Early Understandings of Adam and Eve: Brigham Young and Orson Pratt
This post is part VI in the Understanding the Fall in Mormonism series. See all parts here.
The two most influential Garden of Eden narratives in early Mormonism come from Brigham Young and Orson Pratt. Young and Pratt held to rather distinct beliefs regarding Adam and Eve. In many ways, one cannot really understand the development of the fall in Mormonism without understanding the foundational logic behind Young and Pratt’s views.
Brigham Young’s complete understanding of the Eden story is unfamiliar to many Latter-day Saints today, but it is absolutely crucial to understanding how the fall developed.
In 1852, Brigham Young taught: “When our father 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.”[1] Describing the Edenic narrative through the lens of the plurality of worlds, Young preached, “Yes, an Adam will have to go there and he cannot do without Eve; he must have Eve to commence the work of generation, and they will go into the garden, and continue to eat and drink of the fruits of the corporal world, until this grosser matter is diffused sufficiently through their celestial bodies to enable them, according to the established laws, to produce mortal tabernacles for their spirit children.”[2]
As Buerger explains:
“Brigham’s cosmology thus seemingly held that each “god” was personally responsible for creating spiritual offspring, organizing an earth for their temporal existence, and decelestializing himself to a point where he with an “Eve” could procreate physical bodies for their spirit children.”[3]
In fact, this point was so pivotal to his Garden of Eden narrative that Young once exclaimed:
“You believe Adam was made of the dust of this earth. This I do not believe, though it is supposed that it is so written in the Bible; but it is not, to my understanding. You can write that information to the States, if you please—that I have publicly declared that I do not believe that portion of the Bible as the Christian world do. I never did, and I never want to. What is the reason I do not? Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child.”[4]
Young did not accept that Adam was made from the dust of the earth because in Young’s view, Adam and Eve were transplanted beings.
One salient feature of Young’s view is the influence of the premortal existence and spiritual birth. In 1873, speaking in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, Young suggested that Adam, upon forming the earth, said:
“I want my children who are in the spirit world to come and live here. I once dwelt upon an earth something like this, in a mortal state. I was faithful, I received my crown and exaltation. I have the privilege of extending my work, and to its increase there will be no end. I want my children that were born to me in the spirit world to come here and take tabernacles of flesh, that their spirits may have a house, a tabernacle or a dwelling place as mine has.”[5]
Young continued in the next paragraph:
“Now for mother Eve. The evil principle always has and always will exist. Well, a certain character came along, and said to Mother Eve, ‘The Lord has told you that you must not do so and so, for if you do you shall surely die. But I tell you that if you do not do this you will never know good from evil, your eyes will never be opened, and you may live on the earth forever and ever, and you will never know what the Gods know.’ The devil told the truth, what is the mystery about it? He is doing it today. He is telling one or two truths and mixing them with a thousand errors to get the people to swallow them. I do not blame Mother Eve, I would not have had her miss eating the forbidden fruit for anything in the world.”[6]
Young had made reference to the role of the serpent six years prior in 1867:
“The devil had truth in his mouth as well as lies when he came to mother Eve. Said he, “If you will eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will see as the gods see.” That was just as true as anything that ever was spoken on the face of the earth. She did eat, her eyes were opened, and she saw good and evil. She gave of the fruit to her husband, and he ate too. What would have been the consequence if he had not done so? They would have been separated, and where would we have been? I am glad he did eat. I am glad the fruit was given to mother Eve, that she ate of it, and that her eyes were opened, and that my eyes are opened, that I have tasted the sweet as well as the bitter, and that I understand the difference between good and evil.”[7]
In Young’s narrative, the Serpent becomes one who assists the Plan of Salvation. Young focuses on the fact that the serpent gave Eve the truth! Mother Eve had to eat the fruit. She had to partake in order to provide mortal tabernacles for spiritual children.
Except for Young’s understanding of Adam as God and Eve as one of his wives (projecting early Mormonism’s polygamous marriage ideal onto God), the rest of the story has lived on in the Mormon tradition. The notion that couples carry on the work of creating mortal tabernacles for God’s children is alive and well. The notion of the plan being reiterated worlds without end is also a contemporary belief.
Interpreting “Adam Fell that Men Might Be” from 1844 ~ 1946
Coexisting with Brigham Young’s narrative was the Garden of Eden narrative expounded by Mormonism’s philosopher Orson Pratt. Orson was much more inclined to base his narrative in scripture than Young. Orson made use of Paul and Lehi’s teachings, finding them completely complementary.
On December 30, 1844, the year of Joseph Smith’s martyrdom, Orson Pratt quoted Lehi’s statement: “Adam fell that men might be, and men are that they might have joy” and offered one of earliest coherent accounts of the fall. Pratt’s view of the Garden of Eden drew both from the typical biblical passages and from those found in the Book of Mormon.
According to John Taylor’s account of Pratt’s sermon, Eve was beguiled by the devil and ate of the fruit. At this point Adam was faced with one decision: whether to deliberately transgress the commandment in order to remain with Eve, or be obedient to God’s commandment not to partake of the fruit but be forever separated from Eve.[8] It should be noted that Orson’s interpretation occurred well before Brigham Young unveiled his Adam-God theory in the April 1852 general conference.[9]
In 1853, Orson openly preached his understanding in the Salt Lake Tabernacle:
But there is a very curious saying in the Book of Mormon, to which I now wish to refer your minds; it reads thus: “Adam fell that man might be, and men are that they might have joy.” Says one, “If Adam had not fallen, then there could not have been any posterity.” That is just what we believe; but how do you get along with that saying which was given previous to the fall, where he was commanded to multiply and replenish the earth? How could he have multipled and fullfiled this commandment, if “Adam fell that man might be?” Let me appeal to another saying in the New Testament: “Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression,” says the Apostle Paul. Well, after the woman was deceived, she became subject to the penalty; yes, after she had partaken of the forbidden fruit, the penalty was upon her, and not upon Adam; he had not partaken of the fruit, but his wife had. Now, what is to be done? Here are two beings in the garden of Eden, the woman and the man; she has transgressed, has broken the law, and incurred the penalty. And now, suppose the man had said, “I will not partake of this forbidden fruit;” the next word would have been, “Cast her out of the garden; but let Adam stay there, for he has not sinned; he has not broken the commandment, but his wife has; she was deceived, let her be banished from the garden, and from my presence, and from Adam’s presence; let them be eternally separated.” I ask, on these conditions could they fulfil the first great commandment? They could not. Adam saw this, that the woman was overcome by the devil speaking through the serpent; and when he saw it, he was satisfied that the woman would have to be banished from his presence: he saw, also, that unless he partook of the forbidden fruit, he could never raise up posterity; therefore the truth of that saying in the Book of Mormon is apparent, that “Adam fell that man might be.” He saw that it was necessary that he should with her partake of sorrow and death, and the varied effects of the fall, that he and she might be redeemed from these effects, and be restored back again to the presence of God.[10]
That same year in the Seer, Orson shared another aspect of his beliefs.
Is it possible for immortal beings to multiply? If it is not, then why did God give such a command to the immortal male and female? It may be said that they fulfilled the design embraced in the command after they through transgression became mortal; but did God command them to sin, and fall, and become mortal, in order to raise up mortal posterity that the first command might be obeyed and made honorable? Would He command them to disobey one law in order to keep another?[11]
Orson clearly rejected the notion that God would give conflicting commandments. He found nothing in scripture that would prevent Adam and Eve from having children before the fall. The historical record indicates that he openly preached these ideas to the saints in 1873 and 1875.[12]
For Orson the transgression was clear:
What was that transgression? It was violating a single commandment of God, and disregarding the counsel of those immortal beings who stood above them in authority. The Creator placed in the garden a certain tree and warned Adam that in the day he eat the fruit thereof he should surely die. He commanded him not to eat the fruit. His was a simple commandment; but the violation of it subjected Adam to a fall from his exalted station in the favor of God. Consequently a curse was passed upon all created things, and in the posterity of Adam were sown the seeds of dissolution.[13]
How then did Orson interpret Lehi’s statement in the Book of Mormon that if Adam and Eve had not transgressed that “they would have had no children”? As can be seen from his 1853 address, Orson interpreted the scripture to mean that Adam and Eve would not have had mortal children.[14]
As late as 1880, Orson openly preached on this point:
Two immortal beings, then, were placed in the garden of Eden, male and female. Was there any commandment given to those two immortal beings before the fall? There was one commandment, namely: “Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth.” What! Did the Lord command two immortal beings to multiply their species! He did. In meditating upon this great command given to these two immortal beings; it opens to us a field of reflection, of knowledge, concerning the great designs of the Almighty. It imparts to us a knowledge that the Lord our God intended that immortal beings should multiply their species. Can you find any place in the book of Genesis where our first parents were commanded to multiply after the fall? I do not remember any such scripture. I have read the scriptures very diligently; I do not remember any such command. . . . “[W]ill the time ever come when Adam and Eve will become immortal and carry out the command that was given to them in the days of their first immortality? I answer, yes; without this, the command of God never could be, in all respects, fulfilled.”[15]
Orson Pratt consistently believed and taught this understanding of Eden until his death the following year in 1881.
We can make a few of observations about Orson Pratt’s narrative. First, the fact that he believed Adam and Eve could have had children before the fall plays a crucial function in his theology. This means that the Lord provided coherent commandments that could have been fully obeyed. Commandments do not conflict in Orson’s narrative and Adam and Eve are not forced to choose among conflicting commandments.[16] Thus, Orson’s God is a God of rationality and ethical coherence who would never command his children to “disobey one law in order to keep another.”
Second, because there is no inherent need for any of the commandments to be broken, Orson’s account would not make the Fall necessary or inevitable, in contrast to Brigham Young’s view. This point would consistently bother Mormon thinkers later on.
Third, Eve was genuinely deceived by the Devil. Orson does not teach that the Serpent gave Eve the truth as does Brigham Young. Thus, Orson maintains the language of Paul and the Book of Mormon regarding Eve’s deception.
Orson’s unique belief that Adam and Eve were able to have children before the fall, and that this would have resulted in immortal children in the Garden, was never really carried on in the Mormon exegetical tradition. Without this link in his logic, Pratt’s overall narrative loses some of its coherent force. There are perhaps reasons why this idea didn’t take. It isn’t clear how well it fits with the notions that God give birth to spirits, who then enter mortality to receive mortal bodies. Orson Pratt rejects the reading that God commanded Adam and Eve to provide “mortal tabernacles for their spiritual children” a proposition so crucial in Young’s theology.
Despite the fact that Orson’s idiosyncratic views regarding immortal children would not endure, the overall structure of his Garden of Eden narrative in terms of the dilemma and the decision would remain the dominant understanding of Adam and Eve in Mormon thought until the 1950s. But what happened at that point is a story for another time.
________
This post is part of an unpublished paper outlining the development of the fall in Mormon thought.
[1] Brigham Young. “Self-Government—Mysteries—Recreation and Amusements, Not in Themselves Sinful—Tithing—Adam, Our Father and Our God.” Journal of Discourses 1:50. April 9, 1852.
[2] Brigham Young. August 28, 1852. Journal of Discourses 6:275.
[3] Buerger, David John. “The Adam-God Doctrine,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15.1 (Spring 1982).
[4] Brigham Young. October 23, 1853. Journal of Discourses 2:6. This quotation has appeared many times but only in the context of whether Young held a literal understanding of the Genesis account. However, the real key to understanding Young’s exegesis of Genesis 2:7 (or complete dismissal of it) is his views on Adam-God.
[5] Brigham Young, “Discourse,” Deseret News, June 18, 1873, pp. 308-309. Here Young is teaching that Adam and his wife gave birth to spirit children before creating this world and that Adam had dwelt on another earth prior. Cited in Buerger, David John. “The Adam-God Doctrine,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 15.1 (Spring 1982): fn67. See also Brigham Young, July 18, 1869. Journal of Discourses 13:145. While Buerger argues that Young publicly abandoned support for his Adam-God Doctrine in 1861, he argues Young privately maintained the doctrine evident in other statements and even as alluded to in his sermons until as late as 1876. Young died in 1877.
[6] Brigham Young, “Discourse,” Deseret News, June 18, 1873, pp. 308-309 (Sermon given June 8, 1873).
[7] Brigham Young. June 23, 1867. Journal of Discourses 12:70. Speaking of the devil’s role Young taught in 1870: “Sin is upon every earth that ever was created. . . . Consequently every earth has its redeemer and every earth has its tempter; and every earth and the people thereof . . . pass through all the ordeals that we are passing through.” Brigham Young, “Sin—the Atonement—Good and Evil—the Kingdom of God.” Journal of Discourses 14:72. (Ogden City, July 10, 1870). In this way, Young institutionalizes the role of the serpent in the plan of salvation.
[8] Jesse, Dean C. “The John Taylor Nauvoo Journal.” BYU Studies, 23:2 (1983): 238. Portions of Taylor’s Journal were published the following year. See Times and Seasons 6.2 (Feb 4, 1845).
[9] Brigham Young. Journal of Discourses 1:50-51.
[10] Pratt, Orson. “A General Funeral Sermon of All Saints and Sinners; Also of the Heavens and the Earth.” (July 25, 1852) Journal of Discourses 1:284. See also The Seer, 1:6 (1853): 84-85. Even Brigham Young agreed with Orson’s general view that the decision in the Garden came upon Adam after Eve’s transgression: “What would have been the consequence if [Adam] had not done so? They would have been separated, and where would we have been?” Brigham Young. June 23, 1867. Journal of Discourses 12:70
[11] Orson Pratt, “Celestial Marriage (continued).” The Seer Vol.1, No.3 (March 1853): 45-47.
[12] Orson Pratt. “Marriage.” Journal of Discourses 16:178-179 (August 31, 1873). “Have you never read the first great commandment given in the Bible? God said, “Be fruitful and multiply.” Did he give this commandment to mortal beings? No, he gave it to two immortal beings. ‘What! do you mean to say that immortal beings can multiply, as well as be married for all eternity?” I do.” Orson Pratt, Immediate Revelation—Spiritual Gifts Necessary in the Christian Church—Apostacy—the Restoration of the Gospel—All Things to Be Gathered in One—Divine Authority—Marriage—Celestial Marriage—Baptism for the Dead.” Journal of Discourses 18:49 (July 11, 1875). “Would people of flesh and blood and bones come into the world from immortal parents? No. We must suppose, then, that when God said to Adam and Eve, “be fruitful and multiply” that he spoke to them as beings that were not fallen.”
[13] Orson Pratt, “Funeral of Mrs. Caroline Smith,” Times and Seasons, vol. 6 no 10 (June 1, 1845): 918.
[14] Orson Pratt, “The Pre-Existence of Man (continued).” The Seer Vol.1, No.6 (June 1853): 85. “That our first parents would have had no mortal children if they had not partaken of the forbidden fruit, is not only reasonable, but it is clearly revealed in the Book of Mormon.” (emphasis added).
[15] Orson Pratt. “Visions of Moses—Rebellion in Heaven—Satan Cast Down—Our First Parents Fell—Before the Fall They Were Immortal—After the Fall, Mortal—the Command to Multiply Was Given to Two Immortal Beings—This Command More Fully to Be Carried Into Effect, After the Resurrection, Etc.” Journal of Discourses 21:289-290. (July 18, 1880).
[16] I use the term “conflicting commandments” anachronistically here. The phrase and concept does not become part of Mormon discourse until the 1950s. It is beyond to scope of this post to trace that development here.
Regarding BY’s view of the fall, I’m very skeptical that the material in notes 6 and 7 was reflecting his classical Adam-God narrative.
aquinas, cool post. Re: BY, it seems to me there is a question about the coherency of his overall narrative. We could take every known statement of his on the topic and try to fashion a coherent narrative but still come up with remainders. (Like who is the Lord talking to Adam and Eve in the Garden, etc.) Also, did you take a close look at the immediate surrounding sermon material that may have gotten him on the subject? I see in one that he’s conscious of the eastern press reporting stuff, so he might just be bringing it up for the sake of relating what others will find controversial about Mormons, but were there any immediate concerns that would inform his interpretation? Like differing commands Mormons received and had to reconcile, possibly even break some to advance the greater cause?
The “transplant” theory is interesting, Eve and Adam from another sphere. I know Heber Kimball also advanced that notion, and Parley Pratt talked about “royal planters” in the Garden story in his “Key to the Science” of 1855 (?). Do you know of any other earlier instances of the “transplant” theory? I know BHR later held to a version of it as well.
As for Orson Pratt, it seems OP viewed the fall as a sort of speed-bump, then, and that Eve and Adam would have continued to have some sort of immortal progeny without a fall being necessary, resulting presumably in immortal offspring for all eternity, according to your analysis, right? This would eliminate the need for multiple Saviors, which is handy, (did he recognize that?) but it would possibly eliminate the need for a Savior full stop. It makes me wonder how OP’s views of the afterlife, the anticipated activities of the CK, informed his views of the Garden experience.
BHodges, thanks for the comment. I think there is a logic to Young’s cosmology (which is what I’m trying to demonstrate) but having a logic is not the same as complete coherence with all known scriptures. It’s obvious Young’s view does not fit Genesis 2:7 (Adam being formed from the dust of the earth), which explains why Young dismisses this idea. So far, I haven’t found Young dismissing the act of Eve eating the forbidden fruit. There are several instances where he keeps this element of the story.
I think its a good observation that certain elements of the traditional Adam and Eve narrative seem out of place given Young’s teachings (or even Orson Pratt’s teachings). The first inquiry is to really get clear on what elements do not seem to mix well together. Then the next inquiry for the historian is to ask how Young modified or re-envisioned those elements and how they function within his narrative.
As to the transplant theory, the one thing I want to say about it here is that my hypothesis is that any transplant theory advanced pre-Darwin, was not created as a solution to reconcile religion with Darwinism. It might sound tautologically simple, but I think it’s important to keep in mind, especially if we want to understand how this idea was used by those who originated it. Buerger argues that Heber Kimball argued he was the source of Adam-God, so it doesn’t surprise me if he held to that idea. The reference of Parley P. Pratt is a great one, and notice how it seems to disagree with Orson Pratt’s more traditional views of Adam and Eve, showing that even brothers need not think alike.
I still don’t entirely trust Buerger as a source, but interesting post. I’m glad to see a broader tradition, namely that of “children possible in the garden.”
Thanks for the comment Ben. I don’t rely on Buerger as a primary source. All the sources are cited and available without making reference to his article. But use him as a secondary source because I do think he sums up Young’s view correctly in the paragraph I quote, and I also like his use of the word “decelestialize.” In fact, in my early drafts I use the phrase in my writing without citing Buerger, because it’s such a great way to explain things, but went back and added the reference because I admit I wasn’t the first to use it.
I do think it’s very interesting to see Orson Pratt’s interpretation of the Garden, and his belief that children in the Garden were entirely possible and even required. While we lack the ability to ask Orson more about the implications of that view, I agree that its a fascinating move for Orson Pratt.
This is indeed a cool post. OP’s notion that the two commandments given in the Garden weren’t really conflicting is intriguing and is actually more in line with traditional Christian thought which holds that Adam and Eve would still be procreating immortal offspring in the Garden had it not been for the Fall. Too bad OP’s notion of “a God of rationality and ethical coherence who would never command his children to ‘disobey one law in order to keep another’” didn’t get passed on instead of passed over in LDS thought.
Your lead statement “The two most influential Garden of Eden narratives in early Mormonism come from Brigham Young and Orson Pratt” caught my attention. What was it about their narratives that made them so influential? Are you suggesting that much of our current Garden narrative derives from theirs? Or was it that they constituted one important stage in the ongoing development of the LDS Garden narrative? Weren’t nearly all of their teachings on the Fall that have survived in LDS orthodoxy already present at the time of Joseph Smith? I’m thinking of the following:
• The idea that the Serpent actually assisted God’s plan in his tempting of Adam and Eve. Isn’t this implicit in the Lord’s explanation that the serpent “didn’t know the mind of God” (Moses 4:6) and therefore unwittingly furthered his plan?
• The idea that all life forms came about through natural reproduction. JS taught, “Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.” (TPJS 373)
• The idea that Adam and Eve came here from another planet. JS reportedly taught in Nauvoo that Adam “came here from another planet, an immortalized Being, and brought his wife Eve with him, and by eating of the fruit of this earth, became subject to death and decay.” (Anson Call reported to John M. Whitaker that he heard Joseph give this explanation. In Perry L. Porter, Anson Call: Excerpts from His Autobiography,” http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/ansoncall.htm).
• The idea that the Creation, the Fall and redemption continues to be reiterated worlds without end. Isn’t this suggested as early as 1830 when the Lord tells Moses that he created worlds without number and that every world has its Adam (Moses 1:33-35), and then again in 1832 when the Lord further revealed that he redeems all of the inhabitants of these worlds (D&C 76:24)?
The ideas that seem to be most original with BY and OP were BY’s Adam-God doctrine and OP’s notion of the commandments in the Garden being non-conflicting. But, as you point out, neither of these doctrines survived in LDS orthodoxy.
“Young did not accept that Adam was made from the dust of the earth because in Young’s view, Adam and Eve were transplanted beings.” Would it be more precise to say that they weren’t made from the dust of “this” earth? BY actually did teach that Adam and Eve were made from the dust of the earth, just “not from the dust of this earth” (JD 3:319).
“The phrase and concept [of conflicting commandments] does not become part of Mormon discourse until the 1950s.” You got me really thinking on this one. In accounts of the Fall up to this time (including the temple account) it isn’t until Eve has already partaken of the forbidden fruit that Adam sees the dilemma he’s in, i.e., either refrain from partaking of the forbidden fruit and not multiply and replenish the earth with Eve, or partake of the fruit and replenish the earth. Aside from OP’s view, which escapes the conflict between the commandments, why don’t we have record of anyone acknowledging the obvious—that the two commandments were conflicting from the beginning and that Adam and Eve were making a conscious decision while in the Garden to keep one commandment over the other? Why did it take Eve’s transgression for Adam to perceive that he was in a dilemma?
C. Harrell, I really do appreciate the comments and interaction. You hit on one of the points I wanted to make and will make in the next post as well. Orson’s model has very strong qualities to it. Without Orson Pratt we get a completely perfect Man and perfect Woman who are then created impotent and barren, and this is simply incoherent in many ways.
Perhaps the most attractive part of Orson’s model is a God that has ethical coherency and does not provide riddles to his children to say one thing but intend another. When we get to those who advocate for a conflicting commandment’s model, we see a very difficult ethical move to try to create a God that performs his work by slight of hand, punishing his children for being disobedient as he intended they should, and yet still arguing that God is somehow ethical and just by doing so. It’s an extremely difficult move, and part of the story is how these later thinkers think they can make this move successfully. In the history, you see these advocates struggling to teach this narrative to the youth without it becoming a license for sin. Frankly speaking, its quite potentially a highly precarious teaching.
What Brigham Young and Orson Pratt do is to provide a story. Many elements are found in Joseph Smith, as you point out, and many are there “latent” in scripture, but these two theological heavyweights really weave the first narratives in my view. Orson’s view is highly influential much more than Young’s until the 1950s when Young is somewhat revived and appropriated. I hope to get to that in the next post.
I discuss the Book of Moses in my Plurality of Worlds meets the Fall of Man post. As I write there, the Book of Moses does not answer all the questions demanded by a plurality of worlds. Brigham Young for example, argues that every world has a redeemer and a tempter. This seems unique with Young as Joseph Smith doesn’t seem to argue this at all.
“Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way.” Well, except that we have Joseph arguing (in the same year) that spirits do not spring into existence but have always existed, spirits do not have progenitors, and God never did have the power to create the spirit of man. So, while Joseph does provide this idea in regards to in mortal progeny 1844, he never had the time to craft an Adam and Eve narrative based on it. He died shortly after that sermon.
Anson Call’s 1877 reminiscence is much to late to be reliable. He is providing an account 33 years after the death of Joseph Smith that cannot be found in any contemporaneous writing as far as I’m aware. This is akin to the The Benjamin Johnson letter written 1903 reminiscing that Joseph Smith taught spirit birth. So, it’s simply historically unreliable. Anson’s telling has Brigham Young all over it.
In addition, Young’s cosmology assumes a spirit birth model. Under Young, Adam begets spirit children in the premortal realm and then comes to earth to provide mortal tabernacles for those children. This isn’t Joseph Smith’s cosmology where there is no such thing as spirit birth. But it’s a highly appealing narrative. The narrative of spirits awaiting to be born is rich with personal stories and experiences. See Tom Mould on this point.
Good point in Young’s views of Adam being created not from the dust of this world. In 1853, as I quote above, he says “Because I have come to understanding, and banished from my mind all the baby stories my mother taught me when I was a child. But suppose Adam was made and fashioned the same as we make adobie.” In 1854 he says “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.” In 1859 he says “Here let me state to all philosophers of every class upon the earth, When you tell me that father Adam was made as we make adobies from the earth, you tell me what I deem an idle tale. When you tell me that the beasts of the field were produced in that manner, you are speaking idle words devoid of meaning.” Then in 1877 when he is recorded as saying “We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve. How they were formed and some think he was made like an adobe and the Lord breathed into him the breath of life. For we read, “From dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return.” Well, he was made of the dust of the earth, but not of this earth. He was made just the same way you and I are made but on another earth.” The Journal of John Nuttall.
It’s a strange rhetoric when you think about it. If making Adam from the dust of this earth is so laughable as if making adobies, then it seems it would still be laughable if Adam were made from the dust of another world. It seems more of a rhetorical device than anything else. Young clearly doesn’t think Adam was literally formed from any dust.
You ask: “Aside from OP’s view, which escapes the conflict between the commandments, why don’t we have record of anyone acknowledging the obvious—that the two commandments were conflicting from the beginning and that Adam and Eve were making a conscious decision while in the Garden to keep one commandment over the other? Why did it take Eve’s transgression for Adam to perceive that he was in a dilemma?”
Because you need someone to actually create this narrative. It most certainly was not obvious. Our narratives are so strong, and they become lenses by which we read the scriptures so my approach is, rather than try to start out with scripture and assume we can look at scripture objectively, to go with exegetical history. Once we see the exegetical history and we see how a scripture is never interpreted a certain way until one point in time, then it’s much easier to see that our current reading or the obvious reading is not so obvious. It’s just difficult not to realize we our products of our time. We don’t have a record of anyone “acknowledging the obvious” because it was not obvious until later. I hope to make this case even stronger in my next post.
Your responses make perfect sense and I completely concur. Later recollections, especially regarding doctrinal teachings, can’t always be taken as reliable. Likewise, scriptural readings are always conditioned by the religious understanding of the time. Thanks for your patient indulgence.
When he wasn’t scorning the notion of Adam being created from dust because it suggests being formed like a brick, I wonder if BY may have partially relied on Moses 6:59 to harmonize the scriptural account of Adam being created from dust and his belief in Adam literal birth. Here the Lord instructs Adam to teach his children,”Ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul” (Moses 6:59).
Great insights and I look forward to your next installment.