As some know, I have been collecting material relating to Adam-God and related topics (e.g., ancient traditions about the Ancient of Days; the Aramaic of Dan 7, and other issues). I recently came across a letter Dan Vogel wrote to Wesley P. Walters where Vogel actually defended Brigham Young against the arguments of Walters as well as Chris Vlachos:
What I object mostly is to the dilemma which you create by citing
Brigham Young's words in the Deseret News. Your claim is that Brigham
Young received his information by "revelation from God," or at least
he claimed he did. This I believe cannot be supported by the reference you have
given. Let me demonstrate.
By adding a few more words to your brief quote for context, your
reference now read:
How much belief exists in the mind of the Latter-day Saints in
regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed unto them, and which God
revealed to me--namely that Adam is our Father and God . . . I could not find
any man on earth who could tell me this, although it is one of the simplest
things in the world, until I met and talked with Joseph Smith.
Notice how the context reveals Brigham Young's unique use of the
term "revelation"; he is here definitely equating revelation with
what Joseph Smith had told him. And in another place he is reported as saying:
"What I have received from the Lord, I have received by Joseph Smith . .
." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 279). This is what I mean
when I say that you must be careful of semantics when dealing with Mormon
literature. Thus, in a special sense, there were two sources of
"revelation" for Brigham Young--the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Lord
(This idea was brought out in Turner's thesis, see p. 48.) Concerning this dual
concept of revelation, Brigham Young explained:
From the first time I saw the Prophet Joseph I never lost a word
that came from hm . . . I did hearken to the words of Joseph, and treasured
them up in my heart, laid them away, . . . and this is the key that I hold
to-day. I was anxious to learn from Joseph and the spirit of God. (Deseret
News, June 6, 1877, p. 274; as quoted in Turner, p. 48)
And in another sermon, Brigham Young explained his unique way of
using the term "revelation" to the saints, saying:
. . . If the Lord requires anything of this people, and speaks
through me, I will tell them of it; but if He does not, still we all live by
the principle of revelation. who reveals? Every body around us; we learn of
each other. I have something which you have not, and you have something which I
have not; I reveal what I have to you, and you reveal what you have to me. I
believe that we are revelators to each other . . . (Journal of Discourses,
vol. 3, p. 209)
Brigham Young's statement that "I reveal what I have to you,
and you reveal what you have to me," helps us to make sence of the remark
in our initial reference: " . . . one particular doctrine which I
revealed unto them, and which God revealed to me . . ."
We must thus be very careful not to put our own definition to the
words of other men, especially those who lived in a time very different than
our own. Grant you, all men do not define all their words, but most will define
the unusual terms and those which they use outside the ordinary usage. However,
it may be, we are fortunate that in this case Brigham Young did define his
terms.
. . .
No matter how many references Mr.
Vlacho makes to "other gods" from the Old Testament, it will not
apply to Brigham Young. Yehezkel Kaufmann, speaking of Biblical idolatry, says:
. . . 'mythology' and idolatry are two
separate spheres in the Bible . . . Even the heathen is not depicted as
believing in personalized deities. In the Biblical view he considers the idol
itself as god . . . A heathen belief in other living gods is beyond the scope
of the Bible narrators . . .
The Biblical polemic against idolatry
stands on the single contention that idolatry is foolishness in that it
apotheosizes material objects. There is no argument against plurality of gods;
against faith in beings who are born and die; who are male and female; we have
animal desires, etc. Nowhere is there an explicit statement to the effect that
the gods in whom the gentiles believe are non-existent. Nowhere is any heathen
myth confuted, nor is the depravity which is often imputed to the gods
exploited. The entire Biblical philosophy of heathenism is summed up in the
charge of fetishism . . . ("The
Bible and Mythological Polytheism," The Journal of Biblical
Literature, vol. 70, pp. 179-97, 1951)
Do not take this as a defence for
Brigham Young's Adam-God, my object is only to show that Vlacho's approach is
nothing but polemics and do not apply to Brigham Young. (Dan Vogel, letter to
Wesley P. Walters, August 23, 1979, 2-3, 5, Dan Vogel papers, 1700s-2002, Special
Collections, University of Utah)
I rarely say this, as I often say the only good thing Vogel does is collect documents (cf. his 5-volume Early Mormon Documents) and is a lousy exegete and poor at theology, but I have to give him credit for being much more nuanced about Brigham Young's understanding of Adam-God and it being based on "revelation" than most other critics.
