This Addendum Is Really Sort of a Johnny -Come-Lately Document, in That I Had Already Written

INTRODUCTION

This Addendum is really sort of a Johnny -come-lately document, in that I had already written what is now the first half of this book. After having a few discussions concerning the subject of the Adam-God doctrine with my parents, (who are active L.D.S. church members), I was handed a two-page paper that was intended to set me straight on my Aspurious@ concepts of Theology. I had it all wrong they said, and that if I would read this paper I would find out how wrong I was. So assuring them that I were not afraid to read it, and that if it was the absolute truth, I would accept it. I was thinking that just maybe there would be something in it that I had not come across before, and besides I said I would read it. There certainly were some unexpected things come up as I read over the material. I am including these two pages so that you (the reader) can read exactly what I had read. The title of this paperette is AThe Adam-God Theory@, which will follow this introduction.

My unexpected reaction was, that for one thing there was hardly any documentation. Not one bit of documentation to support the idea that Elohim is the Father of our spirits. Then a quote from Charles C. Rich who was supposed to be in Salt Lake City, when he was actually somewhere on the trail coming from San Bernardino, Calif. Then another misquote of Brigham Young=s where Brigham was referring to our heavenly Grandfather. There is a claim that many in the church had gone astray because of ONE single quote that was a true quote of Brigham Young=s that the paper says was a misquote, which it wasn=t. The author of this very short paper (whoever he or she was) tries to lead the reader to believe that all who accept the Adam-God doctrine as the truth, think that Adam is actually, AEloheim@. Apparently the writer didn=t know about my EL (who is He) book. This person or persons concludes that ABrigham did not consider Adam to be Deity.@ Then, they or he, concluded themselves that AAdam was not Deity.@ They/he also claimed that APresident Young said, (without quotation marks by the way), Ahe nevertheless was Michael the archangel, and not Deity.@ According to the paper Joseph Fielding Smith said: AIf I ever say anything contrary to the scriptures, the scriptures prevail.@ Well then, according to this paper if there is anything in the Temple that is contrary to the scriptures, then what was in the Temple is wrong!!...because the scriptures do not specifically name who God is, and as you know the Temple at one time did.

After reading the paper I couldn=t believe that who ever wrote it did not know that there are many statements by the Prophet Brigham Young that affirm the doctrine that Adam is our Father, and our God. Either they/he/she didn=t know of the many positive teaching on Adam-God, or else they wanted the reader to believe that the first statement in this paper was the only time Brother Brigham was alleged to have said that Adam is our God; but alas it was only an allegation, a misquote, so it is said. Well, I can say with all the confidence that the Prophet Brigham Young had that there is some doctrinal problems in this little paperette. Therefore, it is only proper that he refute the papers position, so I will quote him, and let him do the refuting.

I have purposely left out the Prophet Joseph Smith here, primarily because I pretty much covered Joseph Smith=s statements on the subject in the first half of the book. So there is no need to go into a lot of repetition, over Joseph=s teachings. Besides the Mormons think that Brigham was the only one that got into a situation where he could be misunderstood over teachings concerning Deity.

For those of you who think that this Adam-God Theory paper will have some things in it that will restore your confidence in current church teachings, may I invite you to do one thing? Brace yourself for another salvo from Brother Brigham.

1, Oct. 1991

ANSWER TO THE ADAM-GOD THEORY PAPER

I have carefully read the Adam-God theory paperette by what appears to be a mystery author as there is no name affixed to it anywhere. I would however like to ask him/her/them a few questions.

Under the subheading "WHAT WAS REALLY STATED BY BRIGHAM YOUNG" there is a very strong inference that every single statement and word in the seven paragraphs under that heading is absolutely, positively, infallibly correct and the inspired testimony of the author, and they are revealing the whole truth regarding this matter.

There are several assumptions made however that may not withstand the evidence to the contrary. It is assumed that Charles C. Rich was in agreement doctrinally with Brigham Young when he may not have been at all.

It is no secret that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt were engaged in a fierce battle over the Adam-God doctrine. Most of the leaders in the church were in agreement with Brigham Young, but there were some such as Joseph F. Smith that sided with Orson on this issue. If all of the Quorum of 12 apostles saw Brigham Young's 1852 statement the same way Charles C. Rich apparently did, then there never would have been the clash between Brigham and Orson Pratt, that nearly split the church then. If one takes the position of the author that Charles C. Rich heard Brigham Young say:

"Jesus our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same Character who talked with Adam in the garden of Eden,"

then one must assume that Brigham Young took the same position concerning Adam whenever he referred to Him. In other words, in order for Brigham Young to be consistent he would have to teach that the God that Adam worshipped is the God that we worship because Adam and the rest of mankind are all brothers and sisters, Adam and Eve hold no higher position than we except being the first.

The statement in question needs to be quoted here as it is printed in the Journal of Discourses and stands pat until real evidence proves the contrary:

"Jesus our elder Brother was begotten in the flesh by the same Character that was in the garden of Eden," (Journal of Discourses 1:51)

The author says that, "this quote has caused many people to go astray..." It is implied here that this is the only time that Brigham Young ever alluded to Adam being our GOD, and since it was supposedly stated just once, then no other statements or teachings were ever presented by Brigham except for this one "misquote." This leads one to believe that If, Brigham Young ever did make another slip of the tongue it would be very hard to ferret out. Let's see how difficult a task it might be.

By backing up just three paragraphs and on the opposite page, (page 50), Brigham Young begins to explain who our Father in heaven is:

"I will tell you how it is. [Brother Brigham seems to be setting the tone for something here] 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 [F]ather 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 nonprofessing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later."

It can be seen by the way the Adam-God Theory paper is written that it is full of the put your trust in the arm of flesh kind of thing, i.e. trust in the arm of the author.

How much faith should an objective person put in the authors words when he wrote, "Elder Charles C. Rich of the council of the twelve was present (emphasis mine) on the day when President Brigham Young gave this address." (the April 9, 1852 sermon in question)

Let's go right to Charles C. Rich's Diary and see what he was doing between March and the 21st of April 1852. In his own biography Charles C. Rich, Mormon General and Western Frontiersman, it reports that Charles Rich was in San Bernardino, California on March 24, 1852, making preparations to leave for Salt Lake City. This is substantiated in the Hosea Stout Journal which says, "Wedn. 21st April 1852...Gen. Rich and some 15 others arrived today from California by the South route--as well." This is also confirmed in the Deseret Weekly, May, 1852 and in the LDS Journal History of April 21st. It is a little bit hard to be listening to President Brigham Young in Conference on the 9th of April, and just be arriving in S.L.C. from California on the 21st of that same month.

Even Mark E. Peterson in his 1979 edition corrected his first edition to state that Charles Rich was "not" in attendance when Brigham Young's sermon was delivered. "Brother" Peterson did say that the supposed correction was written by Charles C. Rich "in his own hand," when the fact is that it was in the handwriting of his son Ben E. Rich, who had not been born yet!

Joseph Fielding Smith also contended for years that Brigham Young was misquoted in that sermon; but at the same time his fellow apostle, John A. Widsoe, contended that it was not a misquotation but rather a wrong "interpretation." So it is clear that Charles C. Rich was not in attendance at the April 9th Conference.

One and a half years later President Young's sermon was published in the Millennial Star (Vol. 15:769-770) which was identical to the one published in the Journal of Discourses. If it had been transcribed with such an error in the Journals, wouldn't it have been corrected by the editors of other Church periodicals?

The Church leaders can't seem to make up their minds about which way they are going to discredit this sermon. The truth of the matter is that they can't because it is true. Truth has a strange way of being eternal in it's self existent nature. No matter who tries to submerge it, it has the ability to surface in unexpected ways.

To go on, if Brigham Young would have made such a tremendous blunder in his address, or in the transcription of it, wouldn't he have sent out a sermon to correct it soon afterwards? In one of his sermons he said that he never preached a sermon and sent it out to be read that the people couldn't call it scripture. Wouldn't he have corrected this one in particular since it was a conference sermon?

WHAT WAS REALLY STATED BY BRIGHAM YOUNG ? .."Jesus, our Elder Brother was begotten in the flesh by the same Character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Heavenly Father."

All of this whirlwind centering around one conference address by Brother Brigham as though it was the only time he ever mentioned the subject of Adam being our GOD. This is the assumption presented by the author in leading the reader to believe that "This quote has caused many people to go astray..." What would the author think if Brigham Young had made several more similar statements regarding Adam being our God?

Let's keep a little score here. We already have:

1* for the Adam-God doctrine by Brigham Young. 0* for the "correction" of Brigham Young by the ghost of Charles C. Rich.

I am not going to try to put Brigham Young's statements on the Adam-God doctrine in chronological sequence because I do not think he tried to lay out the logic step by step, but rather revealed this doctrine as the need for correction of false concepts arose:

"Some years ago I advanced a doctrine, (note he did not say theory), with regard to Adam being our Father and God. That [doctrine] will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel, because of their folly with regard to it. They yet grovel in darkness, and will. It is the one of the most gloriousrevealments of the economy of Heaven, yet the world [and the present day Mormons] hold[s] it [in] derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism for the dead instead of Joseph Smith, there are men around me who would ridicule the idea until doomsday, but they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass." {Underline mine} (See 10/8/1861, manuscript addresses of Brigham Young)

2* for the Adam-God doctrine. 0* for the unknown author of the Adam-God theory.

"I will venture to make a little [scripture]...This God, [with whom we have to do], is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ precisely as He is our Father varying from mortality to immortality, from corruptible to incorruptible, and that is all the difference. He is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, both body and spirit; And He is the Father of our spirits, and the Father of our flesh in the beginning. You will not dispute the words of the Apostle, that He is actually the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits[.] You may add these words to it, or let it alone, it is all the same to me, that He is not only the Father of our spirits, but also of our flesh, He being the founder of that natural machinery through which we have all obtained our bodies."

(See the manuscript sermons of Brigham Young 10/8/1854, The Teachings of the Prophet Brigham Young Vol. 3 pg. 349)

3* for the Adam-God doctrine. 0* for the Adam-God theory.

"Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know this doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the Creation of this earth? Did He have a mission to this earth? He did. Where was He? In the Grand Council and performed the mission assigned to Him there. Now if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam what a humiliating circumstance it will be...it is written in the Bible- "This is eternal (sic) life to know thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (See J. of Dis. Vol. 5 pgs. 331-332)

4* for the Adam-God doctrine by Brigham Young 0* for the Adam-God theory.

A...On one occasion when Brother Joseph (Smith) was cutting wood...now regarding Adam: He came from another planet an immortalized being and brought His wife, Eve, with Him and by eating of the fruits of this earth became subject to death and decay and He became of the earth, earthly, was made mortal and become subject to death." (See 1877 statement of Anson Call, preserved by John M. Whitaker; John Whitaker papers, Special collections, University of Utah Library, S.L.C. Utah)

5* for Adam-God doctrine by Joseph Smith 0* for the Adam-God theory.

"He, (Brigham Young), said that our God was Father Adam. He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ. Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Arkangel (sic). I attended meeting in the prayer circle in the evening and then went and preached to the 13th ward." (See Wilford Woodruff Journal Vol. 4 page 250)

6* for Adam-God doctrine (Feb. 19, 1854) by Brigham Young 0* for the Adam-God theory.

"Now some will be ready to say, "We always heard these Mormons did not believe in the Bible." I believe all the truth that is there and that is enough for me, and you to believe.

"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 from 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.

"Did the Lord put into Him his spirit."

Yes, as the Lord put into you your spirit, he was begotten of a father, and brought forth as you and I were; and so are all intelligent beings brought forth from eternity to eternity. Man was not mad[e] the same as you make an adobe to put in a wall. Moses said Adam was made of the dust of the ground, but He did not say of what ground. 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 Savior, or elder brother, and by His faithfulness, was redeemed, and got a glorious resurrection. All creatures that dwell upon this earth are made of the elements that compose it; which are organized to see if they will abide their creation, and be worthy to receive a resurrection.