Episode 188: The Adam-God Doctrine for Dummies

If eating earth food would turn even an immortal God into a normal mortal being, then why would Jesus, who I would assume at Earth food his entire life, retain his half-part immortality? Despite having God as his father, wouldn’t his first taste of mothers milk make him immediately just like everyone else?

Wow, what a podcast! This is one I really wish I could have been in on, but the panel was chosen ages ago and there was no room for me. Some important points stood out to me I’d like ot comment on:

1) Early on some comments are made about the Godhead being “confusing”. Some even expressing that thinking about the Godhead causes headaches. The subject is really not confusing and our scriptures clear it up nicely. In his commentary on Isaiah, in 2 Nephi  25, Nephi teaches plainly in vs 16 that we worship the Father in the name of the Son. This implies that authority and power have been placed in the Son to act in the Name of the Father.

Coupled with this is the teaching of King Benjamin in Mosiah chapter 5 – “..And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changedd through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters…”

Christ received Power and Authority from His Father, and excercises these in His words and in His Name. Indeed He can speak for and in behalf of the Father. He does so in D&C 29. In verse one it states “Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Redeemer, the Great I Am, whose arm of mercy hath atoned for your sins;..”, but by the end of the section in vs 42 it then says “…until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son.” He changes person in the same revelation! This is not so much confusing as it is a testament of the oneness of the Godhead and the divine investiture of authority that the Father has placed in the Son. (see also D&C 49:5, 28)

Once we understand the oneness of the Father and the Son it makes the sermon of Abinadi found in Mosiah 15 very rich reading.

2) The eating of food in no way played a part in the fall despite anything you may have read anywhere. The Fall occured because of disobedience. Christ as a glorified and resurrected being ate numerous times both among the 12 Apostles and among the Nephites. There are gnostic texts that speak of angels coming to bless Adam and Eve after they had been expelled so that they could eat the food of the fallen world, but to say that eating the food of a fallen world causes one to fall is ridiculous. It is also silly to think that the eating of Celestial food causes one to be exalted. In a reverse sense only obedience to covenants exalts us, just as disobedience caused the Fall.

3) The need to be a Christ to be exalted: This is a ridiculous theory. Will we all need to be a Noah? Will we all need to be an Enoch? Will we all need to be an Adam? The appointment of a Savior was done based on the faithfulness of Jesus Christ in the pre-existence, and He was fore-ordained to fullfill His calling the same as everyone else. The only requirement of exaltation is that of keeping our Covenants including that of Marriage. If we are faithful we will receive our exaltation alongside our brother who was faithful to His covenants.

4) At the 57 min mark there is an agreement among the panelists that mormons move away from Christ and place more emphasis on obedience and “who we know”. The tone of this is what is really wrong. We place emphasis on the covenants we make with and in the name of Christ, and we place emphasis on the Abrahamic Covenant that we also make in Christs name. The Savior is central to everythign we do in the Church, and He is the Key element in the Book of Mormon and in our weekly Sacrament Meetings.

5) At 1:10 there is a short discussion over how a doctrine is introduced into the Church. Joseph Fielding Smith stated “..It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed we can set it aside. The standard works are the measuring yardsticks, or the balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” If a Prophet wishes to declare a new doctrine He will declare it as a revelation from God, after which it will be sustained by the body of the Church. The prophet can add to the body of scripture, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by Commen Consent. (see D&C 26:2, 107:27-31) Until such doctrines are presented in such a way to the body of the Church they are neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.

6) Christ did not have a mortal probation before His earthly one. He did not posses a physical body until after He was resurrected. All who come to this earth are those who have to do with this earth (D&C 130:5). The title of God is the same as that of Judge (Psalm 82), thus Christ and the Holy Ghost received the title of God before their exaltation as representative of their position in the Godhead as representatives of the Father.

There was reference made to a scripture nobody could quite remember, about Jesus saying he does only what he has seen the father do. The scripture reference is John 5:19

Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. 

…or in normal English (NIV):

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

I think Brigham Young gets a bad rap. I find that he is a source of frequent quotes I want to use in Elder’s Quorum lessons, as he often says things that fly in the face of whatever the leaders are saying today. I’m not talking about stupid quotes, but stuff that makes genuine sense. My favorite is the following: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.”(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 150).

 I also think the statement that he “hates women” is a bit narrow-minded, and ignores some of the evidence. I like this article about his views on women here: 
http://byustudies2.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/18.3Derr.pdf In some ways he was progressive, though of course in others he was as chauvinistic as the next guy. 

The other part of the criticism of Brigham that sounded odd to me was when talking about his humor, including the comment about not being surprised if he believed something like that. Anyone who has read discourses from Brigham Young knows that he often interjected humor. With General Conference now consisting of General Authorities competing to give the most serious, somber talk, it’s nice to see that Brigham Young had a sense of humor.

The “Schizophrenic nature” between Christ, Elohim, and Jehovah alluded to in the podcast can be reconciled with the doctrine of “divine investiture.”

Neal A. Maxwell summarizes the concept:

“Divine investiture is defined as that condition in
which –in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has
represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority.
… Thus. .. Jesus Christ spoke and ministered and through the Father’s
name; and so far as power, authority and Godship is concerned His words
and acts were and are those of the Father.” copied from: http://www.mormonwiki.org/Divine_investiture#note-0

I loved this podcast.I think I would have eaten up this doctrine as a Mormon as I was inclined towards the more interesting doctrines than the simple teachings that the church has tried to adopt and put forward in its attempt to be mainstream.

While I was listening, this thought came to mind: “How do we know that this isn’t a doctrine held by the church privately and publicly denied as polygamy was in the 1840-50s?”

The church in its history and its doctrine and change anything at any time because of some simple beliefs like “prophets being able to speak as men” and “milk before meat.”

As long as it never gives up its position of continuous revelation it will always hold onto its membership that has been convinced of its truthfulness through Mormon logic…

at 10:18, Heather says the Adam in the A/G Doctrine becomes
schizophrenic, because Adam and God are talking to themselves. John confirms, saying
it becomes very schizophrenic.

Misinformation. Why don’t we stick to what Brigham actually
said. If you read the Lecture at the Veil, it becomes very clear that be
believes the three temple characters are three separate people. And elsewhere,
Brigham said, “Elohim, Yahovah and Michael were father, Son and grandson.
They made this Earth and Michael became Adam” (Joseph F. Smith Journal,
6/17/1871). Also, in JD 9:148, he refers to Adam’s father as the grandfather of
Adam’s children. It’s only schizophrenic to you because you are assuming
Adam/Michael/Father of Jesus/Father of our spirits is 2 or more of the same
people in the endowment story. I understand that Mormon scripture, with regards
to God, Jesus, and so-called “divine investiture of authority” can seem
schizophrenic, but the A/G Doctrine is not. To me, it removes the schizophrenia.
The Church today teaches that the temple/pre-mortal “Jehovah” is Jesus Christ, but
the early brethren mostly referred to “Jehovah” as the Father (see Boyd
Kirkland’s Sunstone article). In fact, many times, Brigham referred to Adam as
Yahovah Michael. It’s a title. It’s not schizophrenia. At 46:00, Zilpha points “Yahovah
Michael” out, then concludes that to Brigham, there are not two characters as
we have in the Temple, but just one character. John confirms, and says “this
stuff is contradictory.” Misinformation. Brigham elsewhere said, “You may trace
the scriptures through, and you will find that [God] is known to one people by
one title today, and tomorrow by another, and the next day by another, and
there he leaves it.” Yes, it can be messy for us to sort out, since titles can
be attributed to different people at different times, but the panel portrayed
the A/G doctrine as schizophrenic with regards to the Temple endowment, because
Adam is talking to himself. This is misinformation. Luckily, Zilpha does try to
correct this in that early portion. At 42:26, John also makes it clear that in
the A/G Doctrine, Jesus is not the Jehovah of the Temple or OT. But the point remains,
Heather and John said A/G Doctrine is schizophrenic, when it is not.

At 34:23 John refer to some HCK quote of Adam being married
to Mary, then say this is a contradictory point, but don’t say how this is
contradictory. It’s not. Misinformation.

At 38:00 you definitively state that Joseph Fielding Smith
was lying, or lying for the Lord, to cover up Brigham’s teaching that Adam begat
Jesus. There are many materials that are more accessible to us because of the
Internet, and we don’t know what portion of all of these quotes in say, Briney’s
book, were known and read by JFS. I’ve met many members who have read all of
this stuff and still, definitively say, I am misinterpreting what Brigham
taught. They say Brigham did not teach that the Adam in the Garden is the same
individual who begat Jesus 4,000 years later. They subscribe to the bizarre
Elden Watson, Two-Adam theory. They’re not lying, but seeing things the way
they want to see it. JFS was clearly wrong, but you have no idea if he was
lying. Misinformation. You also say that McConkie is lying, and there’s “no way
around it.” McConkie had different points of view at different times. In Mormon
Doctrine, he says Brigham didn’t teach it (that Adam is the father of our
spirits and of Jesus). In his letter to Eugene England, he admits Brigham
taught it. According to Elden Watson, McConkie then adopted his Two-Adam
theory. He’s not lying; he’s trying to make Brigham’s teachings fit his
paradigm, which he cannot. Widtsoe as well. Many people do this with different
aspects in life. We are all guilty of it at times.At 56:00, John says A/G Doctrine diminishes the role of the Savior. “What’s Jesus for?” This is the greatest misinformation of all. Yes, tenets of Mormonism might “seem” to diminish the mainstream Christian view of God or Jesus when they say he cannot create out of nothing, cannot break laws, or is susceptible to fall from exaltation, etc, but the A/G Doctrine, in my mind, enhances the role of the Savior, or the condescensions of God. I don’t have the time to go through the rest of the podcast, but these were some of the areas I felt like there was some misinformation that could have been better clarified with A/G experts on the panel.

I just think to have a discussion about A/G Doctrine, you
need to stick to what was actually taught, rather than coming up with your own
implications, theories, etc. There’s where the misinformation came in. That’s
why you conclude Brigham’s teachings were schizophrenic, contradictory, or a
hot mess. I wish you had someone who’s studied this more and longer, someone
like Briney, to join in on the discussion.

Lastly, apart from areas I thought there was “misinformation,”
wanted to bring up the “royal order of saviors,” termed as “grand order of
saviors” in Women of Mormondom.

At 44:00, John and Heather say that A/G Doctrine says that
you cannot become a God until you’ve been a Jesus. Yes, some A/G adherents
believe this. I’m not sure about this. Zilpha says Brigham never taught this. Heather
brushes it away saying Brigham didn’t comprehend the implications of his teaching.
Heather is inferring she knows more about the A/G Doctrine than Brigham. But
anyways, the reason I bring this up is to paste the quote that John may have
been referencing:

“ 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 obtained 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. He obeyed his Master
or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same; they lived and died upon
an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal Life.
“Did he resurrect himself?” you inquire. I want to throw out a few
hints upon the resurrection as it seems to come within the circuit of my ideas
whether it ought to come within the circuit of my remarks or not. I believe we
have already acknowledged the truth established that no person can
officiate in any office he has not been subject to himself and legally
appointed to fill. That no person in this Kingdom can officiate in any ordinance
he himself has not obeyed; consequently no being who has not been
resurrected possesses the Keys of the Power of Resurrection. That you have been
told often. Adam, therefore, was resurrected by someone who had been
resurrected.”

“ (Manuscript Addresses of BY, October 8, 1854)

There’s much in Brigham’s teachings about us becoming Adams,
Gods, Heavenly Fathers, etc, but nothing about us performing Atonements or
becoming Saviors (other than upon Mount Zion, which believe is different than
this.) But above, Brigham only says Adam lived on another earth, believed in
his Saviour, then obtained a glorious resurrection. Nothing about becoming a
Jesus, here. But I’m not sure. At 53:40, Heather goes into her own theory that
to become an Adam-God, you have to be a Jesus, then Satan has a body, etc. This
is full of such misinformation that Brigham and the other early brethren just
didn’t teach. It’s fine to theorize and discuss, that’s what makes Mormon
Expression good, but don’t use your own theories to conclude Brigham and the
A/G is schizophrenic or contradictory. I think that’s where the misinformation came in.