⇒ MAIN INDEX ⇒ MC FAQ ⇒ CONTACT ME ⇒ 306 TOPICS ⇒ EX-MORMON FORUMS |
|
|
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! |
© 2005-2010 Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.1 ALPHA |
Containing 4,172 Articles Spanning 306 Topics Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery Online Since January 1, 2005 |
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"ADAM GOD DOCTRINE".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
|
|
 | Monday, Apr 9, 2007, at 09:10 AM The Mormon Conundrum Of Adam As God Posted By Swedeboy ADAM GOD DOCTRINE -Guid- | ↑ |
| During my mission for the cult, a good companion of mine handed me a copy of the Adam God doctrine from the Journal of Discourses and out of the blue asked me, “What do you think of this?” Needless to say it changed my Mormon world view, and it was the real beginning of the end for me and my devotion to Mormonism.
I spent three days trying to wrap my mind around old Brigham’s pronouncements and had myself partially convinced that it could still fit it in with my Mormon definition of deity. However, I needed more insight from someone “wiser” than myself, so I went to visit my mission president, a former institute director at Texas A&M. I presented him with my new found doctrinal dilemma, and his words to me were as follows, “Well Elder Swedeboy, the Adam God doctrine is a theory just like Noah’s’ flood.” I could not believe my ears, and as he began to baffle me with his bullshit, I began to believe again, almost. After about thirty minutes of his spiritual reassurance that all is well, I said my goodbyes and left. After returning home, marriage, kids and everything else, the question of Adam as God continued to surface and rear its doctrinally confusing head, begging to be resolved. I tried over the years to put my concerns to rest by reading apologist after apologist arguments, and of course what Bruce had to say about it in his book, Mormon Doctrine, and as they baffled me with their bullshit, I began to believe again, almost. Thank God this thorn was lodged into my mind, and as it festered and machetied its way through my Mormon programming. It gave me pause to think over the years, and continue on my quest to find the truth. In my post Mormon studies of all things Mormon, I came across an excellent explanation of this Mormon doctrinal conundrum from H. Michael Marquardt. In this post you will further understand why this is an important issue to understand from Mormonism’s past. It is a clear doctrinal shift which clearly shows the lack of inspiration and doctrinal clarity which is so prevalent in the Mormon church. I hope you will enjoy discovering more about this doctrinal epiphany as I have. Outline Relating to the LDS Temple Endowment and the Teachings of Brigham Young Creations Gods: On 8-9 March 1842 Joseph Smith worked on his Book of Abraham, "and they organized and formed, (that is, the Gods,) the heavens and the earth" (Times and Seasons 3 [15 March 1842]:720, words rearranged in Abraham 4:1). Who or how many Gods were involved is not known for sure. In the Nauvoo temple endowment as organized by Brigham Young the Gods were identified as three in number, that is, Eloheem [Elohim], Jehovah [also spelled Yahovah] and Michael. Michael had been previously identified by Joseph Smith as "Adam, the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days" (LDS D&C 27:11, added to early text in 1835). Characters in the Nauvoo Temple Nauvoo Temple Organization: 10-13 December 1845: H. C. Kimball presides as Eloheem, Orson Hyde as Jehovah and George A. Smith as Michael (Heber C. Kimball Journal kept by William Clayton, entry of 10 Dec. 1845, LDS archives) The following persons officiating Orson Hyde as Eloheem Orson Spencer as Jehovah George A Smith as Michael later that day - Heber C. Kimball acting as Eloheem George A. Smith as Jehovah Orson Hyde as Michael (Heber C. Kimball Journal, entry of 11 Dec. 1845) Pres[ident] Young acting as Eloheem P.P. Pratt as Jehovah Orson Hyde as Michael "During the whole of the three days already spent in the endowment, President Brigham Young presided and dictated the ordinances and also took an active part in nearly every instance except when entirely overcome by fatigue through his constant labors to forward the work." (Ibid., 12 Dec. 1845) "Last evening an arrangement was made establishing better order in conducting the endowment. Under this order it is the providence of Eloheem, Jehovah and Michael to create the world . . ." (Ibid., entry of 13 Dec. 1845). President Brigham Young's Teaching Here we have the name/titles of the three creation Gods. Except for Michael the identities of Eloheem and Jehovah are not spelled out. Brigham Young mentioned, "It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely, Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael . . ." (Journal of Discourses 1:51, 9 April 1852). In this same discourse (as published) President Brigham Young said: 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. . . . the seed was brought from another sphere, and planted in this earth. . . . When Adam and Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit, their bodies became mortal from its effects, and therefore their offspring were mortal" (Journal of Discourses 1:50, emphasis in original). What we have are three creation Gods, Eloheim, Yahovah [spelled that way in the Endowment House records] and Michael. They are not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit) but a different trinity. They are like a LDS priesthood presidency of three (Elder's Quorum, High Priest Quorum, First Presidency, Mission Presidency, Temple Presidency). But there are now two trinities, the regular Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the creation Gods Eloheim, Yahovah (Jehovah) and Michael. Brigham Young taught that in order to create a world a man would have received his exaltation as a God. At a Special Conference held on 28 August 1852 he explained it as an important key to understanding: After men have got their exaltations and their crowns--have become Gods, even the sons of God--are made Kings of kings and Lord of lords, they have the power then of propagating their species in spirit; and that is the first of their operations with regard to organizing a world. Power is then given to them to organize the elements, and then commence the organization of tabernacles. How can they do it? Have they to go to that earth? 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 corporeal 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 spiritual children. This is a key for you" (Journal of Discourses 6:275). Some individual journals mention the teachings of Brigham Young about Adam/Michael but not all church members believed in Adam being God or understood what he was talking about. Apostle Orson Pratt opposed the doctrine from 1852-1868. It is evident that if the interpretation of the creation Gods was taught in the Nauvoo Temple like Brigham Young was explaining then Pratt probably would have accepted it. But it appears to have first been publicly taught in April 1852. At the church conference held on 8 October 1854 Brigham Young preached a powerful discourse that was not published until the 1970s. Warren Foote recorded, "8th We went to conference again. President B. Young delivered an interesting discourse concerning Adam's being the father of our spirits as well as bodies" (Warren Foote Journal, 8 Oct. 1854, original in LDS archives, typed copy). Joseph Lee Robinson also recorded what Brigham Young taught: Oct. 6th. Attended conference, a very interesting conference, for at this meeting President Brigham Young said thus, that Adam and Eve were the names of the first man and woman of every earth that was ever organized and that Adam and Eve were the natural father and mother of every spirit that comes to this planet, or that received tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, or Eternal Father" (Joseph Lee Robinson Journal, 6-8 Oct. 1854, LDS archives, typed copy). This "Discourse by Pres. Brigham Young Oct 8th 1854" (in LDS archives) has been published in an edited version. A copy is in The Essential Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 86-103. A few quotes from the discourse: But let us turn our attention to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father of our spirits (93). The God and Father [of] our Lord Jesus Christ is the Father of our spirits (94). I tell you more, Adam is the Father of our spirits. He lived upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and Priesthood; and obeyed his Master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did the same, and they lived, and died upon an earth, and then were resurrected again to Immortality and Eternal Life (96). Our spirits and the spirits of all the human family were begotten by Adam, and born of Eve (97). Adam planted the Garden of Eden, and he with his wife Eve partook of the fruit of this Earth, until their systems were charged with the nature of Earth, and then they could beget bodies, for their spiritual children (98) I tell you, when you see your Father in the Heavens, you will see Adam; when you see your Mother that bear your spirit, you will see Mother Eve (99). At the School of the Prophets in June 1871 President Brigham Young taught, "Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam" (Joseph F. Smith Journal, 17 June 1871, LDS archives). So this would mean: Elohim = Father of Yahovah Yahovah = Son of Elohim Michael = Grandson of Elohim = Adam = God the Father Jesus would be the only begotten son of Michael/Adam. This may explain the words of President Young made in 1862: The Father frequently came to visit his son Adam, and talked and walked with him; and the children of Adam were more or less acquainted with their Grandfather, and their children were more or less acquainted with their Great-Grandfather . . ." (Journal of Discourses 9:148, 12 Jan. 1862). Brigham Young died in August 1877. At the October 1880 conference the Pearl of Great Price was accepted as the fourth standard work of the church. In various publications on gospel topics many writers emphasized that Adam and Eve were spirits before earth life. They used the Book of Moses in the Pearl of Great Price (portion dictated in 1830) as their basis. This was more in line with Orson Pratt's position. There were church members who believed what President Young taught and others who had views based upon LDS scriptures. James E. Talmage wrote his book Articles of Faith which was published by the church. Finally in June 1916 Talmage wrote the official statement on The Father and the Son which was accepted by the First Presidency and the Twelve as the position of the church on the Godhead. In essence Adam/Michael as God, the Father of our spirits and Father of Jesus Christ as taught by President Brigham Young was replaced by Elohim as God and Father. This statement has the following relating to Elohim: The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race. Prior to 1916 the interpretation of who the creation Gods were (as described by President Young) gradually changed. There was confusion over this issue for many years. It appears that during the Presidency of Joseph F. Smith the Michael in the temple endowment ceremony changed from being an exalted God who helped create the world to being a spirit personage "God." Elohim became God with Jesus Christ becoming the Jehovah creation God. So part of Brigham Young's teaching expressed in his April 1852 discourse to priesthood members is rejected and part is accepted. At the time when President Young preached he was considered inspired. The conference minutes stated that the Holy Ghost rested upon Brigham Young at the time. Current LDS Godhead: Father = Elohim = God the Father Son = Jehovah = Jesus Christ Holy Ghost = spirit personage Those who go through the endowment ceremony are taught that three Gods planned and organized the world and all things on it. Two of these Gods, that is, Jehovah and Michael were organizers under the direction of the third, Elohim. When the Gods had pronounced the world good, Michael, now designated as Adam, with Eve, was to commence the procreation of the children of men. Adam was given dominion over all the earth. In the endowment ceremony men must follow Adam, and women follow Eve through all the priesthood ordinances if they are to become Gods. They are promised, if they are faithful, that they can become as Adam and Eve and create their own worlds and beget their own spiritual children to inhabit them. This is what Brigham Young was teaching. Currently in the church it is taught, after the change in the creation Gods, not to believe that the above applies to Adam. Church leaders teach that men can become Gods by following Adam but we are not to believe that Adam attained to that position. |
| | Thursday, Apr 30, 2009, at 08:28 AM Mcconkie And Adam-God Posted By Vahn ADAM GOD DOCTRINE -Guid- | ↑ |
| Has anyone ever read McConkie's letter to the BYU professor Eugene England? It's in response to some questionable doctrine Eugene was teaching at BYU. The entire letter can be found here.
In any case, one of the subjects that McConkie addresses is the idea that Adam is God. I will share a few excerpts with you: In (a) ...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.He makes so many crazy statements! How many mental hoops does this guy have to jump through? Read some of this: Since then I have received violent reactions from Ogden Draut 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. I also received, of course, your material in which you quote from Brigham Young and others of the early Brethren saying that God is progressing in knowledge.But THEN he says: 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.Does anyone have ANY idea what he is saying here? He contradicted himself like three times. So we are damned for teaching this doctrine but Young taught it all his life and he's exalted. Makes perfect sense. And listen to THIS: Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. (He admits it.) 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.Bruce McConkie has summed up why I don't trust anyone else to tell me what any supernatural being is or is not. Thanks Bruce, for once again re-validating why I walked away from the Morridor. |
 | Tuesday, Jul 28, 2009, at 08:17 AM Threatening To Kill The Messenger: Believer Mike Quinn's Tragic Trail Through Mormonism Posted By Steve Benson ADAM GOD DOCTRINE -Guid- | ↑ |
| As numerous comments and questions continue to make their way on to this board over the years concerning Mike Quinn, his personal situation and his present state of belief vis-à-vis Mormonism, I have ventured below to offer what is known (from my point of view, at least) on these matters--a sizeable portion of which has come to me from Mike directly.
What follows, for all intents and purposes, is an overall wrap-up of my understanding of Mike's situation--although there is, of course, much more that can be had, as more becomes known. --How I Became Personally Acquainted with Mike Quinn-- I have known Mike as a personal friend for several years and admire him greatly, both as an individual and as a scholar, although we disagree on some fundamental matters. I first came into contact with him in 1993, after he had published an incredibly insightful article on my grandfather Ezra Taft Benson’s political conflicts with other members of the Quorum of the Twelve (see D. Michael Quinn, "Ezra Taft Benson and Mormon Political Conflicts,” in “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,” 26(2), Summer 1993: pp. 1-87). I was so impressed with Mike’s “Dialogue” essay that I called him, identified myself and congratulated him on a very well researched and responsible piece of historical analysis. Except for one minor error (in which my father, Mark A. Benson, had been incorrectly said to have been an official member of the John Birch Society when, in fact, he was not, although he was a fervent supporter of Bircher anti-Communist teachings and goals), I had absolutely no beef with Mike’s analysis, only admiration. The phone call apparently surprised Mike, given that it came out of the blue and we had never before had contact with one another. Mike confessed to me that when he realized that the grandson of Ezra Taft Benson was calling about his authored “Dialogue” piece, he assumed I was planning to gripe about it. He was pleasantly surprised to hear that, in fact, I was phoning to praise him for the extraordinarily good job he had done. After I left the LDS Cult later that same year, I had ample occasions to talk directly with Mike about his own perspectives and beliefs pertaining to his personal Mormon beliefs. --Quinn’s Abiding Testimony in the Truthfulness of the Mormon Faith As God’s Restored Church On Earth-- In personal discussions, Mike shared with me his testimonial belief that the “Book of Mormon” was a literal historical record of ancient and accurate vintage; that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to reveal His divine truth to the world; that through Joseph Smith the golden plates were translated and that following the death of Joseph Smith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell into apostasy through the corruption and sin of its leadership--and that this "falling away," if you will, of the Mormon Church from the purposes and designs of God's original 1830 restorative act, has continued up to the present time. Mike told me that it was his belief that a second Restoration (i.e., one occurring after the initial return of God's true Church to the earth in 1830 through the hands of Joseph Smith) was necessary in order to rehabilitate the Mormon Church and again make it the organization through which God would lead and guide His children to eventual salvation. --Quinn’s Book, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View": His Own Research vs. His Own Views on the Case for Mormonism-- I asked Mike how he could profess a testimony in Mormonism’s historical and doctrinal foundations, especially given what many consider to be his devastatingly critical and historical dissection of Mormon origins and extensions of power. From my own personal standpoint, Mike's compellingly documented book, “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1987, 313 pp.) had not only knocked out, but blown out, the struts out from under any serious claim that Mormons might attempt as to the alleged divinity of the LDS Church. So impressed was I, in fact, with his book (which had a profound role in undermining my own belief in Mormonism), that I asked Mike to personally inscribe my copy, which he graciously agreed to do. On the title page, he wrote: ”Dear Steve, “Great to meet you this morning just before the film crew arrived to interview you here! [At that time, I was in Salt Lake City to be interviewed by the press about the declining health of my grandfather and his mental and physical inability to effectively lead the Mormon Church]. Look forward to more talks and association with you. Best wishes, Mike (alias D. Michael) 7-14-93” During our personal discussions, Mike acknowledged to me that he knew that his belief in Mormonism did not sound logical but that he nonetheless possessed an inward testimony of the “Book of Mormon,” of the prophetic calling by God of Joseph Smith and of the truthfulness of the Mormon Gospel as God's One and Only True Church. I found Mike's testimony startling, incongruous and at significant odds with his unparalleled research that, in my opinion, clearly exposed the fraud, frailties and fictions of Mormonism. But Mike's ultimate testimony in the Mormon faith seemed to rest on his firm belief that it was initially restored by God's hand in pure and true form, then became corrupted through the human-caused downfall of its leaders who subsequently followed Joseph Smith into power in the post-Smith era. Simply and fundamentally put, Mike holds on to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains God's true Church on the earth--but that it is in dire need of a complete restorative overhaul in order to bring it back to its original integrity, purpose, luster and exaltation-providing power. --Spencer W. Kimball’s Blessing to Quinn That Someday He Would Become an Apostle-- Mike also spoke to me during our talks together about a blessing he had received from then-Apostle Spencer W. Kimball. In it, Kimball promised Mike that if he remained faithful and obedient, he would someday become an Apostle in the Mormon Church. At the time of the Kimball blessing, Mike was still an active, temple-endowed, well-respected member of the Church. Mike has written publicly about this blessing he received under Kimball’s hands. In an autobiographical essay entitled, “The Rest Is History" (“Sunstone,” December 1995, p. 54), Mike addressed his personal consuming desire to someday become a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and how Kimball helped him deal with this distraction through the laying on of hands: "President Kimball asked if I would like to have a blessing. As he laid his hands upon my head, I expected him to give me the comfort and strength to overcome my aspirations for Church office. Instead, Spencer W. Kimball promised me that one day God would call me to be an apostle. After the blessing, President Kimball told me not to work for the office or try to ‘curry favor’ with Church leaders, but just to live as I felt the Lord desired for me. There was no way I could logically explain that experience, then or now." When we talked, it was clear to me, however, that Mike’s belief in Mormonism seemed to be much more personal and deeper than any anticipation he might have had of advancing into the upper echelons of LDS Church leadership. Mike’s testimony of the Mormon Gospel was a quiet, soft-spoken type of conviction about which he did not make a big deal---but to which he appeared genuinely committed. --Quinn’s Academic Credentials, Personal Travails and Ecclesiastical Persecution--Starting with His Excommunication for Telling the Truth About Post-Manifesto Polygamy-- What is all the more amazing about Mike's deep-rooted faith in the LDS Church is that his devotion to the basic claims of Mormonism has remained strong through the years, despite all that he has been through--often at the hands of the Mormon Church itself. At the peak of his professional career, Mike was a highly-regarded expert in his chosen field of history, both in out and of the Church. Sandra and Jerald Tanner have reviewed his stellar academic career as follows: ”Dr. D. Michael Quinn, who was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in 1993, was at one time considered to be one of the Church's top scholars. He published articles for the Church's official publication, the ‘Ensign’ and also wrote for ‘Brigham Young University Studies.’ “Quinn obtained a Ph.D. in history at Yale University and was formerly Professor of American Social History at the Church's Brigham Young University. Unfortunately for Quinn, he dug too deeply into the secret documents in the Church Historical Department. Quinn was able to see these documents because he had an inside track at the Historical Department under Dr. Leonard Arrington, who was formerly Church Historian. “In a speech Quinn gave in 1981, he noted that he had ‘spent a decade probing thousands of manuscript diaries and records of Church history’ that he ‘never dreamed’ he would view. (“On Being a Mormon Historian,” a lecture given by D. Michael Quinn, Brigham Young University, Fall 1981) “When Dr. Quinn began publishing some of his more critical research--especially that regarding how the Church secretly sanctioned the practice of polygamy after the Manifesto--some Church leaders were incensed. In the book, "Faithful History,” edited by George D. Smith, p. 109, Quinn wrote the following: “’In June 1986 the staff of the Church Historical Department announced it was necessary to sign a form which Elder Packer declared gave the right of pre-publication censorship for any archival research completed before signing the form. I and several others refused to sign the form and have not returned to do research at LDS Church archives since 1986.’ “In 1994, Quinn published his book, ‘The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power.’ This, of course, was very distressing to the leaders of the Church and to many of those associated with Brigham Young University and the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Quinn's second volume was published in 1997. It is entitled, “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power" . . . “Dean C. Jessee is a scholar who is well known to students of Mormon history. He is currently serving as a research historian in the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Church History at Brigham Young University. For many years, however, Jessee worked at the Church Historical Department and had access to a vast number of sensitive documents. “When Michael Quinn's first volume was published, Jessee expressed concern that Quinn had given too much attention to the 'messy' matters researchers encounter when studying early Mormon history. He also wrote 'that the story he tells is not as free from speculation and faulty interpretation as his bold writing style and abundant source notes would imply.' (‘Journal of Mormon History,’ Fall 1996, pp. 164-165) “Nevertheless, Dean Jessee acknowledged that Quinn did, in fact, have access to important Church documents and that he did ‘painstaking research.’ Jessee wrote the following in his review: ‘Few historians have been in a better position to study the Mormon past than D. Michael Quinn. With degrees in English and history, including a doctorate at Yale, employment in the LDS Church Historical Department and wide-ranging access to its holdings, a dozen years of teaching history at BYU and painstaking research in seventy-five repositories . . ., Quinn has spent a substantial part of his life studying Mormon history. This book and a second volume to follow are the outgrowth of research that led to a master's thesis, continued through a doctoral program and is the crowning accomplishment of thirty years work. . . . “’The Mormon Hierarchy’ is a valuable contribution in terms of identifying sources and understanding the groundwork of the organizational structure. . . . While ‘Hierarchy’ has laid important groundwork, the definitive study remains to be written.' “Over the years Dr. Quinn has often found himself faced with serious problems with Church leaders and officials at Brigham Young University.” http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no92.... Indeed, it was Mike's daring and ground-breaking research regarding the Mormon Church's deceptive practice of post-Manifesto polygamy (which the Church had strenuously tried to keep hidden from the public) that eventually led to his excommunication. Mike has written in detail about his fall from Mormon grace, culminating in his exile from the LDS ranks in 1993 on the grounds of apostasy. In the 1998 edition of his “Early Mormonism and the Magic World View” (p. xiii), Mike summarized what ended up happening to him kneeling before the ecclesiastical executioner's chopping block: "At the publication of ‘Early Mormonism and the Magic World View,' I was full professor and director of the graduate history program at BYU. I resigned within several months because of administrative pressures against my continuing to work on controversial topics. In 1993 LDS officials formally charged me with 'apostasy' (heresy) for my historical writings, and I was excommunicated from the LDS Church.” Mike had earlier, and more extensively, detailed the increasing pattern of mistreatment, disrespect, lack of cooperation and growing pressures on him to remain quiet on certain controversial topics of Mormon history--all of which were coming at him from the highest ranks of the Church. After tape recordings and transcriptions of Mike's talk, "On Being a Mormon Historian," began to be published and circulated without his permission, national attention to Quinn's views was heightened by a February 1982 issue of “Newsweek,” headlined "Apostles vs. Historians." From that point forward, the Mormon squeeze play on Mike began in earnest. Of that, Mike wrote: "A few days [after publication of the 'Newsweek' article], a General Authority invited me to his office. He warned me that he found Elder Packer to be easily offended and vindictive years afterward. "In May [1982], my stake presidency informed me that five former bishops had recommended me to be the ward's new bishop but that Apostle Mark E. Petersen had blocked the appointment. He asked the stake presidency, 'Why is Michael Quinn in league with anti-Mormonism,' apparently referring to the unauthorized publication of my essay by the Tanners. "Elder Petersen arranged for the Stake Presidency to bring me to the Church Administration Building at 47 East South Temple to meet with Apostles Petersen, Benson and Packer. The Second Counselor in the Stake Presidency accompanied me. The Apostles were careful not to ask me a single direct question. In order of seniority (Apostle Benson first, me last), each of us expressed his own views of the 'Newsweek' article, the 'problems' of writing Mormon history and the effects of all this on the faith of LDS members. The meeting was congenial and supportive." That seeming support was to eventually evaporate, as those same three Apostles began a deliberate and on-going campaign to have Mike discredited, isolated and deposed, despite the fact that Mike had proven himself to be a highly regarded researcher and acclaimed educator. As Mike noted: "In the spring of 1986, graduating history majors at BYU voted me 'outstanding professor.' That fall BYU's administration had my name dropped from a list of participants in an upcoming celebration of Mormonism in Britain. Then, for the second year in a row, BYU's administration denied my application for 'Professional Development Leave.' This time the college dean invited me to his office to explain why. He said the Apostles on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees had prepared a list of faculty members and research topics which BYU administrators were forbidden to support. 'I have always hoped that one day BYU will become a real university,' the dean said, 'but this makes me feel that that day will never arrive.' "By January 1987 pressures on me increased. BYU's administration required the History Department and Charles Redd Center for the American West to withdraw funds they had promised me to give a paper on general American religion at the University of Paris. It did not matter that the advanced text of the paper, entitled 'Religion, Rationalism and Folk Practices in America to the mid-19th Century,' made no reference to Mormonism. I paid my own way to France to represent BYU. "Despite all that that had happened, until January 1987 I could not yet believe that my life's hopes were at an end. A new department chair let me know that my situation would improve only if I stopped doing research which implied Mormon studies. . . . Abandoning Mormon history may have been safe in the climate of repression but it as unacceptable to me, especially as an option of duress. 'Publish or perish' is the experience of scholars at most universities, but for this Mormon historian it was 'publish and perish' at BYU. "After publication of my ‘Early Mormonism and the Magic World View’ in mid-1987, two members of BYU's History Department circulated the rumor that my stake High Council was excommunicating me for apostasy. The rumor was completely false but, more important, I had thought these rumor-mongers were my colleagues and friends. When a student asked the Dean of Religious Education if BYU was going to fire me, he replied that the Board of Trustees had decided against it. 'Like stirring up a turd on the ground,' he told the student, “firing Mike Quinn would only make a greater stink.” At this point, I began applying for research fellowships that would allow me to leave BYU. . . . "On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation . . . At the time of my resignation, I had tenure ('continuing status'), was Full-Professor of History and was Director of the History Department's graduate program. My letter of resignation represented my formal acknowledgment of failure--personal and institutional. . . . "I again addressed [the issue of academic freedom] in 1991 after a rarely-used joint declaration by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles condemned the annual Sunstone Symposium . . . . Those who questioned this statement were being summarily dropped from Church positions and both Church and BYU administrative pressure was directed against a junior professor of anthropology at BYU who had given a symposium paper. I observed in a newspaper story; 'Consistently, from the beginning, the [LDS] Church leadership has always been uncomfortable with open forums that have been organized by the rank and file.' However, I added, 'in the 19th-century, the leadership recognized the existence of a loyal opposition and the 20th does not.'. . . "Since leaving BYU and Utah, I have been an independent free-lance writer. I still do Mormon history. People of various persuasions still seem eager for it." (D. Michael Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in George D. Smith, ed., “Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History” [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 89-90, 92-96) --Years Later Amongst the Quorum of the Twelve: Babbling Baloney About History and Bubbling Bitterness Over Quinn-- Additional sordid details behind the excommunication of Mike Quinn seeped out some eight years after his post-Manifesto essay was first published. These facts were provided by two of the Mormon Church's highest henchmen--“Apostle-ologists” Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks. On 9 September 1993, my former wife and I met with Oaks and Maxwell in Maxwell's Church office, #303, located in the Church Administration Building in downtown Salt Lake City. We had approached them with a list of detailed and wide-ranging questions about fundamental doctrines, teachings, practices and policies of the Mormon Church that significantly troubled us--and about which we felt we deserved credible and straight-forward answers. In the broad sense on the polygamy question, we wanted to know from these pre-eminent damage controllers why the Mormon Church had not been more forthcoming and honest with its history with regard to the official practice (and later blatant denial of) polygamy. Then, specifically, we wanted to know about what I have subsequently referred to as “the mystery of history, and those who tell the truth about polygamy--without permission." In that meeting with us, “good cop” Maxwell offered unconvincing rationalizations for the Mormon Church’s failure to be honest and forthcoming about its practice of polygamy. “Bad cop” Oaks followed up by launching a shockingly shabby attack on Mike's personal integrity. --Maxwell's Murky Meanderings-- In answer to the larger inquiry, Maxwell cagily replied by noting that the process of writing history is frustrating, complex and incomplete. He handed us a photocopy of a sermon. (The copy turned out, I discovered later, to be a talk Maxwell himself had delivered during the 1984 October General Conference entitled, “Out of Obscurity.” However, the single sheet excerpts that he handed to us contained no title or author, although it had been marked up in red ink for our benefit. Maxwell’s address ultimately appeared in the General Conference issue of the "Ensign," 10, November 1984, p. 11). Quoting from a "Tribute to Neville Chamberlain," delivered in the British House of Commons, 12 November 1940, Maxwell’s sermon declared: "History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days." The sermon then addressed what Maxwell verbally described to us as the definition of history: a collection, he said, of "floating mosaic tiles": "The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding. "The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, do not seem to fit . . . "So, belatedly, the fullness of the history of the dispensation of the fullness of times will be written. "The final mosaic of the Restoration will be resplendent, reflecting divine design and the same centerpiece—the Father's plan of salvation and exaltation and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ." What Maxwell’s excuses lacked in clarity, Oaks’ made up for in character assassination. --Oaks’ Vindictive Personal Attacks Against Quinn for Writing and Publishing the Truth About Post-Manifesto Polygamy-- Oaks was bitterly incensed at Mike's decision to air his findings on post-Manifesto polygamy and told us that Mike was an individual without character who could not be trusted. He angrily complained about Mike’s decision to publish the incontrovertible evidence that, despite its claims to the contrary, the LDS Church had secretly and dishonestly sanctioned and solemnized post-Manifesto polygamous marriages. That publication (in the Spring 1985 issue of "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought”) led directly to Mike’s excommunication on grounds of supposed “apostasy.” But it wasn’t as if Mike hadn’t previously been upfront with Mormon Church officials about his post-Manifesto research and his intentions to air it. Mike explained in his article, "On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," how his investigations into post-Manifesto polygamy took form, despite a decided lack of cooperation from the highest levels of the Mormon Church: "President Hinckley telephoned in June 1982 to say that he was sympathetic about a request I had written to obtain access to documents in the First Presidency fault [about post-Manifesto polygamy] but that my request could not be granted. Since I now knew all I ever would about post-Manifesto polygamy, I told him I would go ahead and publish the most detailed and supportive study I could of the topic. President Hinckley said the decision was up to me, that he had done what he could to help." (Quinn, "On Being A Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath)," in Smith, “Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History,” p. 90) Oaks’ fussing and fuming aside, Mike’s published findings stand unparalleled and unquestioned in terms of their depth, scope and accuracy. Notes one writer: ”This essay is one of the best pieces of Mormon literature we have. [Quinn] went to Gordon [B.] Hinckley before he ever published this essay and showed him what he had. He then told . . . Hinckley that if he did not want it published then [Quinn] would not publish it. . . . Hinckley told [Quinn] that he needed to do what he felt best so [Quinn] published it because he felt it dealt with a very sensitive issue that needed to be addressed.” http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... Mike's essay on post-Manifesto polygamy that panicked paranoid Mormon leaders into eventually hanging him can be found at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... Mike himself explained the post-Manifesto reasons for his excommunication in his article, “On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)”: “In 1985, after 'Dialogue' published my article ‘LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904’, three apostles [Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson] gave orders for my Stake President to confiscate my temple recommend. Six years earlier, I had formally notified the First Presidency and the Managing Director of the Church Historical Department about my research on post-Manifesto polygamy and my intention to publish it . . . Now I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of ‘speaking evil of the Lord's anointed.’ The Stake President was also told to ‘take further action’ against me if this did not ‘remedy the situation’ of my writing controversial Mormon history. . . . "I told my Stake President that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might ‘offend the Brethren’ (to use Ezra Taft Benson’s phrase). . . . The Stake President also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU. . . . “At various stake and regional meetings, Apostle Packer began publicly referring to ‘a BYU historian who is writing about polygamy to embarrass the Church.’ At firesides in Utah and California, a member of BYU’s Religious Education Department referred to me as ‘the anti-Christ of BYU.’ . . . Church leaders today seem to regard my post-Manifesto polygamy article . . . as ‘speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed’ because they themselves regard certain acts and words of those earlier Church leaders as embarrassing, if not actually wrong. I do not regard it as disloyal to conscientiously recreate the words, acts and circumstances of earlier prophets and apostles. . . . . “No one ever gave me an ultimatum or threatened to fire me from Brigham Young University. However, University administrators and I were both on the losing side of a war of attrition mandated by the General Authorities. . . . “On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation, effective at the end of the current school semester. . . . I explained [that] ‘the situation seems to be that academic freedom merely survives at BYU without fundamental support by the institution, exists against tremendous pressure and is nurtured only through the dedication of individual administrators and faculty members.’ . . . “Three months after my departure, it angered me to learn to learn that BYU had fired a Hebrew professor for his private views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although I personally regard the Book of Mormon as ancient history and sacred text, I told an inquiring newspaper reporter: ‘BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That’s like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.’ . . . “When BYU’s Associate Academic Vice-President asked me if that was an accurate quote, I confirmed that it was. ‘Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the University’s Board of Trustees [meaning the Quorum of the Twelve] and administrators,’ I wrote. ‘By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era). . . . “It is . . . my conviction that God desires everyone to enjoy freedom of inquiry and expression without fear, obstruction or intimidation. I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities, who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites--access to information, uninhibited inquiry and freedom of expression.” (Quinn, D. Michael. “On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath).” In Smith, George D., ed., "Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 91-95). Back to Oaks’ brutal assault on Mike’s personal integrity. In our meeting of 9 September 1993 with Oaks and Maxwell, we specifically asked about what I have subsequently referred to as “the mystery of history, and those who tell the truth about polygamy--without permission." Oaks acknowledged that he had read Mike's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, covering the period from 1890 into the early 20th century. Oaks also confessed that the Mormon Church had not, in fact, been honest about its practice of polygamy during that time. He admitted that the case, as laid out by Quinn, was, in fact, true. Oaks admitted that, in his opinion, lies had indeed been told by Mormon Church leaders about the continuing practice of polygamy after it supposedly was ended by the Manifesto of 1890. But enough of admitting "divinely-inspired" Church wrongdoing. Oaks then proceeded to attack Mike personally by accusing him of breaking his word. Oaks said that Mike had been given access to all of J. Reuben Clark's papers for the purpose of writing a book on Clark's years of Church service. Oaks said he had assured the Church that Quinn was credible, in order that Quinn could be given access to those records. Oaks noted that shortly after Quinn's research was published on Clark, out came Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy. Mike, Oaks told us angrily, had violated Oaks' confidence. He accused Quinn of having taken more information out of Church archives than he had been given permission to examine and research, going in. Oaks said that Mike was not an innocent victim in this affair. Oaks informed us that he subsequently wrote Mike a letter, in which he expressed his "deep disappointment" with him and telling QuinnMike. In that letter, Oaks further said, he told Mike that he now regarded him as someone who could not be trusted. Oaks added that Mike would not tell us about these things, if asked, because of Mike's involvement. On that last point, I wanted to see for myself. In August 2001, in a personal visit with Mike at a gathering in Fort Worden, Washington, hosted by a group of gay Mormon fathers (where my former spouse and I had been invited to speak about our personal experiences attendant to voluntarily resign our Mormon Church membership), I recounted to him Oaks' version of events and asked him for his own recollections. Visibly agitated but in a controlled and quiet voice, Mike emphatically denied that he had violated any research agreement with the Church Historical Department. He told me that it was clearly understood going in that he had open access to archival materials. (He also had told me that he taken thousands of pages of handwritten notes while in the Church Archives doing his research). That made no difference, of course, to the Mormon Church henchmen in its hierarchy who were bound and determined to banish Mike for speaking the embarrassing truth about its lies and deceptions. Mike was eventually branded as an apostate and excommunicated. Not coincidentally, Mike’s stake president prior to his banishment darkly hinted that he was also being investigated on "moral" charges (relating, no doubt, to Mike's open and honest acknowledgement of being gay). The suffering that Mike experienced in the face of such personal attacks must have been horrible. But through it all, Mike remained quietly courageous and true to self. I remember being in his Salt Lake City apartment, where I had gone to visit him. In his bedroom, above his bed and which he allowed me to see, in large letters affixed to the wall was the phrase, “Sin is in the eye of the beholder.” It was clear that, in that bold statement alone, Mike wasn’t about to let anyone else tell him who he was or what he should do with his life. Several years later at that conference put on by gay Mormon fathers, I listened as Mike began a stem-to-stern presentation on the world history of homosexuality. At least he tried to give it. In an extraordinary presentation that was some two hours in length, Mike took the audience on a review of gay global history--covering the vast territory of its accomplishments and tribulations. A stickler for the minutest of detail, Mike read from his prepared text, page by page. Unfortunately, time constraints only allowed him to give his panoramic presentation up to the early part of the 1800s. The lesson: Mike knows his stuff--and is stuffed with plenty that there is to know. He is a proud gay man who appreciates, honors and defends the historical contributions of gays to the advancement of human civilization. Try telling that, however, to the Mormon Church. As far as it was concerned, the fix was in. Ecclesiastically speaking, Mike was a dead man. --Quinn’s Phone Tapped-- Mike told me that his apartment phone was tapped (most likely, he thought, by Mormon Church security), and that, moreover, he was able to verify the power drain on his telephone line (indicating a deliberate intrusion) through the use of special phone equipment. He said that the likelihood of the drain actually being a tap was supported by employees at the local SLC phone company. --Quinn Targeted with Death Threats-- Mike has also received death threats from both Mormons and “anti-Mormons,” alike. On the first, the Tanners explain: ”Around the time of his excommunication he was informed of a threat against his life. While Quinn did not link this threat with the Mormon Church itself, he believed that the rhetoric regarding his work had encouraged someone to threaten his life.” http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no92.... As to receiving death threats from opponents of Mormonism, Mike himself noted, in his “On Being a Mormon Historian” lecture, the irony of being perceived as an enemy of the Mormon Church by the very Mormon Church leaders he continues to support and sustain as his religious leaders: ”The central argument of the enemies of the LDS Church is historical, and if we seek to build the Kingdom of God by ignoring or denying the problem areas of our past, we are leaving the Saints unprotected. As one who has received death threats from anti-Mormons because they perceive me as an enemy historian, it is discouraging to be regarded as subversive by men I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators.” http://www.xmission.com/~country/reas... --The Break-up of Quinn’s Marriage and the Shocking Death of His Son-- Mike’s heterosexual marriage of many years eventually ended in divorce. Piling pain upon pain, his teenage son committed suicide by hanging himself in one of Salt Lake City's surrounding canyons. I remember when I first heard the shocking news that Mike’s son had died. The report had been broadcast on local Salt Lake news, with details that were especially tragic: Mike's boy had been found hanging from a tree in one of the canyons surrounding Salt Lake City. Unbeknownst to me at the time I first heard about the news and mistakenly believing that the media was reporting the young man's death as having just occurred, I immediately phoned Mike, expressing my shock and condolences and asking him if he was aware of what was being reported. Mike was very measured and soft spoken in his response. He informed me that his son had, in fact, taken his own life a few days earlier. Mike did not go into any of the details surrounding his child's demise and I did not ask. Mike reacted as I have always known Mike to respond during times of personal adversity, hardship, trial and disappointment: He manifested a strong sense of inner strength and outer resoluteness, combined with a quiet acceptance of the disappointments and challenges that life had dealt him. Although it would have been perfectly understandable had he broken down and cried during our conversation, Mike remained steady in his demeanor and spoke in a clear (albeit subdued) voice. Whatever one may think of his personal religious beliefs, Mike is an individual of deep conviction, with a strong sense of self, and a person of unquestionable honesty, integrity and courage. During those horribly sad moments in the wake of his son's untimely and tragic death, Mike was a personal portrait of dignity, calmness, steadiness and peace. Once again, under the weight of enormous personal pain and grief, Mike showed himself to be a very good man. --Quinn’s Professional Career Spirals Down-- Following his excommunication, Mike's professional career took a nose dive. Mike told me that he had been attempting to make some money as a portrait photographer. In fact, Mike does beautiful black-and-white photography work. He advertised in the local Salt Lake papers and, as I witnessed myself, the walls of his apartment were adorned with some of his more impressive work. Still, as the years passed, Mike found himself unemployed and, in most cases, without the necessary grants funding to continue his historical research. He was fortunate, however, to eventually land a temporary job working in his alma mater’s library at Yale and subsequently was told he had received some continuing financial support to do research on gay issues at Huntington Library in California. At one point, Mike moved to Mexico to live with a friend. He also lived under trying conditions in San Francisco’s Chinatown In some of his most dire circumstances, he was living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth. Eventually, destitute, he moved in with his mother. Fortunately, I have received a few group-emails from Mike in recent months. Although they contained no personal information, they were upbeat in content and positive in tone, as he linked recipients to various news events of the day. --Quinn Is Not a Quitter—and Refuses to Quit His Church-- Through all the pain, tragedies, misfortunes and injustices in his life, Mike has remained steadfast and even-keeled in his personal faith. He has fervently maintained his testimony in what he believes to be the truthfulness of the Mormon Church--a Church which in its depraved and destructive state has persecuted and maligned him--remains firm. I might not understand or even agree with that personal arrival point for Mike Quinn, but I say more power to him. Despite our differences, I know Mike Quinn to be a decent, honorable guy. |
| | Monday, Sep 7, 2009, at 07:38 AM More On 20th-Century Mormon Polygamists Posted By Randy J. ADAM GOD DOCTRINE -Guid- | ↑ |
| In another recent thread, I mentioned that I had once read that Spencer W. Kimball's father-in-law had continued to live with two plural wives in Mexico into the 1950s. I found an article which gives the details at:
http://www.religious-freedoms.org Before reading that article, I didn't know that Camilla Eyring's father had married two Romney sisters. Here's the most relevant excerpt as concerning post-Manifesto polygamy: "While the leaders were encouraged to qualify for their positions by living "the law," many of the most faithful and dedicated lay members of the Church also entered plural marriage of their own free will. They knew the true relationship between the manifesto and the higher law. One example of this was the father of Camilla Eyring Kimball, wife of the current Church President, Spencer W. Kimball. On 3 November 1903 (over thirteen years after the manifesto was "unanimously" accepted by the Church) her father, Edward Christian Eyring took his wife's younger sister, Emma Romney, as a plural wife. The marriage was performed at Colonia Juarez by the Stake President, Anthony W. Ivins who had been sent to Mexico by President Wilford Woodruff to continue performing plural marriages after the manifesto, even though they knew such marriages were illegal in Mexico. (see Heber Grant Ivins, Polygamy in Mexico, Op. Cit., p. 5) "In her biography, Sister Kimball said: " . . . Mother told me that Aunt Emma would be coming to live with us as Father's second wife, . . . she had given her consent, believing as Father did that the only way for them to attain the highest glory in the celestial kingdom was to live faithfully by The Principle." (Caroline Eyring Miner and Edward L. Kimball, Camilla, [Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company, 1980], p. 13) "In spite of the manifesto, according to Sister Kimball, her parents understood that "it was still permissible, and were encouraged [by their leaders] in that understanding." (Ibid.) Not only was Edward Eyring not excommunicated for entering plural marriage after the manifesto, but the early 1950's found him and his plural wife faithfully doing temple work in the Mesa, Arizona temple (Ibid., p. 142). Hundreds of situations similar to these have existed throughout the Church." Oh yeah, and today's church leaders assert that the mainstream Mormon church has nothing whatsoever to do with fundamentalist polygamists. There's no contradiction in the fact that a sitting apostle in the 1950s had a polygamous FIL living in full fellowship in the church and was a temple worker, more than half a century after church leaders claimed to have abandoned polygamy. Nope, no relationship between the mainstream church and today's polygamists at all. |