An Objective Approach to Adam-God Teachings

Adam-God Doctrine - Mormon Chronicle PodcastThis podcast, An Objective Approach to Adam-God Teachings, is presented by mormonchronicle.com and the letter A.

Listen to this episode:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download the podcast episode at this link: Mormon Chronicle Podcast – An Objective Approach to Adam-God Teachings

In this episode, Ezra Taylor interviews Drew Briney, author of the book, Understanding Adam-God Teachings. We have attempted to take an objective approach and simply address the teachings of Church leaders without any attempt to insert assumptions or our own conclusions regarding the teachings.

Michael rebuked SatanMichael God sounds trumpJehova was and Christ wasn'ttitles chart

About the book: “For the first time, every known statement concerning Adam-God teachings has been compiled, documented, organized, and presented to the reader in a way that will withstand serious academic scrutiny.

“For the first time, Adam-God teachings have been presented in a sensitive reading environment that allows the reader to study the original Adam-God statements without the pressure of reading the author’s personal interpretations – the author’s thoughtful insights have been separated into analysis sections following the original sources.

“For the first time, the changes in Mormonism’s theological teachings surrounding the identity of Jehovah have been meticulously researched and documented.

“With scores of previously unpublished statements and a carefully organized presentation, Understanding Adam-God Teachings promises to be the definitive resource volume for readers who have previously only had limited access to the hundreds of statements surrounding this controversial topic. This assiduous treatment of this fallow field of theology will prove to be an enriching and insightful read for the believer and non-believer alike.”

Enjoy.

This entry was posted in Articles, Podcast and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to An Objective Approach to Adam-God Teachings

  1. Elohim-Jehovah-Adam-Jesus =

    Grandfather-Father-Son-Grandson?

    • Simeon Baker says:

      Elohim-Jehovah-Adam-Jesus =
      Our Great Grandfather-Our Grandfather-Our Father-Our Elder brother and Savior. Eloheim=Counsel of the Gods

  2. iamse7en says:

    Andrew: Yes, there is one statement I know of in which Brigham Young taught that family line:

    “Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth and Michael became Adam” (Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith Journal, 6/17/1871).

    I have read Drew’s book. I devoured it. It was probably the most enlightening books I have read in years. Well worth the purchase, and also worth it to purchase the digital version. I have gone and referred back to the book to copy-paste statements dozens of times.

    I admit, it was tough for me at first to swallow, because of the misconceptions I had heard about it, but Drew does it in a very friendly, academic, and organized way. I agree with Drew and Ezra that it’s important to lay out what was said so that we aren’t dishonest, or hide material for anti-sources to use as weaponry. One aspect they didn’t cover, is the search for truth, to study and dig out the mysteries, because it’s a sensitive issue. Since the Brethren do not teach it anymore, we are not to teach it in Church. This is important for the purposes/principles of unity and uniformity and order.

    I thought Drew’s example of Jesus, Moses and divorce was a great one. I appreciated the respectful and honest approach that was taken in the podcast. There are tougher questions and seeming contradictions that could be ironed out, and that would be interesting discussion, but is perhaps done better in a more private settings because this is a sensitive issue.

    • iamse7en says:

      Another piece of feedback I might add: as I’m sure you’re aware, the sound quality isn’t great, a bit echo-y, fuzzy, etc. I don’t know if there is good, yet cheap equipment, but it certainly would be a nice improvement. It doesn’t take away from the content and discussion, which was great, but better sound quality would be great.

      I could have listened to much more. It was great to put a voice and background to the author of a book that I loved so much. What a stalwart convert! Very inspiring.

      • Brian says:

        We actually have some decent microphones… unfortunately, when Ezra was doing the interview his crappy built-in computer microphone was also recording into the same feed (ooops)… I did manage to cut out a bunch of background noise that would have made it even worse… we’ll try to be more attentive of that in the future.

        Thanks for the feedback.

    • Peter says:

      Amen iamse7en I agree with your comment!

    • Craig Payne says:

      What clarifies the message of Brigham Young on Adam is that he believed the God before he became God was an Adam on another planet in an Alternate Universe. So when Brigham Young says that, “The the only God we have anything to do with is Adam he is refering to Elohim as Adam on another planet before he became God. When he says that Adam is the Father of Jesus Christ he is refereing to another Adam than the one who came to this earth. This knowlege helps me understand and accept Brigham Young as an inspired prohet and a true visionary. It is interestion all the mathematics of astro physics and string theory and, (this is new dark flow) all point to alternate Universes. Dark flow is the observable flow of galaxies to certain distant points in the universe.

  3. Eli Cardon says:

    This is a very good audio of Drew Briney. His book is definitly a very comprehensive and well documented masterpiece. A brilliant piece of research! Hey guys, well done on this interview.

    There is no doubt that these teachings were taught. If true, this is something that would define our role in the Fathers kingdom, would it not? So what could this mean for us? Why is this understanding important?

    I Nephi 10:19
    “For he that diligently seeketh shall find; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, by the power of the Holy Ghost, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the dcourse of the Lord is one eternal round.”

    If he asks us to seek, why Adam God? I think this is something that even critics should ask rather than shrug off. Just a thought.

    Thanks Again – Eli Cardon

    • “There are very few beings in the world who understand rightly the character of God. They do not comprehend that which is past or that which is to come; and consequently they know but little above the brute beast. If a man learns nothing more than to eat, drink, and sleep and does not comprehend any of the designs of God, he is equal only to the beast, who comprehends the same things: it eats, drinks, sleeps, and knows nothing more; yet it knows as much as we, unless we are able to comprehend by the inspiration of Almighty God.”
      (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse”, http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm)

      • “I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. And if I can bring you to him, all persecutions against me will cease; you will know that I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority.”
        (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse”)

        • “In order to understand the subject of the dead for the consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary they should understand the character and being of God; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.”
          (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse”)

  4. “Jesus said, ‘As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.’ To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.”
    (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse”)

    From this we can deduce that Jesus’ father was a resurrected being. Since Jesus is considered to be the first resurrected on this earth, then his father must have been resurrected on another earth. In other words Jesus’ father was a God.

    • It doesn’t take much of a stretch of the imagination to piece together the rest of the Adam/God doctrine from this. If a God was able to have a child (Jesus) with a mortal (Mary), then what’s to stop a God from descending in like fashion at the beginning of this earth and creating other mortal children in like fashion? The difference being that there didn’t at that time exist a mortal like Mary. But then maybe that’s what “the fall” is all about.

  5. Pingback: The Law of Eternal Progression « noblenarcissist

  6. chris says:

    I think if we do the will of the Lord, and really strive to do so in all things, repenting as we discern our errors, and study this issue out in our minds and with the Lord, and go to the temple often and contemplate these things and turn to God to seek to understand his words through his prophets and try to square them together; by and by, from grace to grace we can know the truth of all things — particularly this issue.
    I know I have received very person revelation on the matter, and it was clear to me it was personal and not something to talk about. The question I asked and the immediate, resounding, repeating answer I received is one that formed a new basis for not only an increased testimony but formed a new basis for further questions…

  7. There is so much confusion and interpretation going on, that nobody can ever seem to agree what Brigham Young meant.

    I don’t interpret his words at all. I just accept their literal meaning, and it works perfectly for me:

    Eloheim
    Jehovah
    Michael
    Jesus Christ

    or, in other words:

    Great-Grandfather
    Grandfather
    Father
    Son

  8. Paul Olsen says:

    I wonder what book I want to read that has not been written?

    Maybe an article?

  9. Paul Olsen says:

    I was just commenting based on that statement the guest made that lead him to write the book. sometimes I think about topics that need a book :-)

  10. Jared says:

    I don’t have $56 for the book. But I keep hearing about a digital pdf version. Where can I find this?

  11. Jeremiah says:

    Have you all gone completely crazy?

    To follow this “parental chain” you have to disavow the clear teachings in Jesus the Christ that Jesus and Jehovah are the same person. You also then have to make Jesus the son of Adam rather than the son of Elohim.

    Please do everyone a huge favor by posting a very large warning sign at the top of this page that what follows is by no means official church doctrine.

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      Gone completely crazy? No one is “disavowing” anything. Did you get a chance to listen to the podcast? This podcast was about was was and wasn’t said, and NOT about what is or isn’t “doctrine”.

      • Jeremiah says:

        I did not listen to the podcast yet. My comment is, at least for now, directed at the several other people who have commented here about this supposed great-grandfather, grandfather, father, son lineage from Elohim to Jesus that effectively says (1) Jesus and Jehovah are not the same person as clearly taught by Elder Talmage and (2) that Jesus is somehow the son of Adam/Michael.

        • Ezra Taylor says:

          Understood. Hope you listen, I’d enjoy your thoughts

          • Jeremiah says:

            Well…I tried to listen, but the background noise/interference was a bit too much for me to handle. I did hear, and please correct me if I misunderstood, that you DENOUNCE the Adam-God theory as a heresy. Assuming I heard that correctly, it makes me feel much better about this site.

            I have to admit was a bit worried when I began reading posts here that claimed Jesus and Jehovah are not the same person and that somehow Adam is the Father that we worship.

  12. Peter says:

    I’ve read the book by Drew Briney and I love it! It is so refreshing to have someone share everything on a subject without fear of reprisal. This doctrine is “a considerable mystery” but I believe everything the brethren have taught on the matter. I do not believe however that it should be taught in Church

  13. Richard says:

    When I first collected and studied the Adam-God teachings of President Young, I could not give it up because I would feel exhileration reading these quotes. The tendancy to speculate with these teachings is very strong, but I tried to resist. Mormonism is based on the principle of “continuing revelation”. The truth of this matter will not come by studing old records of what was said over a century ago. The truth will come by true revelation, and it may take some sacred cows with it.

  14. Cyril says:

    People naturally wants to stay ignorance of the truth so they wont have to excuse themselves so much when they will be judged of it in this life or the next. So it is easier for someone to believe that God is a spirit because the Bible said so than questioning how authentic the Bible is based on the fact that it was actually printed by man. To me, people who opposes what they don’t know or understand are basically too lazy to concern themselves with such things.

  15. Ed Goble says:

    I think all of Brigham Young’s and others’ statements, letters and so forth should be published in the same fashion as the Joseph Smith Papers. Until then, this book is a great resource.

    However, you now need follow up on the big issues:

    (1) Our personal beliefs are not bound by Brigham Young’s teachings.
    (2) Did Brigham Young have it all revealed to him or does AG represent a partial revelation, where speculation filled in missing holes? I say yes.
    (3) Does a study of the Hebrew OT Genesis manifest a different picture? I assert that it does… To me, it teaches the dual Adam thing, and I can demonstrate that.
    (4) We are not bound by the beliefs of general authorites of the past, and their interpretations may be just “wrong” rather than being “meat.”

    Ed Goble

    • Richard says:

      A sincere believer in 2 Nephi 28 — which warns of pacification and the spirit of “all is well in Zion”– has the right to consider the evidence of serious problems in the church today. If President Young was wrong in his Adam-God teachings (which Andy Ehat in 1979 told me was the position of the church leadership then) then the church leadership today can be wrong in their teachings– they can be wrong about President Young being wrong. The only solution is D&C 107:81–84 (and JST Mark 9) which allows legitimate dissent over the President of the church (or one of his counselors). The doctrine that the President of the church is above possible controversy, and above failing the church is and always has been simply false. It is like the FLDS “one man” doctrine.

      • Ed Goble says:

        Well, here’s the thing. A pragmatic approach means that just because the prophet can be wrong, he has the right to declare doctrine, and that demands our loyalty, not dissent. But private opinion is not disloyalty. So allowing them to publically take positions while disagreeing privately is actually not disloyal, but actually the way it has to be. I’m under no illusion that there are things that the leadership are likely to be wrong about in our day. That doesn’t mean that I publically challenge them about it. I can think of umpteen things that I privately disagree about that are taught today that are issues on the periphery. Whatever the case, Brigham Young was not in line with what is taught today, and we can use critical thought about his teachings.

  16. andrew says:

    Why would Brigham Young get up in general conference just to give a long sermon about something that was just a theory? Also why would something that was just theory be taught as part of the temple endowment? I believe the adam-god teachings to be doctrine but most latter-day saints today are to hard in there hearts to receive the doctrine so that is why the journal of discourses is relegated to the status of opinion even though it was originally published as doctrine and remained so for many years.

    • Richard says:

      I could never completely reconcile the Adam-God teachings of President Young with the scriptures. When I finally read the Second Book of Commandments revelations on the matter with the Spirit, I was able to reconcile it . The 2BC shows that there was one major error in what President Young was teaching. So without further revelation it truly was best for the church to leave it alone. But the attempt to deny he taught it, and the absurd attempt to redefine what he said into the “split the Adam” theory both were bad ideas in my convictions. The problem is that if the church admitted openly that he taught it and that he was wrong, it directly contradicted the “done deal” doctrine they pushed continually: that the church President is above any POSSIBLE controversy.

      • Ed Goble says:

        Well, I do not believe in the second book of commandments any more than I believe in the various clamaints that are supposed to be the sealed portion that is out there. But if you believe in it, more power to you. That is your right.

    • Ed Goble says:

      Because revelation comes line upon line, and a doctrine in development is not necessarily in its final form. And obviously there is more to the doctrine than what Brigham understood in his day.

  17. Bren says:

    This is how I understand Adam-God:
    Michael earns celestial glory. His Father comes to him one day and tells him it is time to prepare a world for his spirit children. Michael chooses Jehovah to be the Creator and Saviour. Under the direction of Elohim, Jehovah and Michael create the world. Michael descends with one of his wives to create physical bodies for his children. Upon eating the food of this world Michael and his wife are transformed into mortal beings. Michael comes back at the meridian of time to help create a physical body for Jehovah.
    Now to interject my own view. In the Old Testement when we look at the “original” text it refers to the spirit as a she rather than a he. Could it be possible that Michael chose his most valiant son to be the Saviour and his most valient daughter to be the Comforter?

  18. andrew says:

    Brian this brings up another point that I think is often overlooked. We know that Elohim is a God and that Jehovah is a god but what is not often mentioned is that Michel is also a God. We know this because all 3 have the Keys of creation. It is possible for one to obtain at least a lesser form of godhod without a physical body.

    • Richard says:

      President Young– the ordained revelator for the church– clearly taught: Adam/Michael had been faithful to his Savior on a previous earth, had gained his exaltation, and had a resurrected body. He was the father of the spirits that come to this earth.

      How could the “Archangel” be only a spirit when angels are always resurrected beings?

      He also said: “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! ”

      The problem in accepting this seems to be that many still want “God” to ultimately be like the creeds defined: an uncreated everexisting “father”.

  19. John says:

    Jehovah is a flesh and bone being in the Old Testament. He came down in obviously technological devices (Liahona is also a technology) and spoke to Moses face to face “as a man speaks to another man”. He is “the” God of the Old Testament. The Most High, etc. There is a being known as the “Son of God” in the book of Daniel. When Jesus says “I AM” in the New Testament it is not clear whether he means he is Jehovah. He could just be saying he was there from the foundations of the world like our Standard Works say. Or he could be saying he speaks with the authority of Jehovah, as Emmanuel (God with Us). Unless you believe in reincarnation of some sort, Jesus was a spirit before he was birthed in Bethlehem. Jehovah was described as very corporeal in the OT.

  20. John says:

    All these describe Jehovah, the Most High God of the OT:
    I have seen God face to face, Gen. 32:30
    they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet, Ex. 24:10
    written with the finger of God, Ex. 31:18 (Deut. 9:10).
    Lord spake unto Moses face to face, Ex. 33:11
    thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen, Ex. 33:23
    With him will I speak mouth to mouth, Num. 12:8

    All of these scriptures are taken out of the “God, Body of—Corporeal Nature” section of the LDS Topical Guide. I know about the account of the brother of Jared and how spirit can appear as flesh at times, but it seems clear that this is not the case in the accounts about Jehovah. If it was a spirit, Moses would have said as much. The idea of spirit was not foreign to him (Num. 16:22)

    • Richard says:

      Good point. How can the God who spoke with Moses be Jesus, when Jesus was still just a spirit, with no physical body.

      And here is the well know Boyd Kirkland writing called:
      Jehovah As Father — The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine

      http://lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml

      The only way Joseph’s teachings about God make sense is to recognize that the ONE God is ultimately an “infinite” family of exalted beings. Trying to give infinite, everexisting powers to one “finite” being, like Jesus for instance, simply cannot be correct.

      Was not Jehovah the Savior of Michael on the previous earth? And will not Jesus become the Jehovah of this earth, and the Savior of the children of Michael who become Michaels themselves? Like begets like.

  21. John says:

    It’s also possible that two beings are named Jehovah. Jesus simply means “Jehovah saves” (a variation of Joshua). The pre-existent Jesus may have been known as Jehovah, but the Jehovah in the Old Testament was by most accounts a very solid being of flesh, described with physical parts and speaking mouth to mouth with mortal men and women.

  22. Bren says:

    Talmage was really the ones who put us on the track to thinking Jehovah is Christ and Elohim is the father. These names are just titles. If they wern’t then Joseph Smith would have been praying to Christ in Section 109.
    Similarly Brigham Young, I believed, used the name Adam as a title. In this way you have Adam Sr. (Elohim, The Father, etc.) and Adam Jr. (Michael, Adam, etc.).

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      Adam jr. Vs Adam sr was addressed in the podcast.

    • Richard says:

      I have yet to see any BY discourse where he was clearly referring to Adam/Michael as Eloheim.

      Adam/Michael is our “Father and our God “because He has his calling and election made sure, and thus it is certain he will BECOME an Eloheim.

      “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—” –J.D. 4:217-219

      Notice: “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 specie”

      • Ezra Taylor says:

        Have you had a chance to check out Drew’s book on the subject? It has hundreds of pages of clear references on the topic. The entire book is a reference book, not contaminated by conclusions of the compiler pro or against.

  23. andrew says:

    Ezra was it Jesus the christ where the idea that jehovah is Jesus was published and gained traction?

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      Exactly. From the Prophet Joseph, until that book, it was clearly taught that the Jahovah of the Old Testiment and Jesus (son of Mary) were two separate individuals.

  24. andrew says:

    Having herd the pod cast multiple times now I am curios what was the basis(if any) for talmage to make such a conclusion that ultimately radically changed the churches understanding of the god head?

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      It seems to have been spurred by a common rejection of the teaching by members of the Church as well as attempts to build on common beliefs of those that were persecuting us. The combination was the perfect opportunity to completely alter our understanding of the Godhead from that time back to the Prophet Joseph Smith.

  25. andrew says:

    Having read Jesus the christ as well.

  26. andrew says:

    And I guess really under what authority did talmage have to alter such doctrine?(Understanding he was in the 12 but never became president of the church)

  27. Mark Peterson says:

    I don’t want to be disrespectful but I think Ezra could have conducted a much more interesting interview if he would have read the book beforehand.
    Additionally, it seems like all he was interested in was what Elder McConkie and Elder Petersen have said about this doctrine. I think it would have been very interesting to get into the details of the doctrine itself. Drew has become an expert on this doctrine. It would have been informative to speak to the nuances and ramifications of this doctrine. Additionally, it seemed like Ezra ran out of questions half way through the interview.
    Having said that, thank you for doing this interview!

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      I always appreciate constructive feedback :) There were a few reasons for the things you bring up. I have read the book, quite a few times. My intent, and the intent of the Mormon Chronicle is to be supportive of the Church, but at the same time be honest about the history of the Church even if it makes us uncomfortable. Thanks again

  28. Dustin says:

    Speaking on allowing Blacks to have the priesthood, McConkie stated,
    “All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”

    He made this statement, because both he and Brigham Young made statements about how the Blacks were cursed and would never have the priesthood.

    I think the same about the Adam-God teachings. What do the current 12 say on the matter? What does Thomas Monson say on the matter?

  29. Dustin says:

    We should follow what our current prophet teaches on Adam-God. If he refuses to address it, then maybe we shouldn’t question the teaching either. If Monson rejects Brigham Young’s teachings, then we should also.

    • Peter says:

      If we only focused on what the current brethren taught we would have a very limited view of the gospel. We have a wealth of knowledge and revelation from all the brethren down through this dispensation. Truth is truth canonized or not.

  30. Pingback: Mormon Chronicle Semi-Regular Get Together: The Podcast | Mormon Chronicle

  31. Spencer says:

    Vaughn J Featherstone Apr 1975 Conference talked about those that talk about the Adam God Theory said I guess when you are engrossed with all those different theories and different things in the church than you don’t have time to study faith and repentance.

    Spencer W. Kimball Oct 1976 Liahona we warn you against the dissemination of doctrine which is not according to scripture and alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of Past Generations among them is the Adam God theory. Words of the Prophets are good enough for me.

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      Did you listen to the podcast? When speaking with an investigator that doesn’t yet have a testimony, or a member struggling with their testimony, will dismissing their concerns as unimportant or irrelevant help them?

  32. Robin Hood says:

    I have read all these comments, and studied the Adam/God doctrine for many years. My conclusion?…………… It’s nonsense.
    The Brethren have distanced themselve from it for a very good reason……………. it isn’t true.

    • Richard says:

      Hi Robin. Remember this: President Young was ordained as the Revelator for the church. And he was a close friend of Joseph Smith. Why should anyone accept your decision over his that what he taught was wrong?

      You conclude that it is nonsense. But others conclude that it is not nonsense. I would agree that the answer should not be the wisdom of men, the answer should be revelation. And even though President Young said this doctrine was taught to him by Joseph, others are justified in not accepting it without further revelation.

      If the present church leaders reject it, that does not resolve the matter either. If President Young could be wrong about such a serious matter, then they could be wrong: and they could wrong about him being wrong.

  33. andrew says:

    Without adam-god teachings we run into a massive issue on doctrine. How could Jehovah and Micheal have created this earth if they did not each have a body? One can not hold priesthood Keys unless one has a body and one cannot exercise keys of creation unless one is a god and unless one is not married one can not be a god.

    Further this was apart of the temple endowment.

    • Richard says:

      Hi Andrew. What you say is exactly correct. Another point is that how could Michael be the “Archangel” if he was not an angel? Angels have resurrected bodies according to the D&C. How could the very top angel somehow not have a body yet?

      However, those who espouse the “done deal doctrine” (that it is a done deal that the church president will never err) will not acknowledge the logical problems in doctrine that arise with rejecting President Young’s teaching that Michael had a resurrected body. It remains very ironic that using the “done deal doctrine” against President Young is totally illogical.

      No one has more chutzpah than those defending “one man rule” religious leaders. The Pope, Warren Jeffs, and President Monson can all fail us. Right?

  34. Alan says:

    Show me one revelation from Brigham Young or Joseph Smith in which the Adam-God doctrine is taught. There isn’t one. BY has only one revelation recorded in the D&C (Section 136), while Joseph has many. However, in all of Joseph’s revelations, he never once got around to mentioning this so called doctrine. The NT certainly identifies Jehovah as Jesus, and John states that the world was created by Jesus.
    As for Michael not being able to be an angel unless he had a body, I beg to differ. Lucifer is also described as an angel who was in authority, and yet we know he has no body. Brigham’s problem was that he thought out loud too much.

    • Richard says:

      Hi. You are correct that the church should not teach it without further revelation. Remember, however that AoF 9 and D&C 121:26–33 promise that many great and important truths will yet be revealed.

      You were never ordained as the revelator for the church– President Young was. Ever anti-Mormon out there has the same argument: the new revelations contradict the Bible. But they are wrong, they simply do not fully understand everything.

      You should read this sometime:

      http://lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      I’m sorry this made you so angry. Thank you for your comments.

  35. andrew says:

    Show me one revelation from Brigham Young or Joseph Smith in which the Adam-God doctrine is taught.(That assumes that unless something is canonized it is not doctrine. Using that line of reasoning the revelations that joseph smith received were not valid until 1835 with the first edition of the doctrine and covenants) There isn’t one. BY has only one revelation recorded in the D&C (Section 136), while Joseph has many. However, in all of Joseph’s revelations, he never once got around to mentioning this so called doctrine.(He never mentioned publicly that plural marriage was a practice of the church ether. Also we do have those who were in the holy order who have stated adam-god teachings were taught by joseph smith privately) The NT certainly identifies Jehovah as Jesus,(where does the new testament say that? Joseph smith did not believe this. section 109 shows that he is praying to Jehovah as god the father) and John states that the world was created by Jesus.(Does john actually say that or is that an interpretation of the modern church?)
    As for Michael not being able to be an angel unless he had a body, I beg to differ. Lucifer is also described as an angel who was in authority, and yet we know he has no body(yes but does lucifer ever create? Micheal has. You can not create without being a god to be a god you have to have a body and be married.) Brigham’s problem was that he thought out l oud too much.( That or the church rejected true doctrine. Remember this was apart of the endowment.)

    • Alan says:

      You’re right, Joseph never publicly taught plutality of wives. In fact, he went out of his way to deny the doctrine. He never taught the Adam-God doctrine either. If he did teach it to some elite group in secrecy, that was in direct contradiction of the revealed order of the church where all things were to be done in order, openly, and through the process of common consent.
      It is clear from the Bible that Jehovah and Jesus are one and the same being; see: Isiah 43:11, Isaiah 45:21, Hosea 13:14 where Jehovah is described as the Saviour and, Acts 4:12–12, Acts13:23, Matthew 1:21, Luke 2:11, 1 John 4:14–15, Acts 5:31–32 where the Saviour is positively identified as Jesus.

      • Alan says:

        Equally, a number of references in the OT identify Jehovah as the redeemer and purchaser, while several in the NT identify Jesus as having that role. See: Psalms 49:15, Isaiah 41:13–14, Isaiah 49:26, Isaiah 59:20, Isaiah 54:5, Isaiah 43:14–15 in the OT; and 1 Peter 1:18–19, Colossians 1:14, Galations 3:13, revelations 5:9, Romans 3:24–25, 1 Corinthians 1:30–31, Ephesians 1:7. As members of the church we are required to believe the accepted doctrines of the church, as revealed in the scriptures and interpreted by our modern prophets (not dead ones who never subjected their words to the proper order of revelation and common consent). If we do otherwise we are nothing other than Latter-day gnostics. We are not called to be gnostics.

        • Ezra Taylor says:

          Please see the updated article above.

          • Alan says:

            Thanks for the update. It makes interesting reading, but you must know that many scriptures could be referenced which give a different view altogether. My question is: If Jesus is not Jehovah, then who is he? Is he God? What role did he play in the creation (John says he played a leading role), and when we pray to the Father whom are we addressing – Elohim, Jehovah, Michael, Jesus (BofM says Jesus is the Father), or do you have another god up your sleeve?

          • Ezra Taylor says:

            Priesthood offices.

            The Book of Mormon says Jesus is the Father, but not THE Father. Do you pray to Jesus in the Name of Jesus, making Jesus the mediator between you and Himself? See how that doesn’t make sense?

  36. Robin Hood says:

    Of course it doesn’t make sense. But neither does praying to Adam. If Adam is god the father, who did the people pray to for the 930 years Adam lived on the earth. If you don’t pray to Adam as the father, then who? Elohim or Jehovah?…..even though the church teaches that Jehovah and Jesus are the same being. So if you pray to the father thinking it is Jehovah, you are actually praying to Jesus – which as you say, “doesn’t make any sense”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Note: For further discussion of these articles and topics we invite you to join the LDS Freedom Forum.