While lengthy, I think the following journal entry from George Q. Cannon helps shed light on how (1) belief in the traditional reading of the King Follett Discourse and Sermon in the Grove, such as the “father” of God the Father being his own “Heavenly Father” and not a ‘mortal’ father and (2) a particular reading of Luke 3:38 in the JST (=JST Luke 3:45) (which was held by Bruce R. McConkie in recent years) could have lead Brigham et al., to arrive at their Adam-God theologies (plural as there is not a singular one):
Saturday, June 11th, 1892.
We met at 10 o’clock in the
Tabernacle with the Presidency of the Stake and the High Council, to take into
consideration the doctrines that had been taught by Father Edward Bunker, who
resides at Bunkerville, a settlement over which his son, Edward Bunker, Jr,
presides as Bishop. It seems that the settlement has become divided on the
question whether Adam is our Father and God and the Father of the Lord Jesus
Christ. Brother Myron Abbott, first counselor to Bishop Bunker, and his
mother’s brother, had advocated this doctrine, and Father Edward Bunker had
disputed it, and also disputed the doctrine that Adam was a celestial being
when he came here to begin the work of the procreation of man. He advocated the
idea that Adam was a distinct creation, and had been made out of the dust of
the earth, as he claimed, in the same way and by the same power or law that
men’s tabernacles would be resurrected from the dead. The High Council had had
the question before them, and as Father Bunker was not there himself, he had
been represented by his son, but had asked the privilege of setting forth his
views in greater fullness in writing. This privilege had been granted to him,
and this document was read this morning before us and the High Council.
President Woodruff was desirous
that I should manage the case. I thought I detected in the document a
disposition to make Jesus the Eternal Father and the sole object of our
worship. My first question, therefore, to Father Bunker was whether this was
the case—whether he believed that the being to be worshipped was the Father, in
the name of Jesus, or whether Jesus was the being to be worshipped? This
confused him. He said that it would take some time to explain his views, and he
proceeded to speak at some length, but I told him it was not necessary to go to
any length, but to give a simple answer to the question. He then said that he
worshipped the intelligence, wherever it was found. Then I said, he would have
a great many gods if he worshipped intelligence, and how could he worship
intelligence without it was tabernacled? Upon being pressed upon this question
he admitted that it would not be possible to worship intelligence unless it was
in a tabernacle, and also said that he believed in worshipping the Father in
the name of Jesus. I tried to have him answer my question as to whether he
believed our Father and God had a father or not. We knew that the Savior had a
Father, but did he believe that the Father whom we worshipped had a father? My
object in asking that question was to get from him the idea as to how he
believed he had received a tabernacle. But he would not answer this. I then
proceeded to take up his views concerning Adam being a distinct and separate
creation—a new creation, so to speak. I said that we knew that the Savior
received his tabernacle through procreation. The Bible said that the Holy Ghost
overshadowed the Virgin Mary. Of course, we have been taught that there was a
celestial being who overshadowed the Virgin Mary and begat the tabernacle of
Jesus, who was the Son of God, and He was born of a woman, and all the beings
that we knew anything about, of our species, were born in the same way. I took
up his quotation from the new translation of the Bible concerning the creation
of Adam, and I said, according to my reading and interpretation, it is as clear
to me that Adam was begotten in the usual way, through procreation, as it
appeared to be in the mind of Father Bunker that he had been made as an adobie
was made. I said, now we know that the Lord Jesus received a tabernacle in the
manner in which our tabernacles were organized, and no doubt his father, if he
had received a tabernacle, had received it in the same way; and I asked, Why
should Adam be sui generis—that is, the only being in all the
species that was a new creation? I reasoned upon this, and I think made it
clear to all who were present that it was nonsensical. I then referred to a
number of passages to explain how difficult it is, unless we have the light of
the Spirit, to understand the Godhead. I said the Savior—and I quoted
revelations to illustrate the point—spoke to His servants as though He were the
Father himself and spoke of himself as the Only Begotten Son. I said the reason
for this is that Jesus represented the Godhead and spoke for the Godhead.
Viewed in this light, many passages that would be puzzling might be clearly
understood. I said that according to the teachings of President Young Adam was
our Father and our God, and the father of the Lord Jesus, but it was not
necessary for us to argue or contend about this. If we cannot understand it,
let it remain without agitation and without discussion; for it would inevitably
lead to bad consequences if men indulged in that spirit. I then referred to the
case of Brother Orson Pratt, who had been a strong opponent of President Young
in regard to this doctrine, and related instances where Orson came very nearly
loosing [losing] his standing, and would doubtless have lost it if President
Young had not been determined to hold on to him. He contended against this
doctrine for a long time; but for some time before his death he ceased his
opposition, and had acknowledged that whenever he contended against Brother
Brigham on these points his mind was filled with darkness, and he did not feel
happy, but when he received the doctrine and submitted to the teachings of
President Young his mind was light and clear and he had peace. I said this was
the experience of Orson Pratt, and we would do well to profit by it.
President Woodruff made some
excellent remarks and bore testimony to the truth of the position that I had
taken and the views that I had set forth.
There was a good mild spirit in
the meeting, and in interrogating Father Bunker I endeavored to do so in a way
not to arouse any feeling on his part. His son, the Bishop, had shared with him
in his views, and he admitted, after he had heard what was said, that he had
had light thrown upon his mind concerning the Godhead and the principle of
procreation. I had spoken of this last power as the gift of eternal lives—the
gift by which the universe was peopled, and by which all worlds would be
peopled and the glory of God increased. The brethren seemed to accept our
views, and Father Bunker expressed himself as perfectly satisfied. I took
occasion to say to Brother Myron Abbott that I hoped he would not indulge in a
spirit of triumph, and think that he had been fully vindicated and had come off
conqueror. (George
Q. Cannon, Journal, June 11, 1892)
For more on
Edward Bunker, see the sources here,
including his
1894 autobiography where he outlined his issues with Adam-God theology and the
Lecture at the Veil.
