Some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the
    breath of life, for we read "from dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou
    return."

    Well he was made of the dust of the earth but not of this earth.

    He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.

    Adam was an immortal being when he came on this earth;

    He had lived on an earth similar to ours; he had received the Priesthood
    and the keys thereof,

    And had been faithful in all things and gained his resurrection and his
    exaltation, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and
    was numbered with the Gods for such he became through his faithfulness,

    And had begotten all the spirits that was to come to this earth.

    And Eve our common mother who is the mother of all living bore those
    spirits in the celestial world.

    And when this earth was organized by Elohim, Jehovah and Michael, who is
    our common father, Adam and Eve had the privilege to continue the work of
    progression,

    Consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming
    tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in,

    And when Adam and those that assisted him had completed this kingdom our
    earth he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant
    child....

    Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings
    with flesh, bones and sinews.

    But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and
    cultivating the ground their bodies became mortal beings with the blood
    coursing through their veins as the action of life--....

    Father Adam's oldest son (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the 
    family, is father Adam's first begotten in the spirit world, who
    according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written.

    (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and came in
    the spirit to Mary and she conceived,

    For when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did
    not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world
    from whence they came.

    (Diary of L. John Nuttall, February 7, 1877, Special Collections, BYU
    Library, as printed in "Unpublished Revelations", pp. 117-118)

There is a small company in Utah called Mormon Miscellaneous that publishes
small pamphlets that answer many of the critics of the Church.  In this
reply I am going to give extracts from "What About the Adam-god Theory?" by
Van Hale, Mormon Miscellaneous Response Series #3, published in 1982.

I recommend that persons interested or concerned about this topic obtain
the pamphlet and read it, because I am only giving some of the key points
made by Brother Hale.  The Mormon Emporium in Salt Lake City carries them
as do some of the LDS Bookstores.

    I have encountered strong and varied opinions on this subject.  Opponents
    of Mormonism have taken a particular interest in it.  Two positions are
    most prevalent:  (1) Non-Mormon Christians committed to evangelizing 
    Mormons seek to establish that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God theory,
    that it is contrary to Biblical teaching, and that Brigham Young could
    therefore not have been a true prophet.  (2) So-called fundamentalist
    Mormons seek to establish that Brigham Young taught it, that recent
    prophets have rejected it, and that some prophets since Brigham Young
    could therefore not be true prophets.  Both groups have taken advantage
    of two facts:  First, most Mormons are unaware that Brigham Young ever
    taught the Adam-God theory; and second, most Mormons are uncomfortable
    with the position that prophets may have differed in their concept of God.

    My purpose here is not to present evidence to show that Brigham Young
    taught the Adam-God theory.  Rather, as one who is convinced that he
    did teach it, I wish to state briefly some of my reasons for rejecting
    the conclusions of these two groups of Mormonism's opponents.
 
    Was the Adam-God theory official Mormon doctrine?
    -------------------------------------------------

    My answer to this question is an emphatic "No".  [Bro. Hale gives a lot
    of logic and comments which I am omitting] 

    1.  The Adam-God theory has never been a part of the Mormon canon of
    scripture.  The Church has always had an official canon.  During Brigham
    Young's lifetime it was the Bible, Book of Mormon, and a somewhat smaller
    Doctrine and Covenants.  President Young never attempted to incorporate
    any statement of the Adam-God theory into this canon.

    2.  The theory was never advocated in any official statement.  In addition
    to the canon, official statements were occasionally issued by the first
    Presidency and by the Quorum of the Twelve.  The only one in which Brigham
    Young ever referred to the Adam-god theory was a statement issued in 1860
    entitled "Instructions to the Saints".  Signed by the First Presidency and
    published in the 'Deseret News', it stated several conclusions of councils
    held to consider some doctrinal differences between Apostle Orson Pratt
    and President Young.  One of these was the Adam-god theory.  But rather
    than declaring the theory to be Church doctrine, the statement says, "It
    is deemed wisest to let that subject remain without further explanation
    at present." (Messages of the First Presidency, 2:222)....

    3.  No revelation was ever presented by Brigham Young on the Adam-God
    theory.  Nor does it appear that he ever claimed to have received a direct
    revelation on the subject.  Opponents would challenge my claim with this
    quotation from President Young:

       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. ('Desert News',
       June 18, 1873).
 
    It is not at all certain that Brigham Young intended this to be an
    announcement of a direct revelation.  It was his belief that God is the
    source of all truth in every field.  To him, every truth known to any
    man has come by revelation from God, sometimes directly, but usually
    indirectly upon such natural principles as observation, study, inquiry,
    and meditation.  Since he believed the Adam-God theory was true, no 
    matter how he arrived at that conclusion, to him it was revealed by God.
    (He presented this thought at some length in JD 3:209; see also 12:7;
    12:148)

    4.  Brigham Young himself did not consider the Adam-God theory official
    Church doctrine.  Again, opponents would challenge my assertion by
    quoting the bold language he used in his first mention of the subject....
    However, he expressed his attitude toward it on several other occasions
    making it very clear that he considered belief in the subject
    non-essential....[I omitted quotations of BY's comments] I cannot believe
    that President Young would speak this way of an official Church doctrine.

    5.  The Adam-God theory was not considered Church doctrine by other
    General Authorities.... [Hale talks about thousands of pages of sermons
    from the General Authorities and only a few pages referring to the
    Adam-God theory]

    6.  The Adam-god theory was not a test of faith.  That is, acceptance of it
    was not required to become a member or to remain a member. [There were
    Church courts held concerning the Adam-God theory, but these seem to be
    the actions of individual Church administrators and the the result of a
    Church-wide policy] 

In order to keep these replies short, I will continue the extracts in
subsequent replies.

Continuing from Van Hale:

Can prophets differ in their views?
-----------------------------------

    As one who believes that God has called prophets at various times, I think
    that the only possible answer to this question is "Yes".

    Most opponents who have made an issue of the Adam-God theory insist that
    true prophets have been infallible, at least in matters of faith and
    doctrine, and therefore there could be no doctrinal differences or
    disharmony among them.  They demand that LDS prophets either meet this
    standard or be denounced as false prophets.  They assume that Biblical
    prophets were in such perfect union with God as to be free from all error
    and personal opinion that their every word and thought were not their
    own, but God's.  This claim has much appeal, but many devoted Christians
    who have examined this point have declared that the Bible in no way
    supports this assumption.  Commentators who have studied the Bible in
    chronological order have found numerous differences when comparing
    earlier writings to later, and when comparing author to author.  This
    basic idea has been widely discussed and abundantly demonstrated in
    such major Biblical works as the "Interpreter's Bible", and the
    "Interpreter's Bible Dictionary".

    Several subjects on which the authors of the Bible diverge include: the
    nature of God, Jesus, and the Messiah, salvation, resurrection, the second
    coming, and the observance of the law of Moses.  Our opponents must
    be able to deny the differences demonstrated by Bible scholars on these
    several important points and show a perfect agreement among Bible authors
    before I could see any validity in their demanding perfect consistency
    among LDS prophets.

    Non-Mormon Christians who acknowledge these differences within the Bible
    have not felt obligated to reject the Biblical prophets because of their
    differences.  Rather, they have proposed what they feel are valid
    explanations of them.  As far as I am concerned, the same explanations 
    apply with equal validity to LDS prophets.

    The two primary points of their explanations are: a) Prophets were not
    infallible, and b) Their knowledge was fragmentary and incomplete. 
    Rev. J.R. Dummelow, in his widely received work, stated:

        We must not regard the Bible as an absolutely perfect book in which
        God is Himself the author using human hands and brains only as a man
        might use a typewriter.  God used men, not machines--men with like
        weakness and prejudice and passion as ourselves...in the Bible we do
        not expect the actors to be real and natural.  Because of our false
        theory of Verbal Inspiration we are puzzled when the divine is mingled
        with the human...It is a mine of precious ore where the gold is
        mingled with the rock and clay--the ore is richer in one part than
        another, but all parts in some degree are glittering with gold.
        (p. cxxxv)

    [I've omitted the rest of Hale's discussion of Biblical prophets]

    Many non-Mormon Christians, while admitting that differences exist
    in the prophetic writings, are not willing to reject the prophets.
    Neither am I.  I am not willing to discard Paul's claims because
    some of his imperfections and lack of harmony with other prophets and
    apostles have been pointed out.  Neither am I willing to discard Mormonism
    because opponents can point to a difference between Brigham Young and a
    Bible prophet, or between him and a succeeding LDS prophet.
        
In my next reply, I will complete my extracts from Van Hale's booklet.

Continuing from Van Hale:

    Neither the Bible nor Mormonism has ever claimed that truth is to be
    found only in the official canon.  It must be remembered that every 
    new revelation ever given has always been outside the official canon
    initially.  To reject an idea simply because it sounds new or
    different is to reject one of the most fundamental principles of the
    Judeo-Christian religion....

    As a result of this line of thought, some Mormons believe the Adam-God
    theory even though it was never official doctrine, never canonized, and
    not supported from previous scripture.  Personally, I do not find this
    conclusion unreasonable.  There are, however, those who are extreme in
    their acceptance of the Adam-God theory, and are known as fundamentalist
    Mormons, or just fundamentalists.

    Fundamentalist Mormon Argument
    ------------------------------

    On several points the fundamentalist position is identical to that of
    the non-Mormon Christian--namely, that the Adam-god theory was official
    Mormon doctrine, and that prophets cannot disagree.  Where they differ
    is in that they believe it is true and scriptural.  Non-Mormon Christians
    believe Mormonism is false because early leaders taught the Adam-God
    theory.  Fundamentalists believe that current Mormonism is false because
    recent leaders have not taught it.

    They frequently resort to considerable twisting of the scriptures and the
    teachings of Joseph Smith in order to force them to harmonize with the 
    Adam-God theory....As for Joseph Smith, he clearly taught that Adam holds
    a position of authority superior to any of the prophets, that he stands
    at the head of his posterity, and presides over the spirits of mankind;
    that it is by Adam's authority that the keys are revealed; and that he
    will judge the saints.  However, the most central issue of the Adam-God
    theory--that God the Father became Adam--has not been found among Joseph
    Smith's teachings; it has not been shown that he believed that Adam was
    the Father of our spirits; and he clearly taught that Adam's high position
    of authority is yet subordinate to that of Jesus Christ....

    Most of the points previously discussed also apply to the fundamentalist
    argument.  There is one point I wish to discuss further.  They claim to be
    disciples of Brigham Young.  Yet, I believe they have misunderstood him to
    a greater degree than even the non-Mormon Christians have.  I believe
    Brigham Young himself would denounce their position in the strongest of
    terms.  By declaring that Church leaders are in apostasy they have created
    a division over a subject he said "does not immediately concern yours or
    my welfare", one which he said "should not trouble us at all"....

    There are three additional attitudes which I have heard expressed by
    Mormons which I wish to mention.

    1.  Some are totally disinterested in anything except the teachings of the
    present leaders.  These are working in the present and looking to the
    future without ever looking back.  There is no spark of concern for past
    issues.  There are those most critical of this attitude.  Although I am
    one who must look back, I find myself unable to criticize those not so
    inclined.

    2.  Some have insisted that Brigham Young never taught the Adam-god theory;
    that he has been misquoted, in-accurately reported, or misinterpreted.
    This was a reasonable view for many years when the entire argument was
    founded only upon Brigham Young's April 9, 1852 discourse.  As additional
    sources have been discovered this position has become less and less
    tenable until now I believe it should be totally discarded.

    3.  Finally, some Mormons believe that after a fair examination of all
    relevant points several reasonable conclusions could be reached.  Convinced
    that Mormonism does not stand or fall upon the issue of the Adam-God
    theory, they are satisfied to suspend final judgment until further light
    is shed.

    Although many individuals have and will resolve the matter for themselves,
    I am certain that their conclusions will continue to be varied because of
    the seemingly reasonable approaches to the issue....

    I have attempted to present as fairly as I could in so brief a work the
    various attitudes I have encountered on this interesting subject.  Whatever
    conclusion most appeals, I am confident that Brigham Young, if he were
    here, would be dismayed that his few statements on this one subject have
    prevented some people from giving a fair examination to the restored gospel
    and church that inspired and motivated him.  A man of remarkable common
    sense, Brigham Young did not think that the existence of sun spots should
    lead one to turn away from the sun's warmth and light.

    Excellent!  Thanks for posting that.  
    
    Steve

    
    Great job, Allen! Here are the references that I have on your prior
    queries. JPS, John Pulsipher Scrapbook (1827-1891); Scrapbook (1891);
    Special Collections, BYU Library, Provo, Utah. a scrapbook containing
    some phraseology-choice and select instruction-abridged speeches
    of inspired men. Observed and recorded by John Pulsipher,SLC,Utah
    1854-1856.
    
    BYP, Brigham Young Papers, 1801-1877, Historical Dept of the Church
    of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, SLC, Utah
                        
    All I could find on the Southern Indian Mission, T. Brown is what
    you referred to.
    
    The book, "The teachings of President Brigham Young Vol. 3" is compiled
    and edited by Fred Collier, Collier Publishing Company, 1st Ed.
    October 1987- this is a compilation of discourses by B. Young from
    1852 to 1854. (Fred in his other works appears to take a stand that
    appears fundamentalist in nature, most of my material-references
    have come from his works, however I have been careful in reviewing
    his material and have limited my material to the historical entries)
    I wouldn't go as far as call him a fundamentalist, for he has not
    declared the modern prophets, after John Taylor, as false, yet in
    his writings, he criticises the present church, or offers commentary
    to that effect.
    
    In BY's discourses it is clear to me that he did not intend this
    doctrine to be taken as the official stand of the church, however
    as individuals we are free to decide for ourselves upon the truth-
    fulness of what he taught. The pamplet that Allen refers to is in
    harmony with everything I've seen so far. My personal belief is
    that Brigham did not originate this doctrine, that Joseph was the
    originator, I don't believe that I can prove it to the satisfaction
    of this conference, yet my references indicate that a case could
    be made to this effect. What this all means is another matter.
    Could it all be speculation by Prophets, or private teachings, or
    an evolution of an idea that germinated yet did not live to maturity?
    
    Kevin
    
    
                  

    Another possibility is that the theory may have originated
    with someone other than Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.  Remember, in
    the early 1800's there was a lot of religious activity and a lot of 
    contradictory ideas floating around.  And, the Church was newly
    restored and the members had a lot to learn.  To some extent, given the
    apparent lack of importance of the theory, where the theory comes from
    may not be as important as that it was only a theory and was never 
    accepted within the canon.
    
    Steve

Until we get more information, we have to admit that both theories about
the source of Adam-god are possibilities.  Thus, as we review the information
Kevin has obtained, we need to look at it from a historical viewpoint in
terms of primary and secondary evidence, possible inaccuracies that may be
in the documents, possible bias of the authors, etc.

Allen

    As I have studied these replies and done a bit of research in the
    scriptures, I have come up with the following for consideration. 
    
    Re: Note 55.71 by CACHE::LEIGH

>              -< Brigham Young's discourse of October 4, 1854 >-
    
    In presenting his teachings on this subject, Brigham Young uses the
    term "I reckon", which he equates to "I guess", eight times. I believe,
    and I think that this is evidence supporting my belief, that Brigham
    Young was speculating when teaching these things. Why he chose to do so
    in so public a fashion, I do not know. However, as stated by others in
    this topic, these teachings never became part of the "official"
    position of the church nor were they included in the standard works. 
    
    Further, I believe that each prophet is called for particular purpose
    or purposes. This is speculation on my part, but it does not seem to me
    that Brigham Young's primary calling was revelation of new doctrines,
    but rather organizing, colonizing, and building the church. Consider as
    evidence of this speculation how few revelations are included in the
    Doctrine and Covenants that came through Brigham Young. I count exactly
    one (D&C 136), and it relates to matters of organizing the saints for
    the westward journey. 
    
    I do not doubt his calling as a prophet, but I assert that different
    prophets have different strengths and gifts from God. Just as I find
    some of the apostle Paul's writings confusing, which Peter also
    confirmed, so I find some of Brigham Young's teachings confusing, and I
    think his speculation on this subject is an example of this. 
    
    From the scriptures, I find an passage that would tend to contradict
    the notions that Adam is God the Father and that Adam is the father of
    Jesus Christ. In the following passage, note that God (Man of Holiness)
    is speaking to Adam, and says that His (God's) Only Begotten (the Son
    of Man) will come in the flesh to redeem mankind. It would seem from
    this passage that: 
    
    1- There are three distinct persons involved: God, who is speaking
       to Adam, the Only Begotten, of whom God testifies to Adam, and Adam.
       Therefore, Adam is not the same person as God, who is speaking to Adam.
    
    2- God, who is speaking to Adam claims that Jesus Christ is "mine
       Only Begotten". Therefore, Jesus Christ is not begotten of Adam,
       but of God, who is speaking to Adam.
    
    Following is this passage from the Pearl of Great Price:
               
         But God hath made known unto our fathers that all men must repent. 
         
         And he called upon our father Adam by his own voice, saying: I am
         God; I made the world, and men before they were in the flesh. 
         
         And he also said unto him: If thou wilt turn unto me, and hearken
         unto my voice, and believe, and repent of all thy transgressions,
         and be baptized, even in water, in the name of mine Only Begotten
         Son, who is full of grace and truth, which is Jesus Christ, the
         only name which shall be given under heaven, whereby salvation
         shall come unto the children of men, ye shall receive the gift of
         the Holy Ghost, asking all things in his name, and whatsoever ye
         shall ask, it shall be given you. 
         
         And our father Adam spake unto the Lord, and said: Why is it that
         men must repent and be baptized in water? And the Lord said unto
         Adam: Behold I have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden
         of Eden. 
         
         Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God
         hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents
         cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are
         whole from the foundation of the world. 
         
         And the Lord spake unto Adam, saying: Inasmuch as thy children are
         conceived in sin, even so when they begin to grow up, sin
         conceiveth in their hearts, and they taste the bitter, that they
         may know to prize the good. 
         
         And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they
         are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law
         and commandment. 
         
         Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere,
         must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for
         no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for,
         in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name
         of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a
         righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time. 
         
         Therefore I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things
         freely unto your children, saying: 
         
         That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall
         bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by
         water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became
         of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the
         kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by
         blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be
         sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in
         this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal
         glory; 
         
         For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are
         justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified; 
         
         Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the
         Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of
         all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive
         all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power
         according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment. 
         
         And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation
         unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall
         come in the meridian of time. 
         
         And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are
         created and made to bear record of me, both things which are
         temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the
         heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which
         are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above
         and beneath; all things bear record of me. 
         
         And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our
         father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by
         the  Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and
         was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water. 
         
         And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon
         him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in
         the inner man. 
         
         And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with
         fire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father,
         and the Son, from henceforth and forever; 
         
         And thou art after the order of him who was without beginning of
         days or end of years, from all eternity to all eternity. 
         
         Behold, thou art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become
         my sons. Amen. (Moses 6:50-68) 
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich

	Brethren,

		Elder John A. Widtsoe, an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ,
	was a research scholar with a doctorate degree.  Some of his work
	for the IMPROVEMENT ERA is now collected in a book called EVIDENCES
	AND RECONCILIATIONS.  On pages 68 - 71 he discuses the Adam-God 
	Theory.

		He refers to Brigham Young's talk on April 9, 1852 as 
	recorded in JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, 1:50.  He claims that if read 
	understandingly and honestly, in the right context, Brigham Young 
	does not say anything contrary to established Church doctrine.  He 
	refers to a talk Brigham Young gave August 8, 1852 (JD, 3:94), and 
	to two Joseph Smith talks as recorded in Joseph Smith's HISTORY OF 
	THE CHURCH, Vol 4, pp 207-209 and Vol 3, pp 385-387.  Dr. Widtsoe 
	also states that all other Brigham Young talks do not support the 
	Adam-God Theory.

		Joseph Fielding Smith, in his ANSWERS TO GOSPEL QUESTIONS,
	Vol 5, pp 121-128, talks about the Adam-God question of the father
	of Jesus Christ.  He refers to D&C 29:34 

		"...; neither Adam, your father, whom I created."

		Personally, I find the Adam-God Theory mighty interesting.
	However, this particular discussion in this conference has brought
	out something of more importance than the theory itself.  All the 
	discussion is concerning itself about ONE talk given by Brigham Young.
	None of his other talks support that one.   Also, the Scriptures are
	THE BASIS of all our beliefs.  They do not directly support the theory.
	No other talk given by any other Apostle supports the theory.  I see
	here people who tout the learning of BYU and people not generally
	considered general authorities of the Church, whom I do not intend to
	debate their integrity at this time.   I will point out one thing, 
	however.

		Joseph Fielding Smith, John A. Widtsoe, and Bruce R. McConkie
	are Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.  They are the anointed prophets,
	seers, and revelators of the Lord.  They are in AUTHORITY with the
	Lords blessing, and people in this discussion has said that they have
	misinterpreted , missed the boat, had incomplete information, and they
	just didn't do their homework.  Therefore, the work of these men is to
	be discounted or dismissed because other "learned" men have a better 
	understanding of the Lords work.  Judge ye.   Who is sowing the
	seeds of apostasy?  I shudder at the thought of anyone thinking 
	themselves better than a prophet or apostle because they researched or
	studied more.  Is that person also of greater status or knowledge
	that their Bishop?  Where will the arrogance of learning stop?
	Let us remember what is said in 2 Peter 1:19-21

		19. We have also a more sure word of prophesy;...
		20. Knowing this first, that no prophesy of the scripture is
		    of any private interpretation.
		21. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
		    But holy men of God spake as they were moved by the
		    Holy Ghost.

	Brigham Young, as an apostle and prophet of the Lord, spoke as led by
	the spirit.  The only way another person can understand what he was
	saying is to receive it by the spirit (D&C 50:21).  D&C 42:14 tells
	us to teach by the spirit.  Where is the spirit in this discussion?
	It is not there when those who are anointed by the Lord to lead the
	people are rejected.  In doing so, they also reject God.

		If you come across something that is contrary to the teachings
	of the scriptures and the Lord's anointed, then leave it alone.  Why
	strain at something so small as in Matthew 23:24, "Ye blind guides, 
	which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel".  Why do ye stumble and
	allow Satan to have power over you? (1 Nephi 13:29)  Let go and hold
	fast to the revealed truth - faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, baptism
	for the remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost.  Repent
	from the contention in this discussion.  Cast aside the firery darts
	of the devil, and remember the Lord in our offerings of a broken heart
	and a contrite spirit.  Come unto Christ and he will come unto you.
	Brethren, may the Lord be with us and help us to better love him by
	keeping his commandments as revealed by scripture and his anointed
	servants.  In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
	
		Sorry, I kind of got carried away.  But I am sincere in my
	observations of this discussion.  I would like to commend to all the
	talk given yesterday in conference by Russell Nelson, and leave with
	this scripture in mind.

	D&C 10:62-63

		62. Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was
		    ministered unto them, and, behold, they shall not deny
		    that which you have received, but they shall build it up,
		    and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine,
		    yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.
		63. And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there
		    may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the
		    hearts of the people to contention concerning the points
		    of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they
		    do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.

    Re: .82
    
    Hi Charles!
    
    I just want to clear up something from that may have come out of
    earlier entries in people's minds. I sustain the current prophet
    and all Gen. Authorities and believe the participants in this file
    do. In no way do I want to leave anyone the intention that I am
    "mormon bashing". The material that we have researched is 
    statements that *corroborate* the 1852 discourse by B Young, others
    that have been entered by Allen in the file that have come from
    either his or my findings. No, I don't hold a doctorate, but I can
    read, and only want to share this info with other interested parties
    in this file. No doubt, it will cause some to reassess their own
    beliefs; the intent is purely to inform, contention is not my intent
    here and I have been led by the Spirit in what I have presented
    for material. I suggest that if you have time, read the early entries
    that Allen, John, and I have entered and see the progression in
    thought. I see John's points more clearly than, say , a couple of
    months ago and am clearer on "doctrine vs. personal beliefs" than
    I was before. Replies made by Kevin (the other one), Steve, Scott,
    and Rich, have given me cause for me to reflect on my own perspective.
    I have learned from all these Brethren, and love them for it. 
    
    Kevin

Re .82

Hi Charles,

Thank you for your willingness to share your feelings about the direction
this particular note is going.  All too often, persons who feel that a note
is going the wrong direction don't say anything and they let their frustrations
build up inside them.

I would like to make a few comments about why leaders like Elders Widtsoe
and McConkie and President Joseph Fielding Smith have made statements that
are in disagreement with recent results of historical research.  Other persons
have said the same thing in this and other notes, but I thought I would try
to explain it from my perspective.

Our church leaders are inspired men and have been called by God as Priesthood
leaders.  Many of them are great scholars (both spiritually and intellectually),
and they all have a much deeper understanding of the Gospel than I have.
However, they are human and have limitations to their knowledge.  They don't
know everything about everything.  They commit sin and make mistakes.  

When Brigham first began speaking about Adam-god, many of the General
Authorities during his time did not understand what he was saying.  They thought
that he was talking about Adam being mortal, living, dying, being resurrected,
and being given exaltation and thus becoming a god.  They thought that when
Brigham said Adam was our god and the only god with whom we have anything to
do, he was referring to Adam's role as the Patriarch of the earth, and since
Adam had become exalted, then he was a god who was the Patriarch of the earth
and hence "the only god with whom we have anything to do".  If you read replies
0.9 and 0.10 to this note, you will find that attitude expressed by leaders
during Brigham Young's time.  This was the conclusion that I reached after
my research into early statements of Brigham Young, it was the attitude
that General Authorities had for many years and was expressed by Widtsoe,
Joseph Fielding Smith, and McConkie.

Through relatively recent historical research, historians have discovered
additional sermons of Brigham Young (replies 0.71 and 0.73) and diary entries
of contemporaries (reply 0.72) that indicate that Brigham Young was not
referring to Adam as a mortal on our earth who had become a god through
exaltation, but he was referring to Adam who had lived on another earth and had
become exaltation and then created our earth and was our Father in heaven.  It
is important for us to realize that for the most part this information has come
forth since Widtsoe, JF Smith, and McConkie published their books.  We shouldn't
be alarmed that our general authorities don't know everything about our history,
and we shouldn't be alarmed if statements made by General Authorities about
things *of which they have an imperfect knowledge* turn out to be incorrect.
This is all part of the learning process that God expects us to go through.

You expressed concerns about contention in this note.  Your concerns are
important, and I (if I may put my moderators hat on for a moment) appreciate
you saying what you did.  We are under specific commandment from God and
counsel from our church leaders to avoid contention; as you pointed out,
we were given this counsel at the conference just ended.  One problem with
our trying to stay from contention is that not everyone agrees on what is
or what isn't contention.  As an individual (my moderator hat is now off),
I don't feel that this note has become contentious yet, but I believe that
it could be contentious if everyone involved isn't careful.  Others believe
that this note has become contentious, and I respect their feelings.  I've
created a new note about CONTENTION so we can explore how we might recognize
when particular notes in the conference (as well as other activities in our
lives) are becoming contentious and hence in opposition to the will of God.

Again, Charles, thanks for sharing your feelings with us.

Allen

	As I have read the notes presented in this discussion I have
	been somewhat amazed at the seeming acceptance of this "theory" 
	as plausible by some of you. I will say up front that I do not
	accept this "theory"! In the sense that he assisted in the 
	creation of the world he (Adam) might be considered a god and
	I believe that he is the father of Jesus only in the sense that
	he is the father of the human family. 
	 
	A few years ago (I can't give exact dates or word for word
	account but I'll find out) I remember that one of the 12 came
	out and addressed this issue of the Adam-God theory directly
	and that the gist of what was said was not in favor of this
	"theory". The criticism was given in General Conference to the 
	church as a whole and we were warned not to embrace this or to
	lend credence to it. Sorry I can't give date & specifics but I
	distinctly remember that the talk was given. I served a mission 
	to the England London Mission from 1974-1976 and this subject 
	was a hot topic there at that time. The spreading of this 
	"theory" was the cause of a lot of havoc in the District that
	was administered by the Mission and brought a lot of antagon
	-ism. Why do we as a church continue to speculate on points
	that the Authorities have counseled us to avoid? Isn't it a
	good idea to concentrate on the 4 basic principles ie: Faith,
	Repentence, Baptism & the Gift of the Holy Ghost and master
	those before we go on to other things? I might also suggest 
    	a review of D&C 19: on this subject.

	Another question I have is this. IF Brigham Young taught this
	as doctrine & he was a Prophet of God why would the Authorities
	today warn us to stay away from it? Is the Lord changing his 
	mind? Are the current leaders trying to mislead us or lie to 
	us? I submit that they were not, that this is only a theory &
	that for myself it is not worth my time in speculation. I
	realize that this view can be seen as narrow & unintellectual
	but after what I saw the promulgation of this theory do to
	that District I want nothing to do with it. To speculate on
	spurious doctrines & mysteries not only takes our attentions
	from that which is really important ie: the first principles
	but can also lead us astray.   

	In closing (mercifully for you) I would urge each of us to 
	follow the current leadership closely and do as the Lord 
	tells us through them. Stay away from the mysteries and the
	speculations and stick to the basics. Besides if we haven't
	mastered the basics what good would it do us to go on? Ardeth
	G. Kapp, after the current Womens conference, was approached
	by a mother and her daughter. The mother made some reference
	to the effect that Pres. Benson was not speaking as the Prophet
	during his address to the conference due, I think, to the fact
	that he told mothers to stay home as much as possible and not
	to work out of the home. Sis. Kapp said that Pres. Benson is a
	Prophet and that if he said to eat Post Toasties she would go 
	and buy them. I have paraphrased the story but I believe the
	central point is that we should follow the prophet regardless
	of our personal feelings on the matter because he will not
	lead us astray.	The Lord has said that He will remove the 
	Prophet before He would let that happen. 

	I spoke to a brother in my Ward regarding this subject and he 
	said that he had a question about this "theory" and went to 
	his Bishop to resolve it. His Bishop informed him that the
	passage in the Journal of Discourses was a misquote by the
	person recording it. This idea seem very plausible to me.

	Brethren & Sisters let's follow the counsel of our leaders
	and concentrate on the basics first. 

	God bless you,

	David Pyle
	TFO
                                            
    

Historical evidence is pretty strong that Brigham Young did teach it.  The
replies I've made to this note show that Brigham did teach it, that men who
heard him recorded it in their diaries, and that other church leaders talked
about it.  It doesn't bother me that BY taught it and that it is not taught
today, because, as Van Hale pointed out (reply 55.74 through 55.76) prophets
are *not* infallible and have always differed from other prophets in matters
not clearly revealed by the Lord.

The fact that the Adam-god theory is not taught today is significant in my
opinion, because it indicates that even though Church leaders may have
erroneous ideas about things not clearly revealed by God, those ideas will not
remain because our leaders are inspired, and the Lord will guide the leaders
around the erroneous ideas.  The fact that our General Authorities can have
erroneous ideas about "mysteries" does not imply that they are false prophets.

A lot of LDS have problems with the idea that our General Authorities could
have erroneous ideas about doctrine, and it seems as if those LDS expect our
leaders to be infallible and without error in matters of doctrine.  If we
recognize that our General Authorities are human, do sin, do make mistakes,
then we should *expect* that they would differ in matters not clearly revealed
by the Lord, but we should also expect that their differences would not remain
over the years as part of the doctrine of the Church.

I do not believe the Adam-god theory because it is not compatible with the
scriptures.  I also do not accept it because it is not part of the teachings
of the Church today.  In the remainder of this reply, I want to briefly outline
the incompatibilities between the Adam-god theory and the scriptures, as I
understand them.  I'm sure that there will be other incompatibilities that I
haven't listed.  

1.  The scriptures teach that the resurrection is permanent, that resurrected
    people are beyond death.  The Adam-god theory teaches that in the case of
    Adam, his resurrected body became mortal again.

2.  The scriptures teach that only Jesus Christ was sinless; therefore, Adam
    committed sins.  The Adam-god theory teaches that Adam, as a resurrected
    and exalted personage and therefore a God, was our Father in Heaven and
    the father of our spirits; Adam as our God was therefore without sin.  The
    theory teaches that Adam became mortal and committed sin (since only Jesus
    Christ was sinless).  In other words, the Adam-god theory teaches that
    Our Father in Heaven became mortal and committed sin!

3.  The scriptures teach that Jesus Christ is higher than Adam, i.e. Adam is
    subject to Jesus and will return his Priesthood Keys to Jesus.  The
    Adam-god theory teaches that Adam (as God) was the Father of Jesus' body
    and was the God to whom Jesus prayed while in his mortal ministry.
    In other words, the Adam-god theory teaches that Jesus is below Adam.

If any of you recognize other inconsistencies between the scriptures and the
Adam-god theory, please post them.  I think it is important that we understand
why (in terms of the scriptures) that that theory is not part of Mormon
doctrine.  We need to understand what the scriptures and our living prophets
teach so, as David Pyle said in the previous reply, we can concentrate on 
living the principles of the Gospel.

Allen

	Brethren,

		It seems that my comments have been taken in the wrong spirit.
	It was not what I intended.  I do not wish to respond in kind, but 
	state my position in what I think is appropriate terms.

		My entire knowledge and belief is based upon the Scriptures,
	and my understanding of them so far, and the words of the prophets.
	I try to live my life by them to the best of my abilities.  My children
	hate me quoting scripture to them, but maybe someday they will 
	understand that is how I try to conduct my life.  Anyway, I have
	previously stressed the Lord's anointed, and I have pointed out three
	of them that are in concurrence with regards to this subject.  
	Therefore, I would like to point out my scriptural basis of why this 
	is important.

		First is that to establish any sound doctrine, there must be
	corroboration among the Lord's anointed :


		D&C  6:28	(2 Corinthians 13:1)

			"... ; and in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
			 shall every word be established."


		D&C  1:38

			"..., whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my
			 servants, it is the same."


		1 John  4:6

			"We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he 
			 that is not of God heareth not us.  Hereby know we 
			 the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error."

		D&C 124:45

			"And if my people will hearken unto my voice, and unto
			 the voice of my servants whom I have appointed to 
			 lead my people, behold, verily I say unto you, they 
			 shall not be moved out of their place."

	Sure, all of the Lord's servants are human, just like any of us.  But
	they have a stewardship that we must either accept, or suffer the
	consequences.  D&C 18:35 tells us that the D&C is the voice of the
	Lord, so I would think that it should carry some weight in our
	decisions of what to follow.  The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood
	in D&C 84: 33-39 explains that as we accept those whom the Father sends,
	He will accept us.  D&C 121:16-19 explains what happens when we go so
	far against the Lords servants, though I don't believe this has happened
	here.  But if we do not watch how we conduct ourselves in the search
	for truth, we could set ourselves up for that.

		The Lord tells us to take what is good out of the World and
	use it.  But I would like to put forth a word of warning to those who
	deem it necessary to go after too much of the world.  Let us be learned
	and wise in the scriptures and not in the world.....

	2 Nephi  9:28-29, 42

		28. O that cunning plan of the evil one!  O the vainness,
		    and the frailties, and the foolishness of men!  When they
		    are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken
		    not unto the council of God, for they set it aside, 
		    supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom
		    is foolishness and it profiteth them not.  And they shall
		    perish.
		29. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the 
		    counsels of God.

		42. And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise and
		    the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up 
		    because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their 
		    riches -- yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save
		    they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves
		    fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility,
		    he will not open unto them.


	2 Nephi 27:26

		26. Therefore, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among
		    this people, yea, a marvelous work and a wonder, for the
		    wisdom of their wise and learned shall perish, and the
		    understanding of their prudent shall be hid.


	2 Nephi 28: 4, 15

		 4. And they shall contend one with another; and their priests
		    shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with 
		    their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth
		    utterance.

		15. O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed
		    in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach 
		    false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and
		    pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them,
		    saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust
		    down to hell!


	Alma 32:23

		23. And now, he imparteth his word by angels unto men, yea, not
		    only men but women also.  Now this is not all; little
		    children do have words given unto them many times which
		    confound the wise and the learned.


	1 Corinthians  1:9

		 9. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
		    and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.


	1 Corinthians  3:18-20

		18. Let no man deceive himself.  If any man among you seemeth
		    to be in this wise in this world, let him become a fool,
		    that he may be wise.
		19. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.
		    For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own
		    craftiness.
		20. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, 
		    that they are vain.


	Lastly, I would like to consider a talk given by Elder Boyd K. Packer
	on the Sunday Afternoon Session in April 3, 1983.  It is a talk titled
	"Agency and Control" and is recorded in the ENSIGN, May 1983 :

	"Some who do not understand the doctrinal part do not readily see the
	 relationship between obedience and agency.  And they miss one vital
	 connection and see obedience as restraint.  They then resist the very
	 thing that will give them true freedom.  There is no true freedom
	 without responsibility, and there is no enduring freedom without a
	 knowledge of the truth.  The Lord said, "If ye continue in my word,
	 then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the
	 truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32.)"
	"Latter-Day Saints are not obedient because they are compelled to be
	 obedient.  They are obedient because they know certain spiritual
	 truths and have decided, as an expression of their own individual 
	 agency, to obey the commandments of God."
	"Those who talk of blind obedience may appear to know many things, but
	 they do not understand the doctrines of the gospel.  There is 
	 obedience that comes from a knowledge of the truth that transcends any
	 external form of control.  We are not obedient because we are blind,
	 we are obedient because we can see."


		May I summarize by saying that in any and all cases we should
	discuss all things by the spirit and in the context of the scriptures
	and the revealed truth and knowledge of the Lord's appointed servants.
	If Brigham Young was indeed correct, then at the proper time in this
	earthly existence, the Lord will reveal the truth through his servants.
	But just like extending the priesthood to all worthy males, it will be
	done in the Lord's time and way and not by the understanding of men.
	Therefore, let us follow the Lord and try to be wise in HIS ways and
	not ours or the worlds.