From: slhw4@cc.usu.edu (Jason Hunsaker)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Mormon Claims Answered 9
Date: 26 Sep 92 15:44:52 MDT
Organization: Utah State University

In article <a8j.02fP23xv01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, 
agr00@ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:
[...]
>>> (5) They taught for half a century that Adam is our Father and our God.
>>
>>No, Brigham Young taugh it, and when questioned about it by other
>>church leaders, he withdrew the teaching.
> 
> You are right to agree that he DID indeed teach it. And Brigham did
> teach is as the Prophet of the Church.
> 
> According to Doctrine & Covenents (which IS connonized scripture), the
> words of the Prophets "shall be scripture" and thus cannonizes all the
> speaches by Joseph and Brigham.
> 
>      "And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as
>       they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.  And whatsoever they
>       shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost SHALL BE
>       SCRIPTURE, SHALL BE THE WILL OF THE LORD, SHALL BE THE MIND
>       OF THE LORD, SHALL BE THE VOICE OF THE LORD, and the power of
>       God unto salvation."
>                                Joseph Smith, D&C 68:3,4

Can you prove, then, that Brigham Young was, in fact, moved upon by
the Holy Ghost when he made those statements?

> Brigham also said this in a speach:
> 
>      "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the
>       children of men that they may not call Scripture."
> 
>                           Journal of Discourses V13 p.95

What about tempering this with D&C 50:19-24?

[...]
> Brigham never reversed this teaching at any point in his life. 
> If what you say is true and he did do this, please give the 
> reference for n documentation saying this. There isn't any, 
> because he didn't do it.

"This [idea about Adam] is for you to believe or disbelieve as
you please ...  If I am wrong [about the role of Adam] I should
be glad if God or some man upon the earth would correct me and
set me right and tell me what it is and how it is ...  I tell you
this as my belief about that personage [Adam] who is called the
ancient of days, the prince and so on.  But I do not tell it
because that I wish it to be established in the minds of others
..." (Lecture to the Deseret Theological Institute, Thomas
Bullock minutes, 25 Apr. 1855, LDS Archives, quoted by Buerger,
p. 22-23)  

"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 ..." (JD 1857, 5:331-332)

A more complete response come from William Hamblin's post:

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----

In article <92267.130318HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET>
<HISWJH@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
[...]
I responded to this just a few days ago.  I feel like I'm trapped
in a grade-B horror movie, "Night of the Undead Anti-Mormons,"
with hordes of anti-Mormon zombies attacking us; we chop off
their arms and legs, but still they keep coming, mindlessly
repeating over and over their same worn out arguments.

[...]
(5) They taught for half a century that Adam is our Father and
our God

The simple fact of the matter is that none of Brigham's
statements were ever canonized by the Church, and can thus in
no way be said to be scripture or doctrine.  Brigham Young's
speculations on the subject of Adam and God were not
consistent with many of his other public statements.  Indeed,
Brigham himself admitted that there were "many times I have
preached wrong." (Thomas Bullock Minutes, May 8, 1854 (HDC).
Brighams theories were not accepted by the other
contemporary LDS Apostles or other LDS prophets before or
since.  George Q. Cannon stated that "Concerning the doctrine in
regard to Adam and the Savior, the Prophet Brigham taught
some things concerning that; but the [current] First Presidency
and the Twelve [Apostles] do not think it wise to advocate
these matters. ... I would therefore say to all the brethren and b
sisters, refrain from indulging in these speculations;"
(Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention, (SLC:
Deseret, 1899, pp. 87-8).  These speculations have never been
accepted by the Church as a whole as doctrine.  In other words,
the Adam-God theory was Brigham's speculations, and was
never, and is not now LDS doctrine.  Brigham was wrong on this
point and was still a prophet, just as Peter was wrong in his
understanding of the issue of the admission of the gentiles
into the Church, and was still a prophet (Acts 15). But what
the anti-Mormon's claim Brigham taught as the  <Adam-God
Theory> does not accurately reflect Brigham's  ideas.  I want to
clarify just exactly what I see as the nature  of Brigham's
speculations.

   The sources for the following discussion draws heavily from
David Buerger's <The Adam-God Doctrine,> Dialogue: a Journal
of Mormon Thought, 15.1, Spring 1982, pp. 14-58.  Anyone
interested in the subject should read this article.  Buerger's
treatment is purely historical, avoiding discussion of the
theological implications of the events and ideas.  The
following theological interpretation is my own.

    Anti-Mormons make three major errors in their claims about
the so-called Adam-God theory. 1-  They claim Brigham Young
preached that Adam was God the Father.  2-  They claim that
Brigham's ideas were preached and accepted as scripture and
doctrine, and 3- They do not deal with the entire range of
Brigham's statements on Adam and God, taking only a few
statements out of context.

   1-  Did Brigham Young preach that Adam was God the
Father?  If a few ambiguous statements are taken out of
context, it might seem so.  When Brigham's thought on the
matter is viewed as a whole, the answer is definitely no.  It is
true that on occasion Brigham taught that Adam was <our
father and God>. (Deseret News, 18 June 1873, for additional
references see Buerger, pp. 14-22) Does this mean that Adam
is God the Father.  Not at all.  That Adam was the father means
simply that he is the Father of Mankind.  Now this is widely
accepted by many Christians.  The role of Adam in Mormon
thought, however, is quite different from traditional Christian
thought.  First, Mormons believe that the spirits of all Mankind
existed before the creation of the earth, and should be equated
with angels.  (In Mormonism angels can be either pre-mortal
spirits before human incarnation, spirits of the dead humans
awaiting resurrection, or resurrected glorified humans.)  The
pre-mortal and post-mortal Adam is equated with the Biblical
archangel Michael <[the archangel] Michael [is] Adam, the
father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days;> (D&C
27:11).  Mormons also believe that in his pre-mortal angelic
state, Michael/Adam participated, along with God the Father
(frequently called Elohim) and Jesus (frequently identified
with Jehovah), in the creation of the earth as an archangel/god.
Thus far this is all just standard Mormon doctrine.  Brigham
Young's speculation seems to have been that in his creative
role as Michael the archangel/god, Adam/Michael should be
seen as a pre-mortal god, (possibly the third member of the
Trinity, the Holy Ghost).  Brigham stated, <It is true that the
earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely
Eloheim [Elohim, God the Father], Yahovay [Jehovah, equated
with Jesus], and Michael, these three forming a quorum ...
perfectly represented in the Deity as Father, Son and Holy
Ghost.> (JD 1:51)  Now there is no Mormon doctrine or scripture
which states this.  This equation was Brigham's speculation
based on the fact that Adam was seen as participating in the
creation along with God the Father (sometimes called by
Mormons Elohim) and Jesus.  The essence of the Adam-God
theory is not that Adam should be equated with God the Father,
but rather that Michael/Adam, the preexistent archangel can
be seen as a god who participated in the creation of the world.
That Brigham Young did not consider Adam to be God the Father
is clear from Brigham's speeches:  <He is Father Adam; Michael;
the Ancient of days.  Has he a Father? He has.> (1854
discourse, Brigham Young collection, LDS Archives, cited by
Buerger, p. 18)  In context Adam's father is God the Father.
<Adam was as conversant with his Father [God] who placed him
upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents.>
(JD 9:148, 1862)  <Elohim [God the Father], Yahova [Jehovah =
Jesus] & Michael, were father Son and grandson.  They made
this Earth & Michael became Adam.> (17 June 1871 discourse
reported in Joseph F. Smith Journal, LDS Archives, cited in
Buerger, p. 19)  Thus in his role as co-creator of the earth,
Adam was occasionally termed by Brigham as <our God, and the
only God with whom we have to do.> (JD 1:50)

   But did Brigham really feel that these ideas were just
speculation as I claim, or did he see them as binding
revelations and doctrine?  Evidence from his speeches make
his position very clear.  <This [idea about Adam] is for you to
believe or disbelieve as you please ...  If I am wrong [about the
role of Adam] I should be glad if God or some man upon the
earth would correct me and set me right and tell me what it is
and how it is ...  I tell you this as my belief about that
personage [Adam] who is called the ancient of days, the prince
and so on.  But I do not tell it because that I wish it to be
established in the minds of others ...> (Lecture to the Deseret
Theological Institute, Thomas Bullock minutes, 25 Apr. 1855,
LDS Archives, quoted by Buerger, p. 22-23)  <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 ...> (JD 1857, 5:331-332)  <The term [father]
properly applies to father Adam, & to our father in heaven.>
(Willard Richards Journal, 16 Fe. 1847, LDS archives, Buerger,
p. 50)  With these caveats from Brigham Young, how can anti-
Mormons claim that he was somehow asserting his
speculations as scripture and Church doctrine?  Indeed, the
idea seems to have originated not with Brigham Young, but
with Heber C. Kimball.  (Buerger, pp. 27-28, p. 51, n. 51)

    Furthermore, Brigham Young <largely abandoned public
efforts in support of the Adam-God doctrine after 1861.>
(Buerger, p. 29).  Thereafter there are numerous examples of
Brigham preaching <standard> LDS doctrine.  <We believe in God
the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother.  ... We believe
that he made Adam after his own image and likeness...> (JD
10:230-231, 1863)  <... the Lord is our God ... He created Adam
and Eve in His own image, [and] the whole human family are
like Him.  ... He sent his angels, and at last sent His Son, who
was in the express image of the Father -- His Only Begotten
Son, according to the flesh here on this earth.  This is the God
we serve and believe in.> (JD 13:308-309, 1863)   <We are all
the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the
offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens. ...> (JD 13:311,
1870).

    In summary, Brigham Young's speculations on the
relationship of Michael/Adam to God the Father and the Trinity
were just that -- speculations.  He made little attempt to
enforce these speculations as scripture or doctrine.  Although
he personally may have believed his speculations were
accurate, he admitted that they might be wrong, and he
frequently preached standard LDS doctrine about Adam as well.
The most reasonable explanation of all the evidence is that
Brigham speculated about the relationship of Adam to the
Godhead, but that he never considered it binding LDS doctrine
or scripture.  Although his ideas initially gained some support,
ultimately Brigham's speculations were rejected by other
Church leaders and Apostles and the Church as a whole.

   Thus the anti-Mormons misrepresent Brigham Young's
speculations on several levels.  They misunderstand what he
taught; they insist that his ideas should be treated as revealed
scripture rather than speculations; and they refuse to place
Brigham's statements about Adam-God in the broader context
of his ideas about Adam, God and creation as a whole.  To
insist, as the anti-Mormons do, that because Brigham Young
was an LDS prophet that every word he ever uttered must be
considered LDS scripture and doctrine is absurd.  When Brigham
said <Pass the salt,> he was not speaking the word of God.  If
Brigham wanted to speculate about theology, he had that right.

   Mormons don't believe in infallible prophets, nor in infallible
scriptures.  These ideas are neither Biblical nor logical.
Prophets are human beings, who have opinions, make mistakes,
and yes, even sin (For Joseph Smith's comments on the subject,
see Doc. His. of the Church, 2:302, 5:401-403, 516-8.).  Now
this view of prophets may contradict anti-Mormon opinions and
misconceptions, but it is certainly Biblical.  Moses murdered
an Egyptian (Gen. 2:11-15), did not circumcise his son (Ex.
4:24-26), and was denied entry into Canaan because he did not
obey God (Num. 20:7-13).  Are we to assume therefore that
Moses was not a prophet?  Jonah refused God's call and fled.
Peter would not fully accept Gentiles into the Church (Acts
15:6 ff), despite a direct previous revelation from God that he
should do so (Acts 10:9-18)  Thus Peter preached false
doctrine, just like Brigham Young.  But Peter did far worse; he
denied Christ three times (Mt. 26).  Is he not, nonetheless, a
prophet?  The list could go on.  Humans are mortal and sinful.
God calls mortal and sinful humans to be His prophets.  They
are not infallible.  Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
LDS prophets are no better and no worse than were Biblical
prophets.

-----8<---If--you--cut--here--you--will--ruin--your--monitor--->8-----
 
> But for hypothetical purposes, lets suppose he did reverse it! He stated
> in the above speach that this was given to him from God. If he reversed
> it, that means that either God lied to him, orhe lied about getting it
> from God. Any way you slice it, as far as the Bible is concerned, this
> qualifies him as a false prophet.  Which way is it?

Try the test provided in D&C 50:19-24 and then one can know for
sure whether his statements were from God or whether he was
expressing his own opinion.

> And in the light of the section in the D&C I mentioned earlyier in thie
> letter, it states that the words of the Prophet are Scripture. Period.

No, it says "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost"  How does one
know when a speaker (prophet, apostle, or otherwise) is moved
upon by the Holy Ghost to speak?  See D&C 50:19-24.

Mormons don't believe in the infallibility of prophets of
scripture.  No matter how much you think we should, we just
don't.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hunsaker  -|-  Logan, Utah  -|-  Internet: slhw4@cc.usu.edu