Over on the Facebook group "Mormon Historians," some thoughtful people have posed interesting questions about Adam-God. This discussion, which is really worth reading, prompted me to write my last blog entry on Abraham. Speaking of my blog in general, I would say that one of the principal motivations behind it is the conviction that Mormon theology is a worthwhile undertaking and that much work remains to be done before people both understand what Joseph Smith was actually teaching and also start to make something of their own with better readings of what he taught.
One of the major impediments to understanding Joseph Smith is Brigham Young. The modern LDS Church, which is the largest branch of the Restoration, is Brigham's church. This is why the former Reorganized LDS Church, which became the Community of Christ, used to refer to the Utah Church as the Brighamites. Now, the Josephites, as they were also called, blamed Brigham Young for taking Joseph Smith's wonderful Church and distorting it to include things like polygamy and secret temple rites, when the fact, as Emma Smith knew, was that Joseph had taught and practiced these things. That said, Brigham Young did change Joseph Smith's teachings, and Mormon doctrine and practice did continue to evolve.
From the Brighamite point of view, those changes would eventually be legitimized by the understanding that Brigham Young was a prophet and Joseph Smith's successor. Indeed, over the years, Brighamite presidents of the LDS Church increasingly took on the mantle of the founder in terms of their authority and status. What none of them really did, however, was come anywhere close to revealing the number of texts and practices that Joseph Smith had. The LDS presidents wield the kind of authority over the Church that Joseph Smith did, or, frankly, even more, but they do not do the deeds and possess the charisma of Joseph.
For those who accept Brigham Young and subsequent successors to be prophets in the same sense as Joseph Smith, this works OK. As an independent Restorationist, I view this to be an impediment. It seems to me that both the Brighamite and Josephite interpretations of Joseph Smith's teachings represent different kinds of distortions of Joseph Smith's vision. Now, obviously, one cannot get back to Joseph Smith's vision in its purity through the historical record--one can only get close to that kind of view by having been in his close confidence during his lifetime--but it is possible, I think, to go back to the historical documents and recover some of the lost teachings or at least remove some of the accretions that have occurred in the succeeding years since Joseph Smith's passing.
This is not to say that Joseph Smith got everything right, or that we should necessarily be fundamentalists and practice polygamy, but I think that there are tweaks to be made that could potentially improve things. One of the big changes I have made and I think would be good to see the LDS Church make is to jettison the doctrine of spirit birth. Honestly, it creates more problems than it is worth, and its principal advantage is its sentimental value. Married couples like to imagine that they will have dear little spirit babies after they are exalted. Unfortunately, this idea is nowhere to be found in Joseph Smith's teachings. It came about later in the 19th century after Joseph Smith's death. It is definitely a Brighamite doctrine.
What Joseph Smith actually taught is that intelligences or spirits are eternal. Now you can see why I was interested in looking again at chapter 3 of the Book of Abraham. As Smith taught in the King Follett Discourse, everything that has a beginning has an end. That which is eternal can have no beginning, and so there was no genesis moment for intelligences. Mama and Papa God did not create your spirit. This is what Brigham Young, however, did teach: that Michael and one of his wives parented the spirits of the human family and then came to earth to give these spirits bodies by becoming Adam and Eve and partaking of the fruits of a fallen earth.
Brigham Young has thus shackled LDS theology to this need for procreation of spirits by male and female deities. The goal of every spirit, in their view, is to become one of these exalted beings that has spirit children and creates future worlds for them. What the LDS Church jettisoned of Brigham's teaching was that Adam was God. The rest, they kept. In the post-Brigham orthodoxy, it was Michael's Father, Elohim, who was the parent of the spirits conceived with Mother in Heaven, and Michael became Adam so he could give those conceived spirits mortal tabernacles. The consequences of this are as follows, and Rob Lauer of the Mormon Community is one who saw this years ago: there is no place in exaltation for gay people. Being gay is, according to the Brighamite view, always an inferior status and completely incompatible with humankind's highest destiny in divinity.
Now you understand why today's LDS Church is so theologically anti-gay, and if they cling to Brigham's teachings, or late 19th century LDS theology, in this regard, they will necessarily always have an anti-LGBTQ+ theology. But, as you can see, Joseph Smith did not have such a theology in actuality. For him, the highest goal of humanity was not to become gods that had little spirit babies--the intelligences were always there, no literal mamas and papas needed.
Now, one can say that the role of Adam and Eve was still absolutely crucial, and that Michael was still a deity having heterosexual relations in order to give bodies to all of those intelligences, and this is true--that is clearly still the teaching. It is also true, however, that he was only one of many exalted beings involved in the creation of the earth. His particular calling was to become Adam and father the human race with Eve, but that was only one of the many callings for exalted beings. Other exalted beings had their earthly callings. Clearly one of these exalted beings was Jesus, who apparently did not get married, pace Pratt brothers, or even have heterosexual relations, and may not have even been cis-gender straight. Sorry, folks, but you can't prove one view or the other on this one!
I did not come into this topic with an agenda, in that I am not an LGBTQ+ person seeking to make Mormon theology accord with my personal identity. Nevertheless, I don't think it would be at all a bad thing if I were. Theology must help us understand how humanity relates to the divine world--that is why it exists. If a theology fails to account for those things, then it is a bad theology. These days, we understand that Mormon theology has lots of holes in it that need to be filled. In the case of spirit birth, Brigham had "gifted" the LDS Church with a theological albatross. Returning to and refining Joseph Smith's teachings with regards to intelligences, exaltations, the community of gods, etc., are one promising way of moving out of that Brighamite dead end without denying Joseph Smith's more interesting teachings.
Because it is, after all, possible to concoct a more Protestant version of Mormonism and adhere to that. Many Restorationists do exactly that. The reason I choose not to do that is because I think the idea that Joseph Smith was essentially a Methodist who translated a very Protestant Book of Mormon is fundamentally incorrect. Joseph Smith was a folk Christian who incorporated a lot of esoteric ideas into his religious views from the beginning. To be more historically aligned with Joseph Smith from the beginning is to embrace the esotericism that was always there. I don't think it is necessary to embrace polygamy, although others are welcome to do so, but I do think it is important to see and grasp the esotericism.
My evolving view is that "the noble and great ones" of Abraham 3 were exalted beings. One of them was Michael who became Adam. Another became Eve. Another became Noah. Another became Mary. Another became Jesus. Another became Abraham. Joseph Smith probably saw himself as another one of these exalted beings ("no man knows my history"). Michael was perhaps first in rank (first among equals?), but he was only one. He and Eve had a particular calling connected to their heterosexual union, but it was one that belonged to the sphere of earth. Other exalted beings had different callings that did not depend on a specific gender expression. Jesus' calling clearly did not depend on him being in a heterosexual marriage (prove otherwise with scripture, I dare you).
You will not be surprised to find that I like my Restoration theology better than others out there. I find it liberating and expansive. Perhaps the afterlife is not a heavenly Leave it to Beaver. Perhaps many more interesting and wonderful things go on there. We should not assume we know, and perhaps we should not cling to narrow and outmoded theological visions that hold us back.