Note: This is the first of three posts reviewing Elder McConkie’s explanations in a six-part review of the Adam-God theory. See the first post (#20) in this sub-series for an introduction to the false theory and further information about it. Next, there will be two other posts containing Elder McConkie’s teachings and explanations, followed by one covering the position of the Church on the matter. Along with discussing and refuting the theory itself, another reason for reviewing this issue is because it affords the opportunity to teach true doctrine about Adam’s place in the plan of salvation, and also further explanation about prophets and their relationship to scripture and each other. Some of the material from Elder McConkie has never been seen by the public before, not even in Determining Doctrine.
Elder McConkie’s
position on the Adam-God theory was fairly simple—Brigham Young’s false
teaching that Adam was God the Father contradicted Brigham Young’s true
teaching that Adam was Michael, the ancient of days and archangel, and the
first man on the earth.[1]
One of the most well-known documents
in which Elder McConkie explained that position was in a February 1981 letter
to BYU English professor Eugene England,
replying to England’s letter to him. England had been presenting
an article elucidating a theory that God the Father possessed all knowledge
and truth in the sphere of His children, but that He was still learning new
truths in His own higher sphere among the Gods. And it contained quotations
from Brigham Young.
For those readers unacquainted with
Eugene England, he was a liberal doctrinal speculator and unorthodox-nonconformist
who occasionally bordered on heresy/dissidence. His equivalent today might be
someone like Terryl Givens—unorthodox
views, promoting
gospel doubt as a gift of the Spirit, revising the apostasy and
restoration narrative, a proponent of popular modern social philosophies,
etc. Needless to say, England’s published
doctrinal views did not please the Brethren. Of him, one of the apostles
said to Elder McConkie: “Oh dear, haven’t we rescued him enough times already?”
Joseph Fielding McConkie told me that even though his father offered in the
letter to meet with England in his office to discuss the issue, England never would.
Somehow the
letter leaked out and found its way around BYU and also into the hands of an unscrupulous
anti-Mormon group that eagerly copied and sold it to others. As the letter
became more widely circulated, it seemed that each successive critic with a
website and an axe to grind trumpeted the letter as though it were their own
astounding discovery.
So many researchers, historians,
scholars, and anti-Mormon groups have copied and circulated and posted this
letter on the internet that it may have inadvertently become the most
well-known and widely-read piece of private correspondence ever written by a
General Authority. Because it is frank and uncompromisingly direct with counsel
on how to approach the Adam-God theory and other false doctrines, a lengthy
excerpt from it is given below in company with other like materials written by
Elder McConkie.[2] Some
instruction about how Adam was born are also included and blend well with the
subject.
From Determining Doctrine and other
sources:
Bruce R. McConkie:
On page 249 of the second edition
of Mormon Doctrine, there is a long
quotation from the First Presidency of the Church which tells as plainly and as
fully as they felt at liberty to so do, how Adam got into this world.
Additional views are expressed in the articles “Fall of Adam,” “First Flesh,”
and “First Man.” I think the statement of the First Presidency may be
considered as the official view of the Church. If you study it with some care
you will have no difficulty in seeing what they intend to convey. (Bruce R.
McConkie Correspondence, 1967.)
Bruce R. McConkie:
Luke 3:38. Adam, which
was the son of God] This statement, found also in Moses 6:22, has a
deep and profound significance and also means what it says. Father Adam came,
as indicated, to this sphere, gaining an immortal body, because death had not
yet entered the world. (2 Ne. 2:22.) Jesus,
on the other hand, was the Only Begotten in the flesh, meaning into a world of
mortality where death already reigned. (Doctrinal
New Testament Commentary 1:95)
Bruce R. McConkie:
Adam was born into the world; that
is the way he had to get here. The rib story is as much as people are able to
receive and it’s figurative as is the dust of the earth story. I was made of
the dust of the earth, and so was Adam. The way I was made of the dust of the
earth was for my mother to partake of the elements of the earth in the normal
birth process….
All that is
involved is that God obeyed some law that we’re not acquainted with by which he
could create Adam a temporal body—Adam and Eve. And they started out with an
immortal body and they then fell and started the human race on this earth. We
don’t talk much about this but the quotations are there. Brigham Young’s
quotation is strong on the point, and the First Presidency has said it, but the
Lord has couched it for the world in this figurative language in the
scriptures. Suffice it to say that Adam got here and was immortal and then he
fell and brought spiritual death into the world. (BYU 1967 “Mormon Doctrine” unpublished
lecture #1)
Bruce R. McConkie (questions and
answers):
Question:
Was Adam transplanted as a physical being from another planet? And if he was
not transplanted, then do we take the creation account mentioned in the Pearl
of Great Price literal or do we take Brigham Young’s statement as he mentioned
in the Journal of Discourses as
merely his own opinion, or as scripture?
Answer:
Adam was a spirit son of God like all of us. He lived in preexistence and he
came here, and he has lived on one earth and this [earth] is it—and that is
what Brigham Young taught—exactly. Except that Brigham Young had the faculty of
disagreeing with himself. He said also the other [about Adam being
transplanted]. All you have to have is the wisdom to believe the right
quotation that he made. The right quotation he made is the one that is in
harmony with the scriptures.
Question:
Was it true then that God created Adam from the elements of this earth?...
Answer:
God created Adam from the dust of the earth. And God created Bruce McConkie
from the dust of the earth. Of this earth. And he did it in precisely the same
way. Adam was born into the world. Everybody else was born into the world and
all of us are created from the dust of the earth, which is a figurative
expression that means that we were born into the world threw the organization
of the elements. Now there have been lots of speculation and there will be lots
of speculation in the future, but there really isn’t any substantial problem in
finding out what the fact is.
Once
in a while someone says something which is dramatic and it gets preserved and
it isn’t true. And he corrects himself and he edits himself but he can’t recall
the thing that he said. And someone always wants to believe some dramatic or
unusual thing for some reason of personal satisfaction.
Brigham
Young taught exactly what I am saying—but Brigham Young said a few things where
he contradicted Brigham Young. All you have to do is choose the statements of
Brigham Young that are in conformity with the revelations. And if Brigham Young
were here to edit himself he would do some book burning on these quotations
that everybody likes to quote. Brigham Young happens to be one of the greatest
men that ever lived and he ranks along with Joseph Smith; but even Brigham
Young (and I) make a mistake or two in doctrine once in a while. Brigham Young,
because he was the President of the Church, gets quoted. (“Marriage &
Exaltation,” Lecture transcript, University of Utah Institute, 25 March 1968.)
Bruce R. McConkie:
Our
experience is that the overwhelming majority of people who become seriously
entangled in the Adam-God maze are people who are living in sin. In such cases
the only course of redemption is one of repentance and return to the standards
of truth.… Our experience also is, that if people have been simply
intellectually enamored with the Adam-God philosophies and have not dropped
into the quagmire of sin, it is an easy thing to straighten out their thinking
and have them return to sound principles. However, those whose lives are out of
harmony with church standards, become fanatical, sometimes almost glassy eyed,
in presenting their theories and they feel disposed to adhere to them in spite
of truth, reason, logic or anything else.
I assume
you are sufficiently aware of what goes on in the church to know that I would
have a working familiarity with all of the statements of the early Brethren that
are in any way related to this so-called doctrine. The likelihood is that I am
aware of and have access to much more in the field than you do…. What is more
important than this however, is that I know what the scriptures teach on the
matter and am aware of the reasoning and have felt the inspiration incident to
the decision of President Kimball and others of the Brethren to announce
affirmatively that the Church does not believe this doctrine. People with
insight and understanding know that one of the main reasons the First
Presidency and the Twelve issued their great proclamation and exposition on the
nature of the Father and the Son in 1916 was to lay at rest ideas about Adam
being our Father and our God. Those with spiritual insight find it a little difficult
to believe that individuals can so ardently sustain and support some of the
views they do when these views are contrary to the united voice of the First
Presidency and the Council of the Twelve upon whom God has given the
responsibility to interpret and proclaim the true doctrines of his kingdom.
I have yet to meet a person who is
tainted with these false views who has sufficient spiritual depth and
understanding to comprehend explanations that might be made with respect to
some of these doctrines. Suffice it to say that the doctrines are false and
contrary to the revealed word as found in the Standard Works of the Church.
Informed members of the Church know that when they come across statements or
doctrinal explanations which are contrary to what is in the revealed word, they
are duty bound to reject such. (Bruce R. McConkie Correspondence, 1980.)
Bruce R. McConkie (to Eugene England):
In that
same [BYU]
devotional speech I said: “there are those who believe or say they believe
that Adam is our father and our God, that he is the father of our spirits and
our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.” I, of course, indicated the
utter absurdity of this doctrine and said it was totally false.
Since then
I have received violent reactions [by letter] from Ogden Kraut and other cultists in which they
have expounded upon the views of Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren
relative to Adam. They have plain and clear quotations saying all of the things
about Adam which I say are false. The quotations are in our literature and form
the basis of a worship system followed by many of the cultists who have been
excommunicated from the Church. . . .
Now may I say something for your
guidance and enlightenment. If what I am about to say should be taken out of
context and published in Dialogue or elsewhere, it would give an
entirely erroneous impression and would not properly present the facts. As it
happens, I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his
doctrinal presentations. He was called of God. He was guided by the Holy Spirit
in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the
Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet
Joseph. He completed his work and has gone on
to eternal exaltation.
Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so
pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as
such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine.
This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They
become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are
concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was
president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth
is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in
the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal
views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.
Yes, President Young did teach that
Adam was the father of our Spirits, and all the related things that the
cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that
are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught
accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme
of things. What I am saying is, that Brigham Young, contradicted Brigham Young,
and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is
we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the standard
works.
Yes, Brigham Young did say some things
about God progressing in knowledge and understanding, but again, be it known,
that Brigham Young taught, emphatically and plainly, that God knows all things
and has all power meaning in the infinite, eternal and ultimate and absolute
sense of the word. Again, the issue is, which Brigham Young shall we believe
and the answer is: We will take the one whose statements accord with what God
has revealed in the Standard Works.
I think you can give me credit for
having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and
of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam
God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have
to make his own explanations on the points there involved. I think you can also
give me credit for knowing what Brigham Young said about God progressing. And
again, that is something he will have to account for. As for me and my house,
we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the
same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his
eternal plan of salvation.
This puts me in mind of Paul’s
statement: “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved
may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the
providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be
taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting
process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If
we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and
fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is
why Nephi said: “And all those who preach false doctrines,…wo, wo, wo be unto
them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!” (2
Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that people who teach false doctrine in the
fundamental and basic things will lose their souls. The nature and kind of
being that God is, is one of these fundamentals. I repeat: Brigham Young erred
in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to
the position of Adam in the plan of salvation, but Brigham Young also taught
the truth in these fields on other occasions. And I repeat, that in his
instance, he was a great prophet and has gone on to eternal reward. What he did
is not a pattern for any of us. If we choose to believe and teach the false
portions of his doctrines, we are making an election that will damn us.
It should be perfectly evident that
under our system of church discipline, it would be anticipated that some others
besides Brigham Young would pick up some of his statements and echo them. Those
who did this, also on other occasions, taught accurately and properly what the
true doctrines of the gospel are. I do not get concerned when a good and sound
person who, on the over-all, in teaching the truth happens to err on a
particular point and say something in conflict with what he has said himself on
a previous occasion. We are all mortal. We are all fallible. We all make
mistakes. No single individual all the time is in tune with the Holy Spirit,
but I do get concerned when some person or group picks out false statements and
makes them the basis of their presentation and theology and thus ends up having
a false concept of the doctrine, which in reality, was not in the mind of the
person whose quotations they are using. Wise gospel students do not build their
philosophies of life on quotations of individuals, even though those quotations
come from presidents of the Church. Wise people anchor their doctrine on the
Standard Works. When [D&C] Section 20 says that God is infinite and
eternal, it means just that and so on through all of the revelations. There is
no need to attempt to harmonize conflicting views when some of the views are
out of harmony with the Standard Works. This is what life is all about. The
Lord is finding out what we will believe in spite of the allurements of the
world or the philosophies of men or the seemingly rational and logical
explanations that astute people make.
We do not solve our problems by getting
a statement from the president of the Church or from someone else on the
subject. We have been introduced to the gospel; we have the gift of the Holy Ghost;
we have the Standard Works and it is our responsibility to get in tune and
understand properly what the Lord has revealed and has had us canonize. The end
result of this course of personally and individually pursuing light and truth
is to reach that millennial state of which the scriptures say it will no longer
be necessary for every man to say to his neighbor “know the Lord,” for all
shall know him from the greatest to the least. Joseph Smith says this will be
by the spirit of revelation. . . .
I advise you to take my counsel on
the matters here involved. If I err, that is my problem; but in your case if you
single out some of these things and make them the center of your philosophy,
and end up being wrong, you will lose your soul. One of the side effects of
preaching contrary to what the Brethren preach is to get a spirit of rebellion
growing up in your heart. This sort of thing cankers the soul spiritually. It
drives people out of the Church. It weakens their faith. All of us need all of
the faith and strength and spiritual stability we can get to maintain our
positions in the Church and to work out our salvation. . . .
Now I hope you will ponder and pray
and come to a basic understanding of fundamental things and that unless and
until you can on all points, you will remain silent on those where differences
exist between you and the Brethren. This is the course of safety. I advise you
to pursue it. If you do not, perils lie ahead. It is not too often in this day
that any of us are told plainly and bluntly what out to be. . . . (Bruce R.
McConkie, Correspondence to Eugene England, February 9, 1981.)
Bruce R. McConkie:
Some
prophets—I say it respectfully—know more and have greater inspiration than
others. Thus, if Brigham Young, who was one of the greatest of the prophets,
said something about Adam which is out of harmony with what is in the Book of
Moses and in section 78, it is the scripture that prevails. This is one of the
reasons we call our scriptures the standard works. They are the standards of
judgment and the measuring rod against which all doctrines and views are
weighed, and it does not make one particle of difference whose views are
involved. The scriptures always take precedence. (Mark L. McConkie, ed., Doctrines of the Restoration: Sermons &
Writings of Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1989], 231.)
Bruce R. McConkie:
As you
might surmise I am inundated with a flood of letters and manuscripts which set
forth quaint and cranky and bizarre and false doctrines. I seldom read them
through to the end and almost never send an answer. It is my practice to
discard them because I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in
discussions or debates on doctrinal matters….
I do not
see any merit in any presentation that is based on false premises. It is
possible to make a seemingly logical presentation “proving” the Adam God theory
or “salvation by grace alone” or almost anything. That is not the real issue. We
should spend our time sustaining true principles. A man who knows better is
very foolish to present false views.
No matter
how logically the cultists make it appear, that Adam is the father of our
spirits and the God whom we should worship, nonetheless it is false. No matter
how logically a presentation is made that men are saved by grace alone and
without works, the doctrine presented is false. No matter how logically you
make it appear that Jehovah is the Father, the fact remains it is false.… If
you have been to the temple you know perfectly well who Elohim, Jehovah and
Michael are. (Bruce R. McConkie Correspondence, 1982.)
[1] I am
fully aware that Elden Watson and others have come up with a two-Adams theory for
Adam-God which they presented to Elder McConkie and that he seemed to favor for
a time, but also seemed to eventually discard. Full examination of that
situation is found in the book mentioned in endnote 3 below.
[2] A
detailed examination of the entire England letter episode is found in Dennis B.
Horne, Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights from
His Life and Teachings, epilogue
for the second edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment