Brigham Young said a number of things about Adam. Nibley wrote and talked a fair amount about pre-Adam mankind. The two came together when Hugh Nibley would quote Brigham Young on how our Adam (from the garden of Eden) was not the first of that name. 
The idea of there being more than one person named Adam, that “replenish” the earth means to fill it back up (rather than fill it a first time), and that Adam is more of a title than a name fits well with the Enoch/Metatron cycle use of names as titles. But does it create more questions, more speculation, than answers? Is it more like the explanation of how Jesus Christ is both the father and the son or is it just confusing?
What mistakes, questions or speculations do you think this creates or leads to?
Wheat & Tares 
Wow. There is SO much here to comment on. Unfortunately, I have to actually work for a while. More later.
I would be interested in hearing the thoughts of an expert on this issue. AdamF?
Well, my name IS Adam. I really got confused in the temple the first time having that as a first name. 😀
If I may flex my speculation muscle, and put into words what I have long been speculating for sometime now,
“It takes a village to raise a boy”, society has developed and progressed through generation to generation, there are many points in history that we look on in horror. I struggle to reconcile the real atrocities of the past with the change in nature required to attain “true spiritual enlightenment” and so I have started to consider reincarnation…
Generations are reincarnated learning from the lessons of their past, until society as a whole is “fit for purpose”, each time an “Adam” would possibly kick-start this new genesis for the society.
I note that The Matrix may have had a lot to do with this line of thinking.
“I note that The Matrix may have had a lot to do with this line of thinking.”
It was on TV this week, and I had this same thought. So Eden was a failure because it represents perfection, and intuitively mankind failed to accept this artificial reality. Hence came the fall, so reality was pushed to another extreme represented in the barbarism just prior to the flood. The “system” had to once again start over, with a select number of people for repopulation in an attempt to find a “goldie locks reality”. Which is the world we now live in. Should we accept this to happen another three times until finally Jesus takes a girlfriend?
Stephen,
Don’t let hypothesis and speculation ruin a fundamental truth in the restored gospel and that is the story of Adam and Eve as taught in the scriptures and the Temple – God breathed the breath of Life in Adam. In other words, the spirit Michael entered into the tabernacle of clay know as Adam. It was a defining moment. It was the moment that separated man from all other life forms. It was when a child of God entered a tabernacle of clay. What happened before that moment is irrelevant – entertaining, somewhat insightful, thought-provoking, but in the end irrelevant.
There were clearly hominids and other man like creatures roaming the earth. The Old Testament speaks of the Emims and Anakims and other odd creatures that roamed the earth Post Adam. The Apocrypha refers to even more bizarre creatures. Some speculate one of the reasons for the flood was to dispose of these odd creatures. However, as the Lord said about the Apocrypa and similar text some things are true and some things are not true ‘And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; and whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. This applies to writings by Brigham Young (non-canonized) and Hugh Nibley.
# 6 Will,
Are you suggesting that the additional “adams” were previous attempts at creating a tabernacle suitable of hosting Michael?
very interesting hehe
“It was when a child of God entered a tabernacle of clay. What happened before that moment is irrelevant – entertaining, somewhat insightful, thought-provoking, but in the end irrelevant.”
While not a popular fellow these days, Joseph Fielding Smith would completely disagree. He contends that development prior to a fall calls into question the veracity of the Atonement. To paraphrase, if Adam was not created a perfect being who had to fall from perferfection as opposed to growing from imperfection to perfection, then there would be no need for a redemption. There would be no Eternal laws that require it because no laws would have been broken.
Theologically he makes a very interesting point, but the problem is that empircally what can learn about the earth’s history doesn’t quite sync with the theology. The easy way out then is to say, “oh, all inconsistencies are irrelevant. All that matters is that you take Church leaders at their word and give them of your time and means”. It shouldn’t matter that the story told in that “certain” place isn’t correct, just so long as you do everything your told there, right?
RE: Will’s comments
I see the temple story as only allegory. To make Adam a real person and Eden a real place sometime about 6000 BC is more of a stretch that I’m willing to take. As to Joseph Fielding Smith, I heard him say in the old mission home in SLC in 9/64 that “the churches postion on evolution is that it is a great fake”. I didn’t believe him then as a 19 y/o elder and I don’t believe it know. I don’t feel any obligation to believe any of this about Adam just because a GA said it. Memebership in the church doesn’t mean I have to check my brain at the door.
Mr Q,
“Are you suggesting that the additional “adams” were previous attempts at creating a tabernacle suitable of hosting Michael?”
How did you get that from my comment. Either I did a poor job communicating or you did a poor job understanding.
“Memebership in the church doesn’t mean I have to check my brain at the door.”
I can respect your position, it’s just not one I’m willing to take. For me taking a selective approach where I sort of pick and choose where I think the Prophets are right and wrong ultimately undermines their position as authorities in my mind. I have to then either take their words on faith, or decide whether I think they really are guided by revelation from God. Clearly I have decided that they and the Church aren’t what they claim to be.
“or is it just confusing?”
Totally.
Cowboy,
I’m not trying to justify any theologies or post Adam speculation. I don’t know what happened, but neither do you or most likely anyone else for that matter. The relevant part to me is the fact that Adam was the first spirit child of God on earth. The relevant part to me is that children of God in a human form are miles ahead of any other creature. Not because of evolution of the physical form, but because they were intelligences prior to this earth. That graduated intelligence – the spirit of man – is the key distinction in the equation. Scientists get excited about an Ape that can push a button when he wants a banana; or a Dolphin that can respond to sonic sounds. When they develop the microchip or jet engine I will be impressed. Heck, for that matter, when they can start a fire.
“The relevant part to me is the fact that Adam was the first spirit child of God on earth.”
This is an opinion, not a fact.
“I don’t know what happened, but neither do you or most likely anyone else for that matter.”
Agreed, we don’t know what happened exactly -but…given Joseph Fielding Smith’s arguments it is highly unlikely that both happened. Empircally the weight of evidence favors evolution, not instantaneous Adam. Additionally, as per JFS the LDS doctrine on Atonement favors an instantaneous perfect/unevolved Adam.
So, we have conflict.
I’d be careful relying on Joseph Fielding Smith speculating on scientific things that are more speculative. His track record on some things that can be confirmed can be somewhat spotty. At the same time, I wouldn’t throw out everything he said either, just because other opinions he has had ended up being wrong.
I look at all of these opinions as on a continuum. On one end is likely JFS or BRMcConkie. At the other end might be Nibley or others. But at the end of the day, they are all speculations based on their interpretations of scripture. I think God is teaching us this knowledge another route, but that is the subject of many other posts.
More on this specific topic later when I have more time.
“Not because of evolution of the physical form, but because they were intelligences prior to this earth”
That’s an inference that I can see but again not a fact and certainly disputable.
I take JFS as an authority on LDS theology. He was quite adamant on the implications associated with accepting evolution. I don’t take him as an authority on the actual “Origin of Man”. But taking a more cautionary approach to how much we trust the Brethrens words kind of throws a wrench in the whole mantra that there is saftey and peace in following the leaders of the Church. When I threw JFS out, next came Gordon B. Hinckley followed by Thomas S. Monson. Because each of these men also sometimes get it right, and sometimes get it wrong – and no more or less than any average man who doesn’t hold the Prophetic mantle, to be the voice of God on earth.
I’m aware that others do not see the issue as cut-and-dried as I do, but frankly I think the whole nature of what Prophets are claimed to be, puts members into a position where they have to embrace largely anything a Prophet teaches, or question their Testimony of Prophets.
“Because each of these men also sometimes get it right, and sometimes get it wrong – and no more or less than any average man who doesn’t hold the Prophetic mantle, to be the voice of God on earth.
I’m aware that others do not see the issue as cut-and-dried as I do, but frankly I think the whole nature of what Prophets are claimed to be, puts members into a position where they have to embrace largely anything a Prophet teaches, or question their Testimony of Prophets.”
I guess I’ve never felt it had to be that black and white/all or nothing. If not wearing a beard or one piercing becomes part of the recommend questions or if I’m told I have to vote a certain way because the prophet says so, then I’d have a serious problem with his calling. But since I don’t believe God puts every word into the mouth of a GA on any subject he choses to address, then I have no problem weighing what they say and deciding for myself.
“I guess I’ve never felt it had to be that black and white/all or nothing. If not wearing a beard or one piercing becomes part of the recommend questions or if I’m told I have to vote a certain way because the prophet says so, then I’d have a serious problem with his calling.”
I don’t see it this black and white either. These are not so much teachings which can be “right-or-wrong” as they are matters of Church policy lightly declared. Having to reject a Church leaders teachings on Origin of our species, or on the Nature of God’s person (Adam-God-theory), or what the inhabitants of the moon dress like, or whether your principal text is truly historically based or not, are far different the White dress shirt policies. Of course, if you believe that Prophets are called by God to lead you in correct paths, why wouldn’t you follow his counsel on beards, earings, and dress shirts?
#20 – I agree, Cowboy. I’ve always found the argument that prophets aren’t given EVERYTHING so some of what they say is their own opinion. Fine. But seriously, if a supposed prophet of god has no idea about the very nature of the god he’s purporting to speak to and for, then exactly what are the issues on which we’re supposed to feel comfortable taking his word as law? Doesn’t there have to be some credible baseline that we can say “on issues a, b and c, we can assume the prophet’s words are god’s will? If the nature of god doesn’t qualify, what does?
I can relate to Cowboy and brjones on this. The need to have some “baseline” is I think a valid human experience. I try hard now NOT to have one, and to sit with the ambiguity, while also grappling with what I am being taught and putting it through the filter of my mind and heart.
Seems to me the story of the Garden and Adam and Eve were only written down as we have it some time around 900 BCE, so before that, for thousands of years, it was told orally generation to generation to generation.
Details like exact names, places, times, and verbatim quotes are unlikely to stand as literally accurate and true, but more symbolic and allegorical, as was mentioned.
There is always the use of “Adam” as representing mankind, whether or not he was a real person or if he had a belly button.
Joseph Fielding Smith taught racism in order to justify practices that were later discontinued, and which no one can find any revealed reason for having been church policy in the first place. When he didn’t know something, he filled in the blanks with his imagination. Same thing with evolution, pre-Adam, etc. God hasn’t told us anything directly about this stuff, so we speculate. Unfortunately, some people feel the need to clothe their own opinions in the guise of revealed truth. Luckily, as I understand it, JFS did most of his worst speculating before he was the prophet. Wasn’t it Doctrines of Salvation that has his bogus attempt to argue that Brigham Young didn’t teach Adam-God theory?
Taking an environmentalist view. I’ve wondered if “multiply and replenish the earth” is actually two commandments and not one: “Multiply” and then “replenish the earth.”
Population and mankind obviously take their toll on the earth’s resources. Perhaps God was telling Adam to have children, but then clean up their mess.
Just a tangent thought.
Owen, how is revelation done to prophets when they do speak the truth vs. how JFS received his enlightened “imagination”?
You talk as if we can clearly see God hasn’t spoken to us on this subject…how do you know that for sure one way or another?
25 – Jared, that is an interesting thought.
Humanity does make a huge change somewhere between eight and ten thousand years ago. Dramatic shifts, with more ever since.
Though I’ve often wondered if we could be children of Adam as we are children of Abraham.
#18: Cowboy said: “I take JFS as an authority on LDS theology.”
JFS taught: “We will never get a man into space. This earth is man’s sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen.”
This touches on LDS theology (ie. where man’s role is, on this sphere, etc) as much as his comments on evolution. Assuming JFS was correct on LDS theology in this case, do you therefore think the moon landings were faked?
No, I think that JFS was full of it. The problem is that he is a necessary link in the chain that connects Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson. As brjones has stated, there really is no standard for concisely determining when a Prophet is in error. In terms of getting closer to the truth, the would be mathmatician in me see’s a few more problems. If Prophets can’t be trusted as consistent guides, then their counsel represents one more variable in the equation capable of yielding error. In other words, let me set the equation paramaters like this:
T = Truth undefiled
M = my personal truth coefficient
X = a truth optimization variable on M
P = The Prophets truth coefficient
Y = a truth optimization variable on P
The simplist equations will yield the most consistency and less dispersion. The more a person can do to control the X variable the greater their odds of getting to truth.
T = MX, where a person relies soley on their own authority to determine God’s will.
Conversely another way that the person can increase the consistency of their results, assuming that the variables can somehow be managed or controlled is to completely rely on the Prophet
T = PY
The scenario where there is the greatest dispersion and statistical uncertainty is where the correlation to truth depends on two uncertain parameters
T = MX + PY, because in this scenario the range of influence subject to two competing variables. Only if we can prove that there is a correlation of one parameter to T, would such a compounding make sense. Seeing as how we have no such baseline for determining the correlation of P to T, we are left to make a judgement call, M, on what we think the correlation is between P and T. Therefore we are back to M, with no sense of the probabilities on P, compounding our quest for T with PY yields greater probability of error.
What do prophets do?
“No, I think that JFS was full of it. The problem is that he is a necessary link in the chain that connects Joseph Smith to Thomas S. Monson. As brjones has stated, there really is no standard for concisely determining when a Prophet is in error.”
Well, that makes a few things clear. As to a standard for determining when a Prophet is in error, that’s easy. He’s in error when he’s wrong. Of course that would be my opinion which, as I recall, was the topic of another post.
Cheers.
Well, Heber13, luckily we have so many contradicting opinions on these subjects among our general authorities, that we can each have it our way. You can have JFS and BRM and I’ll have James Talmage and every other GA who actually knows something about science.
Once we strip away all of the conjecture we’ve loaded on the pure doctrines we’ve been given, all of the problems reconciling true religion with true science fall away.
#29 Cowboy
I like the math. I don’t really have a good answer as to when a prophet is speaking as a Prophet and when he is speaking as a man. A few thoughts:
– Consensus: When all 15 apostles agree on the same thing, I think that increases Y. When one person agrees, I think that decreases Y. I do think there is some confounding here, however, as they all seem to be the same generation so have the same viewpoint. Also, the current leadership seems to value a show of “unity” more than much else, so I don’t know that we’ll ever really know if there is anyone who disagrees.
– Additional term: I would add an additional term + EZ, making it T=MX+PY+EZ. E stands for “external” evidence and Z is the corresponding optimization variable. As the knowledge in the world progresses, it doesn’t really matter what I think or what a prophet has said, at times, the first two terms become negligible.
As an example, consider the JFS quote about man on the moon – it doesn’t matter what an apostle taught or how devoutly any member of the Church supported him once a man actually landed on the moon. The external evidence was too much.
#29, 32 –
A couple years ago the church did a press release about what constitutes doctrine and when a prophet is actually speaking as a prophet or only as a man. It’s still pretty problematic as there are many things that fall into that gray area in the middle, but it’s a start.
http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine
StayLds has a good essay on this topic.
http://www.staylds.com/
Aaron L –
Thank you for citing. From the press release:
“For example, Latter-day Saints generally view being born again as a process of conversion, whereas many other Christian denominations often view it as a conversion that happens in one defining moment.”
I find this quite interesting, as it almost represents a 360 on the principle of revelation. It’s almost as if the Church is saying that conversion is more of an acclimation process than a spiritual experience. On my mission we had a tactic called the “pray now”, where we would pray with an investigator after the first discussion encouraging them to get a personal witness. This press release seems to run counter to that logic. It almost sounds like a concession that the Church doubts the spirit?
“Of course, if you believe that Prophets are called by God to lead you in correct paths, why wouldn’t you follow his counsel on beards, earings, and dress shirts?”
I thought about this over night and it came to me that I’ve never heard the Prophet or any of the brethren say something definitive about beards or shirts. Most of the noise about these things seem to come from people wanting to be more Mormon than the prophet. And as for as GBH and piercings it was plain to me he was expressing an opinion. The fallout from that was a perfect example of what I heard Elder Pinnock say years ago, “We have to be careful of what we ask people to do becuase they’ll do it.”
“And as for as GBH and piercings it was plain to me he was expressing an opinion.”
GBSmith –
How was it plain to you? I am not asking this rhetorically or confrontationally, I am just interested in understanding how you reached this conclusion. The basis of some earlier conversation is that the standards for making such a determination are obscure, and unofficial.
My sense when I heard him was of a elderly man giving advice but not a commandment or making a rule. Maybe it was his tone or choice of words or the look on his face. I’ve read that part of the speech and had the same interpretation. Just my impression/opinion. Obviously others heard it differently with the change in dress standards at the Y but again that’s not the way I heard it.
Fair enough
I’d like to go back to what Cowboy said earlier on this…regarding prophets and what their role is for me as a member of the church.
#18 “I’m aware that others do not see the issue as cut-and-dried as I do, but frankly I think the whole nature of what Prophets are claimed to be, puts members into a position where they have to embrace largely anything a Prophet teaches, or question their Testimony of Prophets.”
I think it is best to understand what a prophet is and the boundaries for the prophet in my life, than I can process how I should figure out the math equation.
To me, a prophet is not called to speak all truth all the time and give us all the answers to all our questions and never make mistakes or else he is a fraud. That is not my understanding of the church teachings.
Directly from the church website:
“As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are blessed to be led by living prophets—inspired men called to speak for the Lord …. We sustain the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator—the only person on the earth who receives revelation to guide the entire Church.”
Nowhere in the teachings of the church do they say they must be infallible or that they will receive pure truth on all subjects. They are called to GUIDE THE CHURCH. That’s all.
They cannot receive revelation for who I should marry, or which candidate for President is right for the country, or if science will ever prove evolution or not. They guide the church, and when we have faith we can be guided to the right direction even if we don’t have all the answers why, and even if they have limited information and give speculative personal opinions that don’t lead the church wrongly.
So maybe we can look back on the Brother of Jared with a critical eye and say his idea to have god touch rocks is a stupid way to light the barges, but it worked for them in getting that group of people to their journey’s destination, and we also can learn from the stories to apply principles to our lives, even if literally that answer isn’t an eternal truth about lighting barges.
I find no problem with being led by a mortal leader who doesn’t know everything, because I do not believe as an active member I must believe everything the prophet teaches or lose my testimony in the prophet.
Those are different things. Understanding what a prophet is and what it isn’t is key to coping with my testimony despite the things that Joseph, Brigham, JSF, or GBH have said from time to time about various subjects.
I take their guidance and then I choose for myself what I believe and don’t believe in my life, and let them run the church. I don’t try to run the church, and I don’t let them run my life, nor do I feel obligated to believe everything they say.
Elder Oaks said it better than I did, but clearly prophets can be wrong about some things that aren’t important to the guidance of the church, and as a member I must learn to be comfortable taking things on faith because life is more about developing as a person than understanding everything before acting or being right in an argument.
#34 – I have also read the essay you cite and it mostly agrees with the most recent press release in 2007. Both are good articles, but don’t explain everything.
Both articles more less state that the doctrine is found in the scriptures. If somebody speaks outside what is in the scriptures then they are likely just giving their opinion. New scripture can be added to the canon, but it must be voted on and accepted by the membership of the church.
The scriptures are full of principles of often lack specifics. This is where general authorities come in to fill in the gaps, often with their own opinions. For example, what does it mean to keep the sabbath day holy? Can you watch TV? Can you pay catch in the yard with your son? Do you have to wear your church clothes all day so you aren’t tempted to break the sabbath? What is the law and what are the hedges? Your answer depends on which general authority you ask.
Here’s another example. In section 89 we have the word of wisdom. Most know that the WoW today is not the same as when it was given. Beer is prohibited today, yet seems to have been prescribed in the original scripture (see verse 17). Joseph Smith and the other early church leaders drank beer regularly long after the WoW was given. Then many years later the church leadership decided beer was no longer allowed, gave that as their opinion, never claimed revelation as the source of the change, and all of a sudden you have to follow the opinion of a man to go to the temple to receive necessary ordinances for exaltation.
Doctrine and practices are different things.
What I do on Sunday will not be found in the scriptures and shouldn’t be doctrine.
From #33: Here is the official definition of “doctrine” as per the Church:
…With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith.
So we have the 4 standard works, the AofF, and official declarations/proclamations. Nothing else is “official” doctrine, but opinion. The only things added in over a century to “doctrine”, therefore, are stopping polygamy and stopping the ban on blacks and the priesthood.
If this is the case, why are so many people hung up on facial hair, color of shirts, shoulders showing, tattoos, earrings, home teaching numbers, Duty to God, etc? None of these are doctrinal according to the Church’s definition. Yet we spend so much time worrying about these “non-doctrinal” checklists of things we “should” be doing that perhaps we forget the fundamentals.
Mike S. – I completely agree. It’s ironic that stopping the ban on the priesthood is considered doctrine when by the church’s own definition, the ban was never doctrinal to begin with. As I stated in #41, it’s also ironic that following a non-doctrinal opinions of church leaders can also keep me from taking part in ordinances necessary for salvation. It is if the GAs blur the docrine/opinion line on purpose, for reasons that I can only speculate.
oops, in that last line i meant to say, “it is as if…
#43
Regarding the Priesthood ban, traditionally it was argued in reference to curse on Cain as taught in the Pearl of Great Price. While many have debated this, the Church has not categorically clarified it either – therefore, as per this Scriptured based definition of “Doctrine”, the ban may have very well been doctrinal. Secondly, and more importantly, this raises the whole point of Prophets. The alleged value of Prophets is to clarify doctrine contained in the Scriptures, not the other way around. The idea was that anyone can read scripture, but only the oracles can explain the oracles. Besides the fact, that when you cut this argument down to size we are back to the protestant notion that all revelation is contained in the scriptures, and there are no more Prophets and Apostles. This logic just contains a caveat that opens that notion to the entire canon of Mormon scripture, not just the Bible.
If you take relatively recent statements by Bruce McKonkie, Jeffrey Holland, and others, all the previous racist theories as to why the Priesthood ban started in the first place were wrong, even though statements of blessing/cursing based on race are found in the Pearl of Great Price and the Book of Mormon. If it was doctrinal then, it isn’t now. So assuming the church is true, either the doctrine was wrong or the doctrine changed. I personally have a hard time accepting either of those scenarios. It is a good point you bring up though. Prophets ought to be able to interpret scripture with authority, correctly, and consistently. Otherwise, what good are they in this regard?
Part of the problem is that the prophets don’t make it clear when they are speaking for God or just pontificating their own views. It seems that they would rather have everybody assume that they are always speaking for God unless it becomes clear after the fact that they were wrong. Then they have to do damage control after the fact.
Experience makes me think that usually prophets don’t speak eternal truths that are binding for everybody. Most of what they say is generally good advice for most people and ought to be considered, but that’s it. Unfortunately, much unnecessary judgment happens within the church when you don’t follow the whole program.
Aaron:
A .350 hitter in baseball can be VERY useful, as long as his team doesn’t make the mistake of thinking he bats 1.000 and stray too far from the bases. 😀
Agreed. Much of the confusion would go a way if prophets would quit acting like they bat 1.000.
Stephen is someone I am compelled to stalk.
Matupa in Brazil has wonderful weather this time of year and some interesting Mormon Missionaries.
I remember 44 years ago Pres. Packer telling us at a zone conference that people were joining the church in spite of us. Doesn’t look like the bar was raised enough to make much difference.