Adam God by grindael (with new evidence)

[_grindael]

I want to publicly thank Grindael for his sharing his insight on Adam-God (I'm not being sarcastic). I learned a lot and I saw some new sources that I might not have seen otherwise, so thank you. My views on the subject haven't changed however, though I have seen where some of my views needed adjustment (particularly in the case of Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith). Unless someone has something significantly new to add to the conversation, I probably won't respond to it.

Grindael, if you'd like to continue our debate/discussion via email, I'd look forward to it. I'll send you a PM.

[_grindael]

I thought that Buerger had given the Expositor quote, and he did. I missed it, since I have a digital data base and the notes are in pop ups. Here is what Buerger wrote,

First and foremost in the quote above,

On the other hand, the Nauvoo period also marked the first major synthesis of the Mormon perception of the nature of God, and all of Smith's later teachings are not necessarily known.

[This is important when you read the last entry in this post - the new evidence showing that Joseph did indeed teach that Adam was God] He then says, (the rest of the quote above) then,

While stopping well short of an "Adam-God doctrine," such ideas clearly were necessary precursors to the notions advanced by Brigham. The one fragment of evidence that Smith may have carried this at least a step further is found in a poem by apostate Mormon William Law, recently of the First Presidency, published in the Warsaw Message in February 1844. Entitled "Buckeye's Lamentation for Want of More Wives," this poem satirically spoke of the "greater" glory a man could have in the hereafter if he had plural wives; "Creating worlds so fair; At least a world for ever wife That you take with you there."48 (Emphasis in original.) While this notion does presage yet another aspect of Brigham Young's teachings, it obviously still falls well short of a positive link between the Adam-God doctrine and Joseph Smith.

48 Warsaw Message, February 4, 1844. One additional source is occasionally cited as further evidence of Joseph teaching Adam-God: this is a brief passage in the "anti-Mormon" Nauvoo Expositor (vol. I [June 7, 1844], no. 1, p. 2) where it mentions God's "liability to fall with all his creations", the assumption is that this is an allusion to Brigham's belief that Adam "decelestialized" himself upon coming to this earth. The context of this passage, however, clearly shows that God will "fall" if he "varies from the law unto which he is subjected," a Mormon belief which has nothing to do with the Adam-God doctrine.

Buerger does not ascribe this to Adam god, but I disagree with his interpretation, as do many others. But there is that other quote by Law that Buerger gives... How it "falls short" of a positive link between Joseph and Adam God is really not proven by Buerger. The entire passage reads,

Resolved 2nd, Inasmuch as we have for years borne with the individual follies and iniquities of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and many other official characters in the Church of Jesus Christ, (conceiving it a duty incumbent upon us so to bear,) and having labored with them repeatedly with all Christian love, meekness and humility, yet to no effect, feel as if forbearance has ceased to be a virtue, and hope of reformation vain; and inasmuch as they have introduced false and damnable doctrines into the Church, such as a plurality of gods above the God of this universe and his liability to fall with all his creations; the plurality of wives, for time and eternity; the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life, against all crimes except that of sheding innocent blood, by a perversion of their priestly authority and thereby forfeiting the holy priesthood, according to the word of Jesus; "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered, and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." St. John, xv.6. "Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God, he that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, hath both the Father and the Son; if there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed, for he that abideth him God speed is a partaker of his evil deeds;" we therefore are constrained to denounce them as apostates from the pure and holy doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Law's quotation from the Bible is not just applied to the teaching of "falling with all of his creations" it was applied to ALL of the teachings mentioned, including polygamy, therefore Buerger applying it to only that portion of Joseph's teaching doesn't work as an adequate rebuttal. Law here is not rebutting directly the line "his ability to fall with all of his creations", but he is saying that ALL these doctrines are not the doctrine of Christ and he who does not abide in them (the established doctrines of Christ) has not the Father and the Son. The doctrine that God will "fall" if he "varies from the law unto which he is subjected," cannot be what is spoken of here, for the very sentence after it refutes it, because it says that Joseph taught also "the doctrine of unconditional sealing up to eternal life", so how could God or any future gods "fall" when he was "unconditionally sealed up to eternal life unless it were voluntarily?

[_grindael]

Eternal Marriage Student Manual, (2003), 167–83
The nature of the offspring is determined by the nature of the substance that flows in the veins of the being. ...

Samuel O. Bennion answered this question that was submitted to the Liahona, in 1908:

Q:As Adam was an immortal being when placed here on earth and commanded to multiply, would not his offspring have been immortal but for the fall?

M.P.F., Logan, Utah.

A: Yes. But they would have had spiritual bodies only, and not bodies of flesh, blood and bone. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the garden of Eden they had resurrected bodies, in which there was no blood. A spiritual fluid or substance circulated in their veins instead of blood. Consequently, they had not power to beget children with tabernacles of flesh, such as human beings possess. The fall caused a change in their bodies, which, while it rendered them mortal at the same time gave them power to create mortal bodies of flesh, blood and bone for their offspring. This is a very brief explanation of a very important subject.

Of course, this was 1908 and the Mormon Hierarchy were busy dismantling the Adam God Doctrine and replacing it with what Charles Penrose invented, a "theory" that no one understood and that Young didn't teach.

As for Adam and Eve, Young taught that they died, and then went back to the Spirit world after being resurrected by someone that had the keys to do so, NOT CHRIST. Your speculation about the fruit is interesting, but never taught by any Mormon Authority, certainly not Brigham Young. (That they ate another fruit to get back their immortality).

[_grindael]

He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do.

Is this what Brigham REALLY said? The reality is that what he taught on the Godhead on many other occasions defy this statement, not to mention this very talk. So wherein lies the problem? The answer is really quite simple. Sometimes careless scribes made mistakes and it just so happens that this was one of those times. The fact is that the error was found and corrected.

Mark E Peterson says in ADAM: WHO IS HE - "Elder Charles C. Rich was not present on the day when President Young gave an address that was wrongly reported as saying Adam was our Father in heaven. (See John Dehlin 1:51.) The sermon was delivered April 9, 1852, and Elder Rich returned April 21. In a copy of the Journal of Discourses Elder Ben E. Rich, son of Elder Charles C. Rich, referred to the misquotation as it appears in the Journal of Discourses, and in his own hand corrected the statement to read as follows: "Jesus our Elder Brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character who talked with Adam in the Garden of Eden, and who is our Father in heaven." In this same statement Ben E. Rich wrote "As corrected above is what Prest. Young said, as testified to me by my father, C. C. Rich." (This signed statement is in the hands of the Church Historical Department.)

"Careless scribes made mistakes"? LOL. Read my comments above on how Young corrected EVERY SERMON and how George Watt made sure of it. "Careless scribes" also made the mistake of submitting an article to the Deseret News in 1873 that Young APPROVED, and which stood uncorrected by him until he died in 1877?

The "careless scribes" theory is just fantasy. Adam who is he? by Mark Peterson is full of omissions and outright mistakes, some of which he corrected in the 2nd Edition after being called out on them (like the Charles C. Rich statement). You are grasping at straws here. Read all of the OTHER sermons in which Young taught that Adam was God. And Young being obscure in some sermons means nothing.

They were not above denying polygamy when it suited them. What makes you think that Young would not do so for Adam God to selective audiences? You did not read the entire thread where all of this is shown to be a fantasy by Ben Rich (that it was the fault of scribes). How could Ben E. Rich correct something that his father told him was wrong, when his father wasn't even there? And that was the correction by Peterson who originally wrote that Charles E. Rich WAS there for that sermon when he was not. He then conveniently comes up with a statement by his son, who wasn't there either.

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 clearly says that Adam would provide tabernacles for HIS "spiritual children". That would be the children that he and Eve had in the pre-existence. Those who don't want to admit the truth, deny what is right in front of them.

"gfchase" I see that you do not read much better than your friend. It does not say that the Adam who resided on this earth will the one to provide tabernacles for his spirit children but rather AN Adam or in other words another first man and woman. Adam and Eve was used figuratively. However every man and woman who lives to be worthy to become Gods including Adam and Eve will eventually bear spirit children who will be sent to an earth to also gain bodies just as has been done here. There will be a first man and a first woman on each world who would be AN Adam and AN Eve.

Jerry

I read just fine. Thing is, I comprehend what I read. And it is you who cannot seem to grasp what Young obviously taught. All your "testimony" can't change the facts. Young taught that EVERY Adam would do the same, that includes the Adam for THIS EARTH, genius. Of course you believe this is all "figurative", because it doesn't fit into your little preconceived notions of what you want to believe that Young taught.

He DID teach there will be a first man and first woman on each world would would be AN Adam and AN Eve AND that they would be the parents of both the SPIRITUAL children they bore in their pre-existence, and the children they would bear when the fell again on the new world they created. This is what you refuse to acknowledge which is clear and plain as day.

This is all very simple, easy to comprehend doctrine to anyone who just reads it without trying to deny it to themselves, or lie about it, like Charles Penrose, Joseph F. Smith & others keep doing.

But that won't change the minds of people like you, who cannot conceive of anything that will shake your little worldview of the modern Mormon fantasy.

The fact that you admit that you haven't read all of the posts above, shows that you don't want to know the truth, and just want to give your opinion and testimony, of which the former is uninformed and the latter is worthless to any discussion.

[_grindael]

It has been one of the more lively thread "necromancy" moments in my experience.

BY taught "Adam-God" doctrine. He far more often taught the doctrine that the LDS faith follows today. As McConkie said, "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." http://www.challengemin.org/adamgod.html

It isn't a problem to believe either way, because the doctrine now goes nowhere near "Adam-God" doctrine. BY had quite a few other odd things to "teach the Saints" during his long career....

I disagree that he "far more often taught" the doctrine that Mormons follow today. He just wasn't specific in who he called God. But then you have to understand Young, to know that it didn't matter to him, because he taught that it didn't matter at all which God he worshiped, because they were all "of the same species":

Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not, is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species - of one family - and Jesus Christ is also of our species. (John Dehlin 4:217)

And,

Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. (John Dehlin:5:331)

Many who know Brigham taught it, but refuse to accept it, same as in his day. Brigham Young did not contradict Brigham Young about Adam God. McConkie contradicted McConkie about Brigham Young, and lied to boot, same as every modern Mormon "authority" who has spoken or written on this subject. But that is Mormonism at its core. Contradiction and confusion. If you don't like one God, simply deny that a "prophet" taught it, and change the God, but don't besmirch the "prophet" that you are now claiming taught false doctrine. That's ol' Bruce for you. And why not interchange your gods? There are just so many to choose from.

[_reflexzero]

The development of the Jehovah-Christ doctrine does not get nearly enough attention in these circles. I salute you.

[_grindael]

And now a brief interlude where I present something I wrote up years ago called ADAM-GOD FOR DUMMIES! This is long I know but (of course I think) worth the read... so have at it and if you want to skip ahead to the last post I don't blame you, for that contains the NEW EVIDENCE!

Adam-god for Dummies by grindael

I. The Cat’s Out of the Bag! (part i)

Notes will be in a separate post below this one so you can open it in a new window if you like for easier viewing...

When I think of Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam, I always think of this diary entry, supposedly written long before Brigham Young would become the successor of Joseph Smith:

“Upon seeing Brigham Young for the first time and while yet some distance away the Prophet Joseph stopped his chopping on a beech log, straightened up, studied Brigham for a moment, then remarked: ‘There comes the greatest man who ever lived TO TEACH THE IDENTITY OF GOD TO THE WORLD, and he will yet lead this people.’” [1]

Was the above statement prophetic? Did Joseph Smith foresee Brigham Young In 1853 as he stood in the Salt Lake City Tabernacle and proclaimed to the world:

"I will now say, not only to our delegate to Congress, but to the Elders who leave the body of the Church, that he thought that all the cats and kittens were let out of the bag when brother Pratt went back last fall, and published the Revelation concerning the plurality of wives: it was thought there was no other cat to let out. But allow me to tell you, Elders of Israel, and delegates to Congress, YOU MAY EXPECT AN ETERNITY OF CATS THAT HAVE NOT YET ESCAPED FROM THE BAG" [2]

Young was not kidding, and the Latter-day Saints would soon learn that he had a lot of cats ‘in his bag’ and maybe a few ‘up his sleeves’ too. Having already set in motion the racist doctrine of excluding anyone with a ‘black skin’ (or "one drop" of "negro blood") from the Mormon Priesthood, (that he got from Joseph Smith) [3] Young now turned his attention to God Himself. What Young would teach about God (that he also got from Joseph Smith) would try many a Mormon, and cause contention and debate in the highest circles of the Mormon Church to the present day.

The next ‘cat’ that Young would ‘let out of the bag’ came just six months after his speech on the negro and slavery, and was his controversial doctrine about Adam. On April 9th, 1852, Young stood up in the Salt Lake Tabernacle and gave this pronouncement:

“Now hear it, O inhabitants of the earth, Jew and Gentile, Saint and Sinner! 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. HE is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—HE IS OUR FATHER AND OUR GOD, AND THE ONLY GOD WITH WHOM WE HAVE TO DO. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians and non-professing MUST HEAR IT, AND WILL KNOW IT SOONER OR LATER. Jesus Christ, he emphasized, was not begotten by the Holy Ghost; and "who is the Father?"

“He is the first of the human family; and when he took a tabernacle, it was begotten by his father in heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve; from the fruits of the earth, the first earthly tabernacles were originated by the Father, and so on in succession.”

Brigham continues, inferring there is more to the doctrine: "I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it . . . ." He then sums it up with this:

“Jesus, our elder Brother, WAS BEGOTTEN IN THE FLESH by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and WHO IS OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN. Now, let all who may hear THESE DOCTRINES, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, FOR THEY WILL PROVE THEIR SALVATION OR DAMNATION.” [4]

Young was correct that many would come to know this DOCTRINE he taught by ‘revelation’. Many Mormons have tried to refute the idea that Young taught that Adam was God, but all virtually ignore the wealth of evidence to the contrary, trying to change the meaning of this one quote into something it is not. Some say Young was speaking of two Adams,[5] and some try to say that Young taught that Adam was Elohim, but Young never taught that. Others accept the fact that Young taught Adam-god, but try to downplay the doctrine. That is why Young was adamant in saying “Blasphemy would be NOTHING to it…” If it were a SIMPLE explanation of name-titles, why would Young say this? (Note the following email exchange between Van Hale of K-Talk and Samuel the Utahnite, quoted below). Van Hale was having a discussion on the Mormon Doctrine of Jesus being a polygamist, which evolved into an email exchange between both of them on what Mormon Doctrine is. Van Hale, in summing up his argument, quoted Thomas Bullock:

"…It is not the place for any person to correct any person who is superior to them but ask the Father in the name of Jesus to bind him up from speaking false principles. I have known many times I have preached wrong but I asked the Father in the name of Jesus to TAKE IT FROM THE MINDS OF THE PEOPLE and I believe he always did drop the veil over it." [6]

Van Hale then continues:

“One of the foremost examples of this is Brigham Young's Adam-God teaching. A number of statements have been issued disclaiming this belief of President Young, some based on the claim that he has been misinterpreted, but others because it did not meet the criteria for Church doctrine. One such statement is found in an 1897 letter outlined by President Wilford Woodruff and written by his counselor Joseph F. Smith. It reads in part:

"President Young no doubt expressed his personal opinion or views upon the subject. What he said was not given as a revelation or commandment from the Lord. The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the Church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof . . . It is thought, even if there is truth in it, that the bare mention made by President Young, without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth, was unfortunate to say the least.

. . . While I am not authorized to sit in judgment upon President Young, I am at liberty to test the truth of his words or utterances by the revealed and accepted word of God. Anything uttered by man which is contrary to the Divine law must fall, while that only which is in harmony with it can remain or stand." (Joseph F. Smith to A. Saxey, January 7, 1897, HDC) [7]

A negative formula for what is not Mormon doctrine is outlined in this letter. While the view of Brigham Young may have "truth in it," it cannot be considered Church doctrine for several reasons:

• no revelation,
• not submitted to the Priesthood councils,
• not ratified by the Church,
• not accepted by the Church formally or otherwise,
• only a bare mention.

Brigham Young himself made several comments which lead to the conclusion that he did not consider his belief on the subject Church doctrine. Following are quotes from one of his most extensive Adam-God sermons:

"[The] subject… does not immediately concern yours or my welfare… I do not pretend to say that the items of doctrine and ideas I shall advance are necessary for the people to know." (October 8, 1854, Brigham Young Collection, HDC)

The conclusion on this point seems obvious. The teaching of Church authorities must be considered, but not as the sole criterion for Mormon doctrine.” [8]

Van Hale is being disingenuous here, as I will point out shortly. Needless to say, he makes these important points about the Adam-god Doctrine taught by Brigham Young:

1. There was no ‘revelation’
2. It only got a ‘bare mention’
3. It was not ‘submitted to Priesthood councils’
4. It was not ‘ratified by the Church’
5. It was ‘not accepted by the Church formally or otherwise’.

But is this exactly true? Is a ‘revelation’ needed for a doctrine to be taught and practiced in the Mormon Church? And does this apply to ALL Mormon Doctrine that has been taught in the Mormon Church? And, in the Mormon Church is doctrine always binding or necessary for members to know? If one goes by the above points, then one must throw out many other teachings from Brigham Young and other Mormon Prophets, and one may see that it was never ‘taken from the minds of the people’. As for other ‘doctrines’, for example, when was the Doctrine of withholding the Priesthood from the Blacks ratified by the Church? When was it submitted to Priesthood Councils? When was it given the chance to be ‘accepted by the Church formally’? And lastly were is the ‘revelation’ on it? [9]

Is there a double standard here? Yes.(See Note #8) The same could be said of Polygamy during the lifetime of Joseph Smith. He practiced it in secret, and it never went before the body of the Church for a vote IN HIS LIFETIME. Did that make the doctrine any less true to Smith? Though it was not binding on all members then, and many did not need to know it, did that make it any less a doctrine advocated by a man calling himself a prophet? Why then, all the fuss about Adam-god? Because it has been called FALSE DOCTRINE by other Mormon Prophets, and Mormons know that to admit Young received it by ‘revelation’ as Smith claimed for polygamy, would destroy the credibility of the Church, and the claim that their prophets are inspired by God.

Van Hale quotes Young as saying ‘the subject…does not immediately concern yours or my welfare…” But Young also taught much more than Adam-god in this talk. He also talked about “duties and callings” in the church; a “... system of salvation to bring back the children of Adam and Eve into the presence of our Father and God...”; about God; about the need for authority “... to go forth and preach, and baptize ...” It is hard to believe that these other subjects were non-essential to Mormons. Young also said: “It is true if you are faithful, and diligent these are things that will be fully made known to you in due time - at the proper time, according to the will of the Lord.”

Did Brigham Young receive the Adam-god Doctrine by revelation? He claims that he did, numerous times, but these statements are ignored by many Mormons. Did Adam-god only get a ‘bare mention’? This claim is ludicrous, in the light of all the published material about it. We will address these points more thoroughly below, but for now, let’s go back to the history of the Adam-god Doctrine.

As for importance, why then did Young say, “let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation,” before the assembled masses of the Church, and was he speaking his opinion, or was he delivering a warning by virtue of his inherited prophetic calling? If one still believes that Young was a prophet, then these words must be taken very seriously by EVERY Mormon.

The issue then becomes NOT that Adam-god was accepted and ratified by the Church, but did a man who is a said to be a prophet teach it, believe it, and declare that it was a ‘revelation’ from God? This issue will not go away, even though the Church today claims the doctrine is false. All the evidence in fact, shows that this (Young teaching it as revelation) is the very truth of the matter. Wilford Woodruff, the fourth Prophet of the Church, wrote down the gist of what Young said in his Journals:

April 9, 1852: Part of remarks of Brigham Young: "I will now preach you a sermon. There is one great Master and Head in all kingdoms and government. So with our Father in Heaven. He is a tabernacle. He created us in the likeness of His own image. The Son has also a tabernacle like to the Fathers and the Holy Ghost is a minister to the people but not a tabernacle who begot the Son of God. Infidels say that Jesus was a bastard but let me tell you the truth concerning that matter. Our Father begot all the spirits that were before any tabernacle was made. When our Father CAME INTO THE GARDEN, He came with his celestial body and brought one of his wives with him and ATE OF THE FRUIT of the garden UNTIL He could beget a tabernacle. AND ADAM IS MICHAEL OR GOD AND ALL THE GOD WE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH. They ate of this fruit and formed the first tabernacle that was formed. And when the Virgin Mary was begotten with child, it was by the Father and in no other way ONLY AS WE WERE BEGOTTEN. I WILL TELL YOU THE TRUTH OF IT AS IN GOD. The world doesn't know that Jesus Christ our Elder Brother was begotten by our Father in Heaven.

Handle it as you please. It will either seal the damnation or salvation of man. He was begotten by the FATHER and not by the Holy Ghost. When you go to preach and believe that Jesus Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, don't lay hands upon the heads of females for the reception of the Holy Ghost lest it beget her with child. And you be accused. I have told you nothing in this thing hut what you have read in the Bible. I do not frame it."[10]

Woodruff’s notes in his journal show that later Mormon claims that this sermon was ‘mistranscribed’ is a deliberate falsehood. And though this doctrine would not be published for almost two years, Young again elaborated on Adam in a discourse given on August 28th of the same year:

"After men have . . . become Gods," he said, "they have the power then of propagating their species IN SPIRIT . . . 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 corporal world, until his 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.[11]

Here, he was placing Adam-god within the context of Smith’s “many god’s doctrine”, expanding and clarifying it. As noted by David John Buerger:

“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. Each creator, or "Adam," would then be esteemed a "Heavenly Father" for the inhabitants of his created world—each being the only God whom these inhabitants would worship. Whatever his special mission, Christ was no different in patriarchal lineage than Cain or Abel—all being the literal spiritual AND physical offspring of the same individual.” [12]

And how did this play out among the Saints? Some accepted it and some did not. Young’s biggest detractor was Orson Pratt. As Woodruff wrote in his Journal:

“Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth; could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. PRESIDENT YOUNG SAID THAT HE WAS, that HE CAME FROM ANOTHER WORLD AND MADE THIS [world], brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children and they were earthly and had mortal bodies. And if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He told Brother Pratt to lay aside his philosophical reasoning and get revelation from God to govern him and enlighten his mind more, and it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books and go into the canyons as some of the rest of us were doing and it would be better for him. He said his philosophy injured him in a measure. Many good things were said by President Young--that we should GROW UP IN REVELATION so that principle would govern every act of our lives. He had never found any difficulty in leading this people since Joseph's death.”[13]

These objections by Pratt would cause Young to make statements like the following:

"There is no other way for man to get an exaltation but to FOLLOW THEIR FILE LEADERS. The Twelve HAVE NO RIGHT to ask the Presidency why they do this or that, or why they tell the Twelve to do this as they only go and DO AS THEY ARE TOLD and this same principle should go through every quorum in the Church and Kingdom of God on earth; and when this rule is observed, then the Kingdom will be ours." [14]

What were Pratt’s objections to Adam-god, besides it’s contradicting the Bible? The best one I can find is this:

“I have heard brother Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our spirits, and he came here with his resurrected body, to fall for his own children; and I said to him, it leads to AN ENDLESS NUMBER OF FALLS, which leads to sorrow and death: that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were not SUSTAINED BY REVELATION.” [15]

Pratt knew Young claimed the Doctrine by ‘revelation’ and said so. The Adam-god doctrine was sustained by every member of the Church Hierarchy present at a January 27th, 1860 meeting in Brigham Young’s Council Room. (See Note # 24) And was again sustained in a meeting of the School of the Prophets in 1873. (ibid)

Still, perhaps Pratt was thinking of this scripture from the Bible: “Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment…” [16]

But these scriptures did not seem to matter to Young, who made no bones about his feelings for the Bible, and that his words were just as good as anything written in it:

"I say now, when they [his discourses] are copied and approved by me they are as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible” [17]

Others struggled with Adam-god, like William Clayton who wrote about Orson Spencer, and how he

"spoke of Adam coming to this earth in the morning of creation with a resurrected body" and "endeavor[ed] to substantiate the position taken by President Young: Viz, that Adam came to this earth with a resurrected body, and became mortal by eating the fruits of the earth, which was earthy."

Along with the objections of Orson Pratt, who took "the literal reading of the scriptures for his guide" and maintained the Bible account, Clayton still had reservations, and said:

“The subject was finally left in so much difficulty and obscurity as it has been from the beginning . . . Elder Pratt advised the Brethren to pray to God for knowledge of the true principles, and it appears evident that when ever the question is decided, it will have to be by revelation from God.” [18]

Regarding this controversy, David John Buerger writes:

“Clayton provided further evidence of the controversy in a letter the next day to Brigham Young (by which time Clayton providentially had moved to a position of agreement with his president): There is also another subject which has occupied much of the time, and in which the difference in opinion seems to be wider, and more firmly established than the baby resurrection; and that is in regard to Adam's coming on this earth; whether he came here with a resurrected body and became mortal by eating the fruits of the earth which are earthy, or he was created direct (that is his mortal tabernacle) from the dust of the earth, according to the popular opinion of the world. On this subject brother Pratt and myself, have rather locked horns, he holding to the latter opinion, and I firmly believing the former; but there can be no difficulty between us, as he is my superior and I shall not argue against him; but if it were an equal I should be apt to speak my feelings in full. There are difficulties on both sides, take it which way we will, and he is unwilling to express anything more than HIS OPINION on the subject. [Emphasis in original.]” [19]

This confusion was not lost on Young, who addressed these concerns in a discourse given in October of 1853:

"Supposing that Adam was formed actually out of clay” reasoned the pragmatic prophet, "out of the same kind of material from which bricks are formed; that with this matter God made the pattern of man, and breathed into it the breath of life, and left it there, in that state of supposed perfection, he would have been an adobie to this day . . . ."

Then as he continued, Young would throw doubt on the whole account written in the Bible:

“Some of you may doubt the truth of what I now say, and argue that the Lord could teach him. This is a mistake. The Lord could not have taught him in any other way than in the way in which He did teach him. 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.” [20]

THE CAT’S OUT OF THE BAG (part ii)

But Young would not stop there, and had his teachings on this subject were published to the entire Church. Several months before, in June 1853, the First Presidency had approved a plan to publish a Journal of Discourses in Liverpool, England, containing "Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, etc" delivered in Salt Lake City. Among those to be included in the first volume was Brigham's April 1852 sermon quoted above. Although this volume was not published until 1854, on November 26, 1853, the Church's official British publication, the Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star published a verbatim extract of this important sermon under the title, "Adam, Our Father and God." [21]

Our Father Adam.—The extract from the Journal of Discourses may startle some of our readers, but we would wish them to recollect that IN THIS LAST DISPENSATION God will send forth, BY HIS SERVANTS, things NEW as well as old, until man IS PERFECTED IN THE TRUTH. And we would here take occasion to remark, that it would be well if ALL OUR READERS would SECURE A COPY of the Journal of Discourses as it is issued, and also of EVERY STANDARD WORK of the Church; and not only secure these works, but ATTENTIVELY READ THEM, and thoroughly STUDY THE PRINCIPLES THEY CONTAIN. [22]

The article, as expected, did startle, perhaps even unsettle, some of the British Saints. A couple of weeks later another editorial, probably authored by Samuel W. Richards (then President of the British Mission and Editor of the Star), was published in the Star which further demanded support for the doctrine:

ADAM, THE FATHER AND GOD OF THE HUMAN FAMILY

The above sentiment appeared in Star No. 48, a little to the surprise of some of its readers; and while the sentiment may have appeared BLASPHEMOUS to the ignorant, it has no doubt given rise to some serious reflections with the more candid and comprehensive mind. A few reasonable and scriptural ideas upon this subject may be profitable at the present time. Then ADAM IS REALLY GOD! And why not? If there are Lords many and Gods many, as the scriptures inform us, why should not our FATHER ADAM be one of them? [23]

Even with that editorial, it seems that not all were convinced, so another (third) editorial was published the next week, which assured readers that

"[f]acts still remain facts, WHETHER KEPT OR REVEALED." This time the editor closed with this strong counsel: “It should be borne in mind that these wonderful mysteries, as they are supposed to be, are only mysteries because of the ignorance of men; and when men and women are troubled in spirit over those things which come to light through the PROPER CHANNEL OF INTELLIGENCE, they only betray their weakness, ignorance, and folly.” [24]

Today’s Mormons make much of the fact that the Adam-god Doctrine was “not ratified by the Church”, or well disseminated, but the Saints living during that time were well aware of Adam-god’s impact, and, as the editorial above states:” ‘WHETHER KEPT OR REVEALED’, FACTS STILL REMAIN FACTS.’ The fact is, that the entire hierarchy of the Church was present just a few years later in 1860 when Young was lambasting Orson Pratt for not believing the doctrine, and not one of them objected in the least to it (except Pratt), and all of them supported Brigham Young. This is not ‘barely a mention’, it is Church-wide dissemination of this important DOCTRINE. [25]

In February of 1854, Young once again gave a sermon, this time on the Fathership of Jesus Christ. "Who did beget [Jesus Christ]?" Young asked, and answered:

“. . . His Father, and his father IS OUR GOD, THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? HE IS FATHER ADAM; MICHAEL; the Ancient of days. Has he a Father? He has. Has he a mother? He has.”

There is no getting around this clear and precise statement. Returning again to "this erroneous doctrine" that Christ was begotten by the Holy Ghost, Young recalled addressing the issue the previous Fall "when a dispute arose among some of our best Elders, as to who was the Father of the Son of Man pertaining to the flesh. Some contended it was the H Ghost [sic], and some that it was Eloheim."

Young ended this sermon much the same as his "adobie" sermon, with this sarcastic remark:

“When I spoke upon it in this stand before a conference of Elders, I cautioned them when they laid their hands upon the people for the gift of the Holy Ghost, according to the instructions of the Savior, to be very careful how they laid hands upon young women for if it [the Holy Spirit] begat a child in the days of the virgin Mary it is just as liable to beget children in these last days.”[26]

At this time Young did not state what relationship he believed "Elohim" bore either to Jesus Christ or to Adam-Michael, (that would come later). But in early 1852, in a sermon two months before the announcement on Adam-God Young said, while discussing the Cain and Able episode:

“After the deed was done, the Lord inquired for Abel, and made Cain own what he had done with him. Now, says THE GRANDFATHER, [Elohim] I will not destroy the seed of Michael and his wife, and Cain I will not kill. . . [27]

This grandfather god, called the father of Adam in the February 1854 discourse, also was mentioned in a sermon by Young a decade later, again without explicit reference to the name Elohim:

“How has it transpired that theological truth is thus so widely disseminated. It is because God was once known on the earth among his children of mankind, as we know one another. Adam was as conversant with his Father who placed him upon this earth as we are conversant with our earthly parents. 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…”[28]

These last comments, taken alone, almost reflect an "orthodox" Mormon understanding, but viewed in the context of Brigham's many other sermons they delineate the doctrine of a "hierarchy of gods" like the one that which was first alluded to by Joseph Smith.

Some Mormons today will try to disavow that a ‘hierarchy of gods’, had anything to do with this earth, but Smith and Young were well acquainted with the concept, and were not afraid to teach it. [29] But Young expounded that Adam was a separate god from his father [Jehovah]—the latter being the god considered now by Modern Mormon theologists as Elohim, the father of the spirits of mankind, while Jehovah is now considered by Mormons to be Jesus Christ. [30]

According to Young's teachings, Elohim was the "Grandfather in Heaven" to the descendants of Adam—to both their bodies AND SPIRITS—with Adam having the position of "God the [immediate] Father" to both body and spirit of Jesus and all who have, and who will live upon this earth. Speaking to the School of the Prophets, Young explained that "Elohim, Yahova & Michael, were father, Son and grandson. They made this Earth & Michael became Adam." [31]

The quote above, written by Joseph F. Smith in his journal, also shows the dis-ingenuity of his letter to A. Saxey, for he was privy to Young’s private teachings (having been ordained an apostle and counselor to Young in July of 1866 in secret), and so would have known Young claimed Adam-god was a revelation. [32]

What Young taught, and this is borne out in Mormon Literature from that time, is that the Lord or God with whom Adam dealt during his mortality on the earth was the figure he termed JEHOVAH, who was the GRANDFATHER in Heaven, while Elohim who Mormons now say is the Father, would have been the great-grandfather-god. [33]

While Young’s doctrines were being honed in Utah, missionaries were carrying the Mormon message to those in the British Isles. Many remarks concerning these activities were recounted at a special three-day missionary conference in London, June 26-28, 1854, in honor of the departing mission president, Samuel W. Richards. In reporting on his district to the incoming District President, Apostle Franklin D. Richards, Elder Thomas Caffall told him that "some of the officers have not met in council for three years" because "they are lacking faith on one principle—the last 'CAT that was LET OUT OF THE BAG.'"

Richards relates that Caffall told him that “polygamy has been got over pretty well, that cloud has vanished away, but they are troubled about Adam being our Father and God. There is a very intelligent person investigating our principles, and who has been a great help to the Saints; he has all the works and can get along very well with everything else but the last "cat," and as soon as he can see that clearly, he will become a "Mormon." I instructed him to write Liverpool upon it. [34]

Elder Joseph Hall, who followed, added, “Relative to the principles recently revealed, we have not the least difficulty. If Adam's being our Father and God CANNOT BE PROVED BY THE Bible, IT IS ALRIGHT”. [35]

Later yet another elder, James A. Little, felt the subject worthy of comment in his report, and bore his testimony that "I believe in the principle of OBEDIENCE; and if I am told that Adam is our Father and our God, I JUST BELIEVE IT." [36]

Apostle Richards' response to this was forceful and indisputable:

“Concerning the item of DOCTRINE alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz.. that ADAM is our Father and God …If we feel ourselves, or teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES, WE SHALL NEVER KNOW MUCH OF THE LORD ourselves, nor be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent. If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church FOR THIS OBJECTION TO BE REMOVED, tell such, the PROPHET AND APOSTLE BRIGHAM HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT IT IS THE WILL OF THE LORD. That is VASTLY STRONGER PROOF than Christiandom can give for much that they profess to believe.” [37]

II. Acceptance & Opposition (part i)

The above quote was right in line with Young’s teachings on the subject of Adam-god. But Mormons would come to totally reject this sentiment (in public anyway), as has been adequately demonstrated by the Letter to A. Saxey, written in January 7, 1897 and quoted above, along with the rash of statements floating around on the internet by modern Mormon apologists. The word of the Lord to Franklin Richards has become merely opinion to legions of Latter-day Saints, as modern apologists now seem to speak more for the Lord than the prophets themselves do.

The Elders back then were not to worry that the doctrine was not found in the scriptures: "I would like to know where you will find scriptures to prove things by, which have never before been revealed” was the argument that many of the Hierarchy would espouse, much to the frustration of those like Orson Pratt.

As mentioned earlier, Orson Pratt vehemently resisted Young for just this reason. In September 1854, shortly after returning from a mission in Washington, D.C., Pratt discussed his objections directly with the President and other leading brethren. According to Woodruff's account:

“Brother Pratt also thought that Adam was made of the dust of the earth; could not believe that Adam was our God or the Father of Jesus Christ. President Young said that He was, that He came from another world and made this, brought Eve with him, partook of the fruits of the earth, begat children and they were earthly and had mortal bodies. And if we were faithful, we should become Gods as He was. He [Young] told Brother Pratt to lay aside his PHILOSOPHICAL REASONING and GET REVELATION FROM GOD to govern him and enlighten his mind more, and it would be a great blessing to him to lay aside his books and go into the canyons as some of the rest of us were doing and it would be better for him.” [38]

So, according to Young, belief in the scriptures alone was ‘philosophical reasoning? It seems so. In the October General Conference of 1854, Young delivered his most dynamic and complete statement on Adam-god to that date, and according to the Deseret News, Young's "highly interesting discourse . . .held the vast audience as it were spellbound." [39]

Wilford Woodruff was especially moved, writing in his journal, "I believe that He preach[ed] the greatest sermon that was ever delivered to the Latter Day Saints since they have been a People." [40]

This speech was never published, although many made the comment that it was the best sermon ever given by Brigham Young. The text for the President's discourse, delivered to an outdoor congregation of several thousand during the administration of the sacrament, was given as:

“This is [life] eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jeus Christ whom thou hast sent." [sic] I will now put another text with this and then after a few remarks, it is one of the sayings of the Apostle Paul. "For though there be that are called Gods, whether in heaven, or in earth (as there be Gods many and Lords many) but to to [sic] us there is but one God, the Father, of whome are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." This God is the father [of] our Lord Jesus Christ and the father of our spirits”

Young emphasized the concept of the patriarchal hierarchy of gods, stating,

“Now if you believe what you have heard me say you will believe [sic] there is Lords many, and Gods many; and you will beleive [sic] that unto us, the inhabitants of this earth there is but one God with whome we have to do . . . . You and I have only one God to whome we are accountable, so we will let the rest alone, and search after the one we have to do with; let us seek dillegently after him, the very being who commenced this creation.”

Young then clarified his concept of Adam as a name-title by observing that:

“Every world has had an Adam, and an Eve: named so, simply because the first man is always called Adam, and the first woman Eve… Every world that has been created, has been created upon the same principle.”

Young then turned to Adam as GOD:

“But let us turn our attention to the God with which we have to do. I tell you simply, he is our father; the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the father of our spirits. Can that be possible? Yes it is possible, he is the father of all the spirits of the human family. . . I tell you more, ADAM was IS THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS. He live upon an earth; he did abide his creation, and did honor to his calling and preisthood [sic], and obeyed his master or Lord, and probably many of his wives did -also (the same) and they lived, and died upon an earth, and [then] were resurrected again to immortality and eternal life . . . I will tell you what I think about it [i.e., the identity of the Savior], (and what the revelations say) as they say I rekon, and as the Yankys say I guess; but I will tell you what I reakon. I reakon that father Adam was a resurrected being, with his wives and posterity, and in the Celestial kingdom they were crowned with glory and immortality and eternal lives, with throwns principalities and powers: and it was said to him it is your right to organise the elements; and to your creations and posterity there shall be no end . . . . Adam then was a resurrected being; and I reakon, OUR SPIRITS and the spirits of all the human family WERE BEGOTTEN BY ADAM, and born of Eve.

"How are we going to know this?" Young asked his audience:. "I reakon it . . . ." I reakon that Father Adam, and mother Eve had the children of the human family prepared to come here and take bodies; and when they come to take bodies, they enter into the bodies prepared for them; and that body gets an exaltation with the spirit, when they are prepared to be crowned in fathers kingdom. What, into ADAM’S kingdom? Yes.

. . . 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 .

. . .I commenced with father Adam in his resurrected state, noticed our spiritual state, then our temporal or mortal state, [and] traveled until I got back to father Adam again . . . .[41]

Joseph Lee Robinson seems to have been as moved by the sermon as Woodruff was, for in his journal he records:

“. . . attended 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 receives tabernacles on this planet, consequently we are brother and sisters, and that Adam was God, our Eternal Father. This as Brother Heber remarked, was LETTING THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG, and it came to pass, I BELIEVED EVERY WORD, for I remembered saying to the Brethren at a meeting of High Priests in Nauvoo, while I was speaking to them under the influence of the Spirit, I remarked thus, that our Father Adam had many wives, and that Eve was only one of them, and that she was our mother, and that she was the mother of the inhabitants of this earth, and I believe that also . ..[42]

Robinson added this about those who would not believe it:

"there were some that did not believe these sayings of the Prophet Brigham, even our Beloved Brother Orson Pratt told me HE DID NOT BELIEVE IT. He said he could PROVE BY THE SCRIPTURES it was not correct." For Robinson there was no question who held the erroneous position: "I felt very SORRY to hear Professor Orson Pratt say that. I feared least he should apostitize, but I prayed for him that he might endure unto the end, for I knew verily it was possible that GREAT MEN MIGHT FALL."

In March of 1855, Young delivered another talk affirming that Adam had come to the earth as a resurrected being,[43] and the same month the Millennial Star carried more favorable comments on Young's Adam-god doctrine.[44] A month later, Young spoke at a meeting of the Deseret Theological Institute. His subject was the identity of God and Jesus Christ, and his remarks were to serve as the "foundation of all theology."

"[T]his is for you to believe or disbelieve as you please," Young uncharacteristically began, "for if I were to say who he was I have no doubt but that there would be many that would say perhaps it is so and perhaps it is not . . . . ."

He spent a few minutes speaking on Adam, then asked:

"Well now, who is THE FATHER OF OUR SPIRITS?" He then replied to his own question: “I do not design to go into any mysteries or to take up worldly sciences to any great extent, but suppose I were to take up a few of them, I should be like the rest of you: tell what I know according to what I understand and believe. And then if I am wrong I should be glad if God or some man upon the earth would correct me and set me right and tell me what it is and how it is . . .

"If I were to set before you the principle directly to the truth and yet precisely understand pertaining to him with whom we have to do," Brigham continued, "I have no question or doubt but what it would be opposed to your traditions and the feelings of many of you."

After identifying the Father as Adam, he continued,

“I tell you this as my belief about that personage who is called the ancient of days, the prince and so on. But I do not tell it because that I wish it to be established in the minds of others, though to me it is as clear as the sun. It is as plain as my alphabet. I understand it as I do the path to go home. I did not understand so until my mind became enlightened with THE SPIRIT AND BY THE REVELATIONS OF GOD, neither will you understand until our father in heaven reveals all these things unto you. To my mind and to my feelings those matters are all plain and easy to understand”. [45]

Young here seems to be easing up on his audience and acknowledging the difficulty of this doctrine. Yet, while stating his view as a belief, he also stated with great clarity the way he comprehended this belief, and that it happened only when his "mind became ENLIGHTENED WITH THE SPIRIT and by the REVELATION of God."

Two months later, in May of 1855 Wilford Woodruff recorded these words of Young’s in his Journal, once again on Adam-god:

”He [Young] said the identical particles of matter in which we had honored our spirits with, i.e., our tabernacles in which we had suffered, travelled, laboured, and built up the Kingdom of God, that would be the identical body and no other that would be raised from the grave to immortality and eternal life. Adam and Eve had lived upon another earth, and were immortal when they came here. Adam assisted in forming this earth and agreed to fall when he came here, and he fell that man might be. And to oppose the principle of good, the Devil, the serpent, was placed upon the earth that man might know the good from the evil, for without an experience in these things, man could not know the one from the other. As soon as the devil was on earth, he sowed the seeds of death in everything so as soon as they began to eat of the fruit of the earth, they received into their system the seeds of mortality and of death, so their children were mortal and subject to death, sorrow, pain and woe. Then when they partook of life, joy, ease and happiness, they would know how to prize it. FATHER ADAM would never cease his labours to REDEEM HIS POSTERITY and exalt them to all the glory they were capable of receiving. He did not doubt but that Father Adam KNEW IN THE BEGINNING how many of his posterity would receive a celestial glory and who they were and also a terrestrial and a telestial. Yet man had his agency to act, choose and refuse good or evil as seemed him good, and he would be rewarded according to his works. O. Pratt asks, "Will Adam or any God continue to make worlds, people them, taste of death to redeem them? Answer: I have no doubt but it is His privilege, but whether He will do it is a question in my mind. How then can his seed increase to all Eternity? Through the increase of his posterity. Many other remarks were made by the President.” [46]

The questions of Orson Pratt were very troublesome to many. Not all it seems, were willing to drop everything they learned from the scriptures in the light of a prophet’s claim to revelation, or to his seniority as the holder of the Priesthood Keys. Young was pragmatic enough to know this, and perhaps that is why he did not press the Adam-god doctrine upon the Saints. He certainly began using more caution in his public discourses, as seen in this one from February of 1857:

“. . . He [God] is a being of the same species as ourselves; He lives as we do, except the difference that we are earthly, and He is heavenly. He has been earthly, and is of precisely the same species of being that we are. Whether Adam is the personage that we should consider our heavenly Father, or not is considerable of a mystery to a good many. I do not care for one moment how that is; it is no matter whether we are to consider Him our God, or whether His Father, or His Grandfather, for in either case we are of one species—of one family—and Jesus Christ is also of our species.”[47]

Then, later in the year, during the October Conference, Young seemed to be feeling out the Saints about the doctrine, while at the same time delivering it with a dose of sarcasm:

“. . . Some have grumbled because I believe our God to be so near to us as Father Adam. There are many who know that doctrine to be true. Where was Michael in the creation of this earth? Did he have a mission to the earth? He did. Where was he? In the Grand Council, and performed the mission assigned him there. Now, if it should happen that we have to pay tribute to Father Adam, what a humiliating circumstance it would be! Just wait till you pass Joseph Smith; and after Joseph lets you pass him, you will find Peter; and after you pass the Apostles and many of the Prophets, you will find Abraham, and he will say, "I have the keys, and except you do thus and so, you cannot pass;" and after a while you come to Jesus; and when you at length meet Father Adam, how strange it will appear to your present notions. If we can pass Joseph and have him say, "Here; you have been faithful, good boys; I hold the keys of this dispensation; I will let you pass;" then we shall be very glad to see the white locks of Father Adam.” [48]

Having made his point, Young closed with a bit of caution to his listeners: "But those are ideas which do not concern us at present,” and while ever the pragmatic, he gave them this to think about: “although it is written in the Bible—'This is eternal life, to know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' "

As David John Bureger relates:

“In retrospect 1856-1857 was a pivotal time in Brigham's public stance on the Adam-God doctrine. It is apparent that this innovative doctrine was still quite controversial four or five years after its public announcement, even among many of the faithful. Thereafter, while in no way discarding this idea, Young advanced his doctrine distinctly LESS EMPHATICALLY and LESS FREQUENTLY than during the previous four years. A very circumspect tone, for example, is quite evident two years later when, after stating once again that "Mankind are here because they are the offspring of parents who were first brought here from another planet, and power was given to them to propagate their species, and they were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth . . .," Young concluded with a careful double negative: "Adam and Eve are the parents of all pertaining to the flesh and I would not say that they are not also the parents of our spirits." [49]

Then, in January 1860, the Church Hierarchy was specifically advised by Young to avoid discussing the matter in public. "Michael," Woodruff records Young as saying, "was a resurrected Being and he lef [sic] Eloheam and Came to this Earth & with an imtal [sic] Body & continued so till he partook of earthly food and begot Children who were mortal (KEEP THIS TO YOURSELVES) then they died. [50]

Admonishment by Young to keep the doctrine private did not end the controversy. On April 4, Orson Pratt presented his case against Young before the Twelve: "I would like to ennumerate [those] items, first preached and published] that Adam is the fa[ther] of our spirits, & father of Spirit & father of our bodies. When I read the Rev given to Joseph I read directly the opposite. Lord spake to Adam, which Man eventually became Adam's[.]" (The "Rev" referred to here was probably Section 29:42 in today's D & C, although similar subject matter referred to by Pratt is also found in Moses 4:28 and 5:4-9.) [51] Young then pulled another ‘cat out of the bag’:

You came out tonight & place them as charges, & have as many against me as I have you. One thing I thought I might still have omitted It was Joseph's doctrine that Adam was God when in Luke Johnson's, at O Hyde the power came upon us, or such that alarmed the neighborhood. God comes to earth & eats & partakes of fruit.” [52] This claim that Smith taught "that Adam was God" is the first of three known occasions on which Brigham Young attributed the origin of Adam-God to Smith. [53]

Smith most certainly did see "Adam" as a person whose importance extended well beyond the role of first parent to the human race. Five years after the organization of the Church, the Prophet published a revelation which identified "Michael, or Adam, [as] the father of all, the prince of all, the ancient of days[.]" [54]

At Nauvoo in 1839 Smith went much further. As recorded by Willard Richards, Smith taught that "The Priesthood was . . . first given to Adam: he obtained the first Presidency & held the keys of it, from generation to Generation; he obtained it in the creation before the world was formed as in Gen. 1, 26:28,—he had dominion given him over every living Creature. He is Michael, the Archangel, spoken of in the Scriptures . . . . he will call his children together, & hold a council with them to prepare them for the coming of the Son of Man. He, (Adam) is the Father of the human family & presides over the Spirits of all men, & all that have had the Keys must stand before him in this great Council . . . . The Son of Man stands before him and there is given him glory & dominion. —Adam delivers up his Stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the Keys of the Universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family…” [55]

Smith here, obviously has Adam holding the "Keys of the Universe", and then delivers the stewardship of this world over to Ahman Christ, or Jesus (The Son of Man). [56]

II. Acceptance & Opposition (part ii)

The next day, Pratt continued in the same vein, much to the annoyance of his brethren in the Quorum. Orson Hyde snidely commented that "Brother Brigham may err in the price of a horse . . . but in the revelations from God, where is the man that has given THUS SAITH THE LORD when it was not so? I cannot find one instance." Pratt then responded: “ In regard to Adam being our Father and God . . . I frankly say, I have no confidence in it, altho advanced by Brother Kimball in the stand, and afterwards approved by Brigham . . . . I have heard Brigham say that Adam is the Father of our spirits and he came here with a resurrected body, to fall for his own children, and I said to him it leads to an endless number of falls which leads to sorrow and death; that is revolting to my feelings, even if it were SUSTAINED BY REVELATION. One [revelation] says that Adam was formed out of the earth, and the Lord put in his spirit, and another that he came with his body, flesh and bones, there are two contradictory revelations. In the garden it is said that a voice said to Adam, in the meridian of time, I will send my only begotten son Jesus Christ, then how can that man and Adam both be the Father of Jesus Christ? . . . It was the Father of Jesus Christ that was talking to Adam in the garden. Young says that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ both of his spirit and body in his teaching from the stand.” [57]

Pratt’s comments show the fallacy of modern Mormon apologists who say that Young never taught that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ, for here Pratt show that is EXACTLY what Young was teaching. Young’s reply to this came a few weeks later, acknowledging only that, .” . if guilt before my God and my brethren rests upon me in the least, it is in this one thing, that I have revealed TOO MUCH concerning God and his kingdom, and the designs of our Father in heaven. If my skirts are stained in the least with wrong, it is because I have been TOO FREE in telling WHAT GOD IS, how he lives, the nature of his providences and designs in creating the world, in bringing forth the human family on the earth, his designs concerning them, etc. If I had, like Paul, said— "But if any man BE IGNORANT, let him be ignorant," perhaps it would have been better for the people.” [58]

Later in the year, Young would once again address the issue of those who would not believe his doctrines, emphasizing again that it was not for publication:

“I will give you a few words of DOCTRINE, upon which there has been much inquiry, and with regard to which considerable ignorance exists. Br. Watt will write it, but it is not my intention to have it published, therefore pay good attention, and store it up in your memories. Some years ago, I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God, that will be a cause [curse?] to many Elders of Israel because of THEIR FOLLY. With regard to it THEY YET GROVEL IN DARKNESS and will. It is one of the most glorious REVEALMENTS of the economy of heaven, yet the world holds it [in] dirrision [sic]. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism from the dead instead [of] Joseph Smith there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb ass.” [59]

Thus began a period when Young seems to have abandoned teaching this doctrine in public completely, and the source for some statements by Young that seem to contradict his previous views on Adam. Two years later, Young would address a group of California emigrants passing through Salt Lake City, and he gave a speech on Mormon beliefs, saying this about God:

“. . . We believe in God the Father and in Jesus Christ our elder brother. We believe that God is a person of tabernacle, possessing in an infinitely higher degree all the perfections and qualifications of his mortal\ children. We believe that he made Adam after his own image and likeness…” [60]

This statement is used by many to try and show that Young never really taught Adam-god. Others use it to say Young contradicted himself. Given the opposition to Adam-god by Pratt and probably others, it is likely that Young was just being cautious. Once again, a few months after this, Young gave some remarks to a group of faithful Mormons in the Ogden Tabernacle, telling them that “. . . the Lord is our God and it is He whom we serve; and we say to the whole world that He is a tangible Being . . . and if He created Adam and Eve in His own image, the whole human family are like Him. This same truth is borne out by the Savior . . . He sent his Angels, and at last sent His Son, who was in the express image of the Father—His Only Begotten Son, according to the flesh here on this earth. This is the God we serve and believe in.” [61]

One can only speculate here on Young’s motives, but seven years later in 1870, this time in the Salt Lake Tabernacle, he reiterated the same message: "We are all the children of Adam and Eve, and they and we are the offspring of Him who dwells in the heavens . . . ." [62]

Given the extensive material by Young on Adam-god, the above remarks can be looked at as nothing more than a means to soothe the Saints, and downplay his real beliefs, which were causing controversy in the Church. This is not a new tactic by Mormon leaders, for Smith himself lied to the public and the Church many times, especially in regards to polygamy, going as far as to say it was not a doctrine of the Church, and that he was only married to one wife, when of course none of that was true. [63] This still does not stop some, like Bruce McConkie and others, from concluding:

“Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. 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.” [64]

What is interesting is that McConkie does not bother to reveal just why Young contradicted himself, He just places Young’s Adam-god discretion on a back burner and says this:

“He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings IN GENERAL. He was a MIGHTY prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.” [65]

So, did Young contradict himself because he had a change of heart about Adam-god? Hardly! Young continued to teach the Adam-god doctrine after this time, but usually only within much more restricted circles. For example, in a meeting of the Salt Lake School of the Prophets in 1867, Wilford Woodruff records in his Journal that Young stated that "Adam was Michael the Ark angel & he was the Father of Jesus Christ & was our God & that Joseph taught thoght [sic] this Principle." [66]

Adam-god continued to be debated in private as Abraham O. Smoot attests in 1868 at a meeting of the School of the Prophets:

“The DOCTRINE preached by Pres. Young for a few years back, wherein he says that ADAM IS OUR GOD – the God we worship – that MOST of the people believe this – some believe it because the President says so – others because they can find testimony in the Book of Mormon and the Book of Doctrine and Covenants. Amasa Lyman stumbled on this, he did not believe it – he did not believe in the atonement of Jesus – Orson Pratt has also told the President that he does not believe it. THIS IS NOT THE WAY TO ACT. We should not suffer ourselves to entertain ONE DOUBT. We are not accountable on points of doctrine IF THE PRESIDENT MAKES A STATEMENT. IT IS NOT OUR PEROGATIVE TO DISPUTE IT. He is only accountable in points of DOCTRINE. I have heard President Young avow the TRUTH of Adam being our Father and God but have never heard him ARGUE the question at all.”

Others would agree with Abraham Smoot, like A. F. MacDonald, who declared this in the same meeting of the School:

“I thought I would speak briefly in relation to Adam being our God. Since the year 1852 when the President first spoke on this subject, I have frequently endeavored to reconcile what I have read with regard to this matter. I believe what the President says on the subject although it comes in contact with all our tradition. I have NOT ANY DOUBT IN MY MIND but that Adam is our God. Who his God and Father may be, I have no knowledge. President Kimball spoke on this question recently and very plainly illustrated the character and relationship of our Father and God.”

And Elder George G. Bywater, who also felt it unwise to question Young or his doctrines:

“I am not disposed to question the discrepancies on this question of doctrine: if we live faithful, all will become clear to us. We cannot become united only as we get united in understanding; when I first heard the doctrine of Adam being our Father and God, I WAS FAVORABLY IMPRESSED—enjoyed, and hailed it as a NEW REVELATION—it appeared reasonable to me as the father of our spirits, that he should introduce us here-and what we do not see is only evidence that we have not the light necessary.” [67]

Private endorsement of Adam-god seemed to be essential in the School of the Prophets. In an 1870 meeting, "Elder Geo[rge] Q. Cannon FULLY ENDORSED THE DOCTRINE that Father Adam was our God and Father . . . ." Indeed, "the above doctrine had been REVEALED to him, so that HE KNEW IT WAS TRUE." [68] In another meeting of the School three years later, Daniel Wells of the First Presidency asked his colleagues whether they endorsed the "doctrine pertaining to Adam being our Father & our God." He personally "bore a powerful testimony to THE TRUTH OF THE DOCTRINE, remarking that if ever he had received a testimony of any doctrine in this church HE HAD THE TRUTH OF THIS. The Endowments plainly teach it and the Bible & other revelations are full of it." Others who "approved or endorsed" the doctrine at the meeting were Henry Grow, D. B. Huntington, John Lyon, George B. Wallace, and Joseph F. Smith, the latter stating that "the enunciation of that doctrine GAVE HIM GREAT JOY”. [69]

Though Young seldom spoke of Adam-god in public in the 1860’s, in an 1870 meeting of the School of the Prophets, "Prest. Young" again had asked "the brethren to meditate on the subject, PRAY ABOUT IT AND KEEP IT TO YOURSELVES."[70] Three years later, amidst the affirmations of the 1873 meeting noted above, he further revealed that he "was positive of the truth of this doctrine [Adam being our Father and our God], but thought WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS about preaching on doctrines unless we fully understand them BY THE POWER OF THE SPIRIT, then they commend themselves to the hearts of the hearers." [71]

In 1873, T. B. H. Stenhouse wrote that "the mass of the Mormon people do not believe the doctrine of the Adam deity" [72] and Young felt he had to do something. In a sermon in the New Tabernacle in June, which was published in the Deseret News, he chided the Saints:

“How much UNBELIEF exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular DOCTRINE which I revealed to them, AND WHICH GOD REVEALED TO ME—namely that Adam is our father and God—I do not know, I do not inquire, I CARE NOTHING ABOUT IT!

This statement alone that Young had published to the world shows that this was not just a personal belief, it was doctrine revealed from God himself. After explaining that "Father Adam" held the keys of salvation for his children, Young continued:

"I could not find any man on the 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…“We say”. . . that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? HE IS MICHAEL, a great prince, and it was said to him BY Eloheim, "Go ye and make an earth." . . . Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business . . . . Father Adam came here, and then THEY BROUGHT HIS WIFE. "Well," says one, "Why was Adam called Adam?" He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he 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 . . . [73]

Though Young referred to Adam as the "Father" in his 1852 sermon and thereafter, it is clear that Young did not equate Adam with "Elohim" (who modern Mormons usually identify as God the Father). Thus the arguments of Modern Apologists that Young was mistaking Adam as Elohim have no merit. The next day Young described how he got ‘revelations’ like Joseph did, and

"Said there were MANY REVELATIONS given to him that he did not receive from the Prophet Joseph. He did not receive them through the Urim and Thummim as Joseph did but when he did receive them he knew of their truth as much as it was possible for him to do of any truth."

It was also in this meeting that Daniel Wells called for, and received the ringing endorsements of Young’s teachings quoted above. Given this context there can be no question about what was understood to be under discussion by those in attendance. [74]

As Young’s last years closed in on him, he became driven to reform and standardize a number of administrative and other facets of the Church and he decided among other things that the temple endowment ceremony should be standardized in a written format. On February 7, 1877, just six months before his death, Young held a meeting in his home in St. George, and recounted some of the initial problems encountered when Joseph Smith first introduced the endowment in the upper room of his store in Nauvoo. Smith reportedly charged Young with "setting the ordinances right." Now, over thirty years later, since everything was to be written down by scribes L. John Nuttall and J. D. T. McAllister, Young had a text prepared for a "lecture at the veil to be observed in the Temple"—a summarization of the major aspects of the endowment. This effort by Young was to be his legacy of Adam-god, the teaching that so divided the Saints, and what better way to preserve it forever than to do so by incorporating it into the most sublime of all Mormon rites, the Temple Endowment? From the diary of L. John Nuttall, we can read what Young dictated to Nuttall:

“In the creation the Gods entered into an agreement about forming this earth, and putting Michael or Adam upon it. These things of which I have been speaking are what are termed the mysteries of godliness but they will ENABLE YOU TO UNDERSTAND the expression of Jesus, made while in jerusalem. “This is life eternal that they might know thee, the on[l]y true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. We were once acquainted with the Gods and lived with them, but we had the privilege of taking upon us flesh that the spirit might have a house to dwell in. We did so and forgot all, and came into the world not recollecting anything of which we had previously learned.

We have heard a great deal about Adam and Eve, how they were formed and etc. 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.

ADAM was an immortal being when he came on this earth; HE HAD LIVED ON AN EARTH SIMILAR TO OURS; he had received the Priesthood and the keys thereof, and had been faithful in all things and GAINED HIS RESURRECTION AND EXALTATION, and was crowned with glory, immortality and eternal lives, and was NUMBERED WITH THE GODS, for such he became through his faithfulness, and had BEGOTTEN ALL THE SPIRIT that was to come to this earth. And Eve our common Mother who is the mother of all living BORE THOSE SPIRITS IN THE CELESTIAL WORLD.

And when this earth was organized by ELOHIM. JEHOVAH & MICHAEL, WHO IS ADAM our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assi[s]ted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child.

It is said by Moses the historian that the Lord caused a deep sleep to come upon Adam and took from his side a rib and formed the woman that Adam called Eve — this should be interpreted that the Man Adam like all other men had the seed within him to propagate his species, but not the Woman; she conceives the seed but she does not produce it; consequently she was taken from the side or bowels of her father. This explains the mystery of Moses’ dark sayings in regard to Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve when they were placed on this earth were immortal beings with flesh, bones and sinews. But upon partaking of the fruits of the earth while in the garden and cultivating the ground THEIR BODIES BECAME CHANGED FROM IMMORTAL TO MORTAL beings with the blood coursing through their veins as the action of life — Adam was not under transgression until after he partook of the forbidden fruit; this was necessary that they might be together, that man might be. The woman was found in transgression not the man — Now in the law of Sacrfice we have the promise of a Savior and Man had the privilege and showed forth his obedience by offering of the first fruits of the earth and the firstlings of the flocks; this as a showing that Jesus would come and shed his blood…

FATHER ADAM’S OLDEST SON, (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is FATHER ADAM’S FIRST BEGOTTEN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his divinity he having gone back into the spirit world, and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, they did not lay their bodies down in the dust, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came. [75]

Here is the essence of the Adam-god Doctrine, whittled down to just a page of written words. Aside from this entry in Nuttall’s diary, there is no other record of Young’s Lecture at the veil and very little evidence that the Adam-god lecture was taught widely in Mormon Temples.

III. The Legacy of Adam-god (part i)

Would the death of Brigham Young spell the end for Adam-god? Apparently not. Many leading members of the Church still believed and taught the doctrine, as evidenced by the following statements. In 1880, Edward Stevenson of the First Council of Seventy "by REQUEST of one of the PRESIDENCY . . . [spoke] upon God as the father of our spirrits [sic]" at a Davis Stake conference. His message was clear: " . . . tharefore ADAM is the Father of my SPIRRIT & also of my body. . . “ [76]

In 1882, Stevenson and several brethren spoke to Thomas Howell, who opposed the Adam-god doctrine, in a general meeting of the Seventies. Howell was told that if he "could not comprehend these things to lay them up untill he could, & if he indulged in that spirrit to correct or set President Young rite that he would be delt with & lose his faith & STANDING IN THE CHURCH." After "meny remarks" Howell "said he was rong, sory for it & asked for forgiveness." [77]

There were a lot of shelves being built after the death of Young to lay things up on. Abraham H. Cannon was with his father, Apostle George Q. Cannon in 1888 after a Church service, when his father turned and asked him what he understood concerning Mary and the Savior. Abraham was silent, having no answer. George then asked him “what was to prevent Father Adam from visiting and overshadowing the mother of Jesus?” The younger Cannon answered, “Then he must have been a RESURRECTED being.” “Yes” said his father, “and though Christ IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN the ‘first fruits’ of them that slept, yet the Saviour said he did NOTHING but what he had seen the father do, for he had power to lay down his life and take it up again. ADAM, though made of the dust, was made, as President Young said, of the dust of ANOTHER PLANET than this." Abraham said, “I was very much instructed by the conversation and this day's service.” [78]

The year that Young died, Edward Tullidge, assisted by Eliza R. Snow (one of Young’s many wives) published the book, Women of Mormondom, in which was written:

"Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth." So says Brigham Young. Adam is the great archangel of this creation. He is Michael. He is the Ancient of Days. He is the father of our elder brother, Jesus Christ---the father of him who shall also come as Messiah to reign. He is the father of the spirits as well as the tabernacles of the sons and daughters of man. Adam! Michael is one of the grand mystical names in the works of creation, redemptions, and resurrections. Jehovah is the second and the higher name. Eloheim--signifying the Gods--is the first name of the celestial trinity. Michael was a celestial, resurrected being, of another world. "In the beginning" the Gods created the heavens and the earths. In their councils they said, let us make man in our own image. So, in the likeness of the Fathers, and the Mothers--the Gods--created they man--male and female. When this earth was prepared for mankind, Michael, as Adam, came down. He brought with him one of his wives, and he called her name Eve. Adam and Eve are the names of the fathers and mothers of worlds. Adam was not made out of a lump of clay, as we make a brick, nor was Eve taken as a rib--a bone--from his side. They came by generation. But woman, as the wife or mate of man, was a rib of man. She was taken from his side, in their glorified world, and brought by him to earth to be the mother of a race. These were father and mother of a world of spirits who had been born to them in heaven. These spirits had been waiting for the grand period of their probation, when they should have bodies or tabernacles, so that they might become, in the resurrection, like Gods. When this earth had become an abode for mankind, with its Garden of Eden, then it was that the morning stars sang together, and the sons and daughters of God shouted for joy. They were coming down to earth. The children of the sun, at least, knew what the grand scheme of the everlasting Fathers and the everlasting Mothers meant, and they, both sons and daughters, shouted for joy. The temple of the eternities shook with their hosannas, and trembled with divine emotions. The father and mother were at length in their Garden of Eden. They came on purpose to fall. They fell "that man might be; and man is, that he "might have joy." They ate of the tree of mortal life, partook of the elements of this earth that they might again become mortal for their children's sake. They fell that another world might have a probation, redemption and resurrection.” [79]

This shows the extent and scope of Young’s teaching, that it was well understood, and that it was not just taught to a few, having “limited” circulation. In 1888, Joseph E. Taylor (First Counselor in the Salt Lake Stake Presidency) delivered a speech in the Logan temple in which he claimed that Adam was a resurrected man and that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ. Taylor added a little to Young’s doctrine, claiming that Adam was also the Savior of his world, before he came to this earth:

“All that FATHER ADAM DID UPON THIS EARTH, from the time that he took up his abode in the Garden of Eden, was done for his posterity’s sake and the success of HIS FORMER MISSION AS THE SAVIOR OF A WORLD, and afterwards, or now, AS THE FATHER OF A WORLD only added to the glory which he already possessed. If, as the savior of a world, he had the power to lay down his life and take it up again, therefore, as the father of a world which is altogether an advanced condition, we necessarily conclude that THE GRAVE WAS POWERLESS TO HOLD HIM AFTER HIS MISSION WAS COMPLETED…” [80]

Beyond Authorities George Q. and Abraham H. Cannon and Edward Stevenson, in the 1890's one also finds brief but supportive references to the doctrine by Apostles Brigham Young, Jr., Franklin D. Richards and Lorenzo Snow. Snow is reported as leading "out on Adam being our father and God. How beautiful the thought it brot. God nearer to us." To this Richards added that "it made him thrill through his whole body it was NEW & it was INSPIRING."[81]

By the 1880’s it was well taught in the Church that Adam was a resurrected man before he came to this world. Many of the Church’s publications dealt with a wide variety of questions and articles concerning this doctrine. In 1886 we find Thomas Brookbank writing for the Contributor:

“BEFORE Adam fell, he was a RESURRECTED MAN, that is, his physical body had been disorganized, and then reorganized. [i]Between the time of Adam’s resurrection AND HIS FALL AFTERWARDS, he must have enjoyed a season of rest and peace.” [82]

As late as 1908 there was a question submitted to the Liahona, The Elders Journal which read:

Q. As Adam was an immortal being when placed here on earth and commanded to multiply, would not his offspring have been immortal but for the fall? [submitted by] M.P.F. Logan, Utah

The answer given by Samuel O. Bennion, (who would later be called as a President of the Seventies) was straight from Young’s teachings on Adam-god:

“Yes. But they [the children] would have had SPIRITUAL BODIES ONLY, and not bodies of flesh, blood and bone. When Adam and Eve were first placed in the Garden THEY HAD RESURRECTED BODIES, in which there was no blood. Consequently, they had not power TO BEGET CHILDREN with tabernacles of flesh, such as human beings possess. The fall caused a change in their bodies, which, while it rendered them mortal, at the same time gave them POWER TO CREATE MORTAL BODIES of flesh, blood and bone for their offspring. This is a very brief explanation of a very important subject.” [83]

Here, we see Bennion expounding on a question never asked of Young. He replies that Adam and Eve, since they were resurrected personages when they entered the Garden, IF they had procreated, would have had children with spirit bodies only, because they were not mortal yet. This also answers the question of exactly HOW these ‘spirit’ children are created – the same way that ‘mortal’ children are created, and that resurrected beings have ‘spirit’ children only. The fall (eating of the materials of this earth) is what caused them to become mortal, and thus have mortal children of flesh and blood.

There were some, after Young’s death who thought Young might have ‘taken liberties’ in teaching Adam-god. George Q. Cannon, one of Young’s councilors in the First Presidency, later reflected that:

“Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course. They did not approve of it, and felt oppressed, and yet they dare not exhibit their feelings to him, he ruled with so strong and stiff a hand, and they felt that it would be of no use. In a few words, the feeling seems to be that he transcended the bounds of the authority which he legitimately held.

I have been greatly surprised to find so much dissatisfaction in such quarters . . . . [S]ome even feel that in the promulgation of doctrine he took liberties beyond those to which he was legitimately entitled. [84]

Some credit this statement as a reversal for Cannon, but years later in 1889 his son Abraham would record that his father taught him “That Adam is Jesus’ Father AND OUR GOD.”[85] And at a meeting of the School of the Prophets in 1870, it was recorded that "Elder George Q. Cannon FULLY ENDORSED the doctrine that Father Adam was our God and Father."

So why would the hierarchy of the Church suddenly start backpedaling on Adam-god? According to David John Buerger:

Because, “as early as 1860 critics of the Mormons, notably the newly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, had used Brigham's Adam-God doctrine as a focal point for attack. In the years following Young's death, polygamy was the principal cause celebre, but with the Manifesto of 1890 "anti-Mormon" attention returned to other heretical doctrinal matters. In the face of this development, according to one report, official counsel from the Church was to downplay the Adam-God doctrine. In 1892 George Q. Cannon advised that "t was not necessary that we should [teach] or endorse the doctrine that some men taught that Adam was the Father of Jesus Christ. Counsel was given for the Elders to teach that which they knew, not that which they did not." Three years later President Wilford Woodruff made essentially the same point:

“How much longer I shall talk to this people I do not know; but I want to say this to all Israel: Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven's sake, let these things alone. Why trouble yourselves about these things? . . . God is God. Christ is Christ. The Holy Ghost is the Holy Ghost. That should be enough for you and me to know. If we want to know any more, wait till we get where God is in person. I say this because we are troubled every little while with inquiries from Elders anxious to know who God is, who Christ is, and who Adam is. I say to the Elders of Israel, stop this.” [86]

As for Young though, Woodruff would make this ringing endorsement from the stand:

“As to President Young his labors have been with us. It has been remarked sometimes, by certain individuals, that President Young has said in public that he was not a prophet nor the son of a prophet. I have travelled with him since 1833 or the spring of 1834; I have travelled a good many thousand miles with him and have heard him preach a great many thousand sermons; but I have never heard him make that remark in my life. He is a prophet, I am a prophet, you are, and anybody is a prophet who has the testimony of Jesus Christ, for that is the spirit of prophecy. The Elders of Israel are prophets. A prophet is not so great as an Apostle. Christ has set in his Church, first, Apostles; they hold the keys of the kingdom of God. Any man who has travelled with President Young knows he is a prophet of God. He has foretold a great many things that have come to pass. All the Saints who are well acquainted with him KNOW that he is GOVERNED AND CONTROLLED BY THE POWER OF GOD AND THE REVELATIONS of Jesus Christ. His WORKS are before the world; they are before the heavens; before the earth; before the wicked as well as the righteous; and it is the influence of President Young that the world is opposed to. This Priesthood, these keys of the kingdom of God that have been sealed upon him, the world is at war against; let them say what they may, these things are what they are at enmity with.” [87]

Despite these endorsements of Young, Woodruff would have to contend with the fall-out surrounding Adam-god. But his statement in 1895 that “all Israel cease troubling yourselves about who God is and who Adam is” would not stop Protestant ministers from using the issue to discredit the Church. As David John Buerger observed:

“In October 1897, for example, Mormon elders began proselyting in Fresno, California. They authored a favorable introductory article on the Church which was published in the Fresno paper. A local minister, C. A. Munn, proceeded to publish several articles of his own, in part quoting Brigham Young's April 1852 sermon. Although the elders tried to meet Munn's challenge, they failed, and mission president Ephraim H. Nye came to their aid in a rebuttal which stated that Munn had misrepresented Brigham Young's remarks by taking them out of context. Nye claimed that for Mormons, Adam "is not the God to whom we pray, nor did Brigham Young undertake to convey such an idea. We worship the being who placed Adam in the garden of Eden."

Pastor Munn responded that Nye's claim was not true; that the Mormon Church in fact did teach that Adam was God. Nye appealed for assistance to Apostle Franklin D. Richards. Explaining that "this is a matter that we have got to meet continually," Nye asked Richards to indicate any errors in his reasoning. He candidly admitted that his elders were unable to handle the question, and" have to 'Dodge' it the best they can."

On December 16, 1897, Elder Richards met with the First Presidency and part of the Council of the Twelve and read the Fresno Morning Republican article along with President Nye's letter. Richards' diary records that Nye's letter "was read & highly approved but no action as to the dealing with Adam our F. & God subject."

Another apostle in attendance was Brigham Young, Jr., who, along with President Woodruff, had heard his father's remarks made in St. George on February 7,1877. (The younger Young evidently believed his father's testimony, for he wrote in his journal the day of the Richard's discussion that Wilford Woodruff told him, "Adam IS our father and God and NO USE TO DISCUSS IT with Josephites or any one else.") The next day Richards drafted a letter to Nye, as recounted in the Apostle's diary: "Sent Prest E. H. Nye letter of Decision of Council about and approving his Article to the Fresno- Republican & a copy of Prest. Youngs remarks about Adam our Father as contained in Vol. 1 of Journal of Discourses." Elder Richards' letter to Nye was itself quite revealing:

‘On receipt of your letter of the 4th inst, I conferred with Prest. Joseph F. Smith, and we concluded to present the matter to the Councilof the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles. Both your letters to me, and the Article to the Fresno Republican, were read. Each of the Presidency and several of the Apostles expressed themselves well pleased with your article, that it evinced skill and valor for the Truth, and they did not see how it could be much improved. The Council did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject, but felt that it is best to AVOID BRINGING IT UP, and to do the best we can and as the Spirit may suggest when it is thrust upon us. Your having got so many of the Josephites was received with marks of particular pleasure. This, like many other points of more ADVANCED DOCTRINE, IS TOO PRECIOUS A PEARL TO BE CAST BEFORE SWINE. But when the swine get hold of them, let us rescue them by the help of the Spirit as best we can. Thinking it may be convenient to you to have President Young’s sayings on that subject, I enclose a copy from his sermon in the first Volume of the Journal of Discourses.’” [88]

This tack of attributing the Adam-god doctrine to ‘misrepresenting’ Young, was the direction in which the First Presidency under Joseph F. Smith would go, as would many future ‘apologists’. Although at this time the First Presidency (under Woodruff) “did not deem it wise to lay out any line of procedure in which to deal with the subject,” except having the Elders “avoid bringing it up”, Richards remarks that it was too ‘advanced” a “doctrine” and “too precious a pearl to be cast before swine”, is telling. Remember that Richards once wrote for the Millennial Star that “FOR THIS OBJECTION TO BE REMOVED, tell such, the PROPHET AND APOSTLE BRIGHAM HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT IT IS THE WILL OF THE LORD.” By 1898, however, (the year Woodruff died) George Q. Cannon was making statements like the following, advocating silence about the teaching:

“I was stopped yesterday afternoon by a young man, who wanted to know whether Adam was the Father of our Lord and Savior—whether he was the being we worshipped, etc. Now, we can get ourselves very easily puzzled, if we choose to do so, by speculating upon doctrines and principles of this character. The Lord has said through His Prophet that there are two personages in the Godhead. That ought to be sufficient for us at the present time . . . . Concerning the doctrine in regard to Adam and the Savior, the Prophet Brigham Young TAUGHT SOME THINGS CONCERNING THAT; but the First Presidency and the Twelve do not think it wise to advocate these matters. It is sufficient to know we have a Father—God the Eternal Father, who reveals Himself by His Holy Spirit unto those who seek him; and that Jesus Christ is His Son, our Redeemer, the Savior of the world.” [89]

The turn of the twentieth century brought the deaths of many in the Church Hierarchy who had supported Brigham Young and his Adam-god doctrine. Woodruff died in 1898, F. D. Richards in 1899, George Q. Cannon and Lorenzo Snow both died in 1901 and Young Jr. in 1903. The last of these men, Joseph F. Smith, who claimed that Adam-god gave him such ‘great joy’ would become President of the Church in 1901. As David John Buerger observes: “. It is perhaps significant that the major Church commentaries explicitly refuting the Adam-God doctrine—even to the point of denying that it was ever taught—did not come until after the deaths of these men.” [90]

Suffering under the attack of the Protestants and the ‘Josephites’, the Church began a reinterpretation of the Adam-god doctrine which culminated in a 1912 First Presidency Statement, issued by Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose, which stated:

“Speculations as to the career of Adam before he came to the earth are of no real value . . . . Dogmatic assertions do not take the place of revelation, and we should be satisfied with that which is accepted as doctrine, and not discuss matters that, after all disputes, are merely matters of theory.”

Penrose, the editor of the Deseret News was chief among the Adam-god detractors, and at the turn of the century was the leading Mormon defender of the faith because of his constant confrontations with the anti-Mormon Salt Lake Tribune. In response to frequent accusations that the Church still professed Adam-god, Penrose undertook to change the interpretation of Young’s 1852 Sermon itself. In February of 1900 Penrose wrote a personal letter to Quincy Anderson of Ozark, Misssouri in which Penrose denied that Young meant to say that Mormons worship Adam, or that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ. “As to Adam,” wrote Penrose, “he [Young] taught that he was God in the sense of being at the head of the human family . . . and in the Patriarchal order he will be the personage with whom they will have to do, and the only one in that capacity.” [91]

This letter by Penrose was later published without his permission by the RLDS Saints Herald, and was subsequently published by Penrose in the Deseret News, along with this carefully crafted ‘explanation’:

“Anyone who has carefully read the discourse . . . will perceive that our brief statement of its purport is correct, that there is nothing in one that is in conflict with the other that we have neither "apologized for" nor disputed anything contained in that one sermon, which has been so much misunderstood and perverted by the enemies of our later venerable president. We are familiar with the doctrine he taught and which he did not attempt fully to explain in the discourse which has been published. And it should be understood that the views entertained by the great leader and inspired servant of the Lord, were not expressed as principles to be accepted by mankind as essential to salvation. Like the Prophet Joseph Smith, his mind was enlightened as to many things which were beyond a common understanding, and the declaration which would bring upon him the opposition of the ignorant”

Penrose summed up his ‘re-interpretation’ with these observations:

"[t]here are men in the church who entertain ideas of a more advanced nature, some of which, although they may be expressed in public . . . are not put forth as binding upon any person . . . ." That which President Young put forth in the discourse referred to, is not preached either to the Latter-day Saints or to the world as a part of the creed of the Church. In answering the letter of our correspondent we simply explained in private that which was asked in private, so that he might understand the tenor of President Young's views, and not with any intention of advocating or denying his doctrine, or of controverting anything that may have been said upon the subject by opponents of his utterances..” [92]

This tactic of ‘dodging’ a direct answer to the question of Adam-god, would be used by the Church in many other instances when it came to historical or doctrinal issues that the Church might be embarrassed about. Notice that Penrose gives the excuse that “we have neither apologized for nor disputed anything contained in that one sermon, which has been so much misunderstood…” limiting his response to only the one sermon of Young’s on Adam-god. As David John Buerger observes” “One implication of these remarks—i.e., that Young's belief could have been valid—was not amplified.” [93] But the bare bones of Penrose’s statement to the readers of the Deseret News what this: that such doctrines were not binding on the Church, and as such, are not a part of the ‘creed’ of the Church. Penrose, like many others after him, refused to address the many statements by Young that this doctrine was true and revealed to Young by revelation.

In 1902 Penrose would publish a lengthier article in the Improvement Era titled: “Our Father Adam”, which would be the first major effort of the Church to explain away Young’s statement that ‘Adam was our father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do.’ Penrose would again put forth the argument that Young was misinterpreted, and that Young’s comments were better understood in relation to Adam’s standing in the “Patriarchal Order”. As Penrose explained:

"The views then expressed were uttered in a single sermon, which created so much comment that the speaker did not afterward enter into further details or explanation." "Opponents" of Mormonism were "very fond of quoting isolated passages" from Young's 1852 sermon, but ignored the "hundreds of illusions" to that "Supreme Being" which Young made throughout the course of his life. Moreover, Young's theory, he again explained with a total inconsistency of logic, had never been "formulated or adopted" by the Church.” [94]

With the publication of the numerous Journals and other statements found in Official Church Publications, it is clear that Penrose’s article is inadequate and deceptive. Penrose also coined the term ‘Adam-god THEORY’, which helped the Church further obfuscate the doctrine. But at this time, many in the Church still believed in the doctrine, and it would become a cause of contention that would time and again involve the First Presidency. In February 1902 Bishop Edward Bunker, Jr., of Bunkerville, Nevada, wrote Joseph F. Smith explaining that a recently returned missionary had been "advicating the Doctorn [sic] that Adam is the very eternal Father in the Godhead and the Father of Jesus Christ and that Pres Kelch so taught the Elders in that mission I say the Doctorn [sic] is Faulse [sic] . . . ." [95]

Responding carefully, Smith replied:

“It is certainly unwise for the Elders or any other member of the Church to advocate doctrines that are not clearly set forth in the revealed word of God, and concerning which, in consequence, difference of opinion exist . . . . While it is far from my purpose to stifle thought and free speech among the brethren, or to brand as "FALSE DOCTRINE" any and every MISTERY[sic] of the kingdom, it is nevertheless [sic] my wish and my advice, in which Presidents Winder and Lund, my counselors, heartly join, that the Elders should not make a practise of preaching upon these abstruse themes, these PARTLY REVEALED PRINCIPLES, respecting which there are such wide differences of belief. What is called the Adam God doctrine may properly be classed among the MYSTERIES. The full truth concerning it has not been revealed to us; and until it is revealed all wild speculations, sweeping assertions and dogmatic declarations relative thereto, are out of place and improper. We disapprove of them and especially the public expression of such views. . . .”

Smith then reiterated the accepted Church belief that “Adam was Michael, the Ancient of Days,” and that he held a patriarchal position as "head of the human family." He also stated that "Christ is not Adam, nor is Adam Christ, but both are eternal Gods, and it may even be said Fathers, since they are the parents of eternal or spiritual children." Smith concluded by saying, "As to the personality and position of each God, and as to which all is the greater, these are matters immaterial at the present time, and are best but an unprofitable speculation. Let us be content with what is plainly revealed on the subject, namely; that though there be Lords many and Gods many as the Apostle Paul declares, yet to us there is but one God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." [96]

That same year B. H. Roberts, in a debate with Reverend C. Van Der Donckt, again affirmed Young, while downplaying his Adam-god teachings:

“Some of the sectarian ministers are saying that we "Mormons" are ashamed of the doctrine announced by President Brigham Young to the effect that Adam will THUS BE THE GOD of this world. No, friends, it is not that we are ashamed of that doctrine. If you see any change come over our countenances, when this doctrine is named, it is surprise, astonishment, that any one at all capable of grasping the largeness and extent of the universe—the grandeur of existence and the possibilities in man for growth, for progress, should be so lean of intellect, should have such a paucity of understanding, as to call it in question at all. That is what our change of countenance means—not shame for the doctrine Brigham Young taught.” [97]

Notice Robert’s expression ‘that Adam will THUS BE the God of this world,’ not Young’s claim that Adam WAS the God of this world. This deception would be used again and again in the future. The First Presidency would become publically involved in this issue in 1909, when they issued a statement on "The Origin of Man," in answer to evolutionary questions of the day. In this statement, they write that "Adam our great progenitor, 'The First Man,' was, like Christ, a pre-existent spirit, and like Christ he took upon him an appropriate body, the body of a man, and so became a 'living soul.'" [98]

While this particular statement did not deal with Adam-god, or specify the method by which Adam "took upon him an appropriate body," it did generate enough discussion that President Smith, as the editor of the Improvement Era, published the following editorial:

“Whether the mortal bodies of men evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generation, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and the partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.” [99]

Two years later, in March 1912, came the explicit statement on Adam-God, published in the Improvement Era. Immediately noticeable, is the language of Charles Penrose, who became an Apostle in 1904 and was now a member of the First Presidency. Once again, we read:

“Speculations as to the career of Adam before he came to the earth are of no real value. We learn by revelation that he was Michael, the Archangel, and that he stands at the head of his posterity on earth (Doctrine and Covenants, Sect. 107:53-56). Dogmatic assertions do not take the place of revelation, and we should be satisfied with that which is accepted as doctrine, and not discuss matters that, after all disputes, are merely matters of theory.” [100]

What exactly Smith meant by ‘dogmatic assertions’ is unclear, but the overall message was perfectly clear: the First Presidency is here denying that Young received Adam-god by revelation. This is quite the reversal for Joseph F. Smith, who once claimed ‘great joy’ in the doctrine. A few weeks later at a special priesthood meeting held during the Church's annual conference, Penrose reportedly read a letter received by the First Presidency which stated that some patriarchs had been teaching the Adam-God doctrine to Church members. Penrose then read from D & C 19 and 107 and, according to Thomas Clawson's journal, argued that "Brigham Young did not qualify his remark which were taken in longhand and there may have been some things said which unless further explained might be misconstrewed [sic] . . . Prest. Jos F. Smith then said that he was in full accord with what Prest Penrose had said and that Prest. Brigham Young when he delivered that sermon only expressed his own views and that they were not corobirated [sic] by the word of the Lord in the Standard works of the Church[.] After describing how the Church's scriptures were voted upon and sustained "as Standards of the Church," President Smith stated: "Now all doctrine if it can't be established by these standards is not to be taught or promulgated [sic] by members." [101]

Now we have Penrose questioning that Young’s sermons were even copied down correctly! One thing is clear from all this activity: Adam-god was no “barely mentioned” doctrine in the Church. One also wonders how many in the Church let Penrose get away with the statement that ‘Young did not qualify his remark’ and that ‘there may have been some things said which unless further explained might be misconstrued’. Penrose here, is acting like there was only one sermon ever given by Young on Adam-god! Once again, we see the focus on Young’s 1852 sermon, and the ignoring of all the other material Young generated over his lifetime. Here we also see the First Presidency relegating a former prophet to only an opinion-maker, once again ignoring the words of past authorities like F.W. Richards who stated:

“Concerning the item of DOCTRINE alluded to by Elder Caffall and others, viz.. that ADAM is our Father and God …If we feel ourselves, or teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES, WE SHALL NEVER KNOW MUCH OF THE LORD ourselves, nor be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent. If, as Elder Caffall remarked, there are those who are waiting at the door of the Church FOR THIS OBJECTION TO BE REMOVED, tell such, the PROPHET AND APOSTLE BRIGHAM HAS DECLARED IT, AND THAT IT IS THE WILL OF THE LORD. That is VASTLY STRONGER PROOF than Christiandom can give for much that they profess to believe.”

It seems that the statements of past prophets were no longer ‘the will of the Lord’, but only opinion. This stance, born out of Adam-god, would be used by Mormon Authorities and Apologists about a great many topics and statements from early leaders of the Church. What goes unsaid here, is far more weighty than the policy we see being implemented here. Despite these statements, questions still persisted, and President Penrose, who had continued to speak regularly on the subject, again responded, this time in General Conference, April 6, 1916:

“There still remains, I can tell by the letters I have alluded to, [i.e., those sent to the First Presidency] an idea among some of the people that Adam was and is the Almighty and Eternal God . . . . [T]he notion has taken hold of some of our brethren that Adam is the being that we should worship . . . . I am sorry that has not been rectified long ago, because plain answers have been given to brethren and sisters who write and desire to know about it, and yet it still lingers, and contentions arise in regard to it, and there should be no contentions among Latter-day Saints . . .

Who was the person Adam prayed to? Adam prayed to God . . . . So Adam was neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, was he? Then who was he? Why, we are told he was Michael in his first estate, and as Adam he will stand at the head of his race.”[102]

Penrose does not mention the other gods in Brigham’s teachings, the grandfather god Jehovah, or Jehovah’s father Eloheim, of which he was most certainly aware. Having given Jesus the designation of Jehovah, this would not have played out well at that time. Six years later, Penrose would state bluntly in General Conference: "Jesus of Nazareth, born of the virgin Mary, was literally and truly the Son of the Father, the Eternal God, not of Adam."[103]

Thus we see that Penrose, who can perhaps be called the ‘father’ of modern Mormon Apologists, more than any other ‘authority’, would shape the course of Mormon thinking in regard to Adam-god, and it is his views, more than any other, that are perpetuated in the Mormon church today. What followed, was a parade of statements by Mormon authorities and ‘prophets’ calling Adam-god a ‘theory’, misunderstood, or false. In 1931, Heber J. Grant wrote to a Bishop:

"[To claim] that Adam had passed on to celestial glory through resurrection before he came here, and that afterwards he was appointed to this earth to die again, the second time becoming mortal . . . is not scriptural or according to the truth." [104]

Mormon ‘scholar’ and historian B. H. Roberts:

"As a matter of fact, the 'Mormon' Church does not teach [the Adam-god] doctrine. A few men in the 'Mormon' Church have held such views; and several of them quite prominent in the councils of the Church. . . . Brigham Young and others MAY have taught that doctrine." [105]

A FEW men? Not according to the research reported above. I guess Roberts had a little too much integrity to outright lie as many others did. John Widtsoe though, had no such qualms about lying. He would publish a series of articles in the Improvement Era, which became his book [i]Evidences and Reconciliations, and would write that to him,

"[t]hose who peddle the well-worn Adam-God myth" relied on "[a] long series of absurd and false deductions . . ." Then, speaking of Young’s 1852 sermon, he concludes: “Certain statements there are made confusing if read superficially, but very clear if read with their context. Enemies of President Brigham Young and of the Church have taken advantage of the opportunity and have used these statements repeatedly and widely to do injury to the reputation of President Young and the Mormon people. An honest reading of this sermon and of other reported discourses of President Brigham Young proves that the great second President of the Church HELD NO SUCH VIEWS as have been PUT INTO HIS MOUTH in the form of the Adam-God MYTH” [106]

"Brigham Young," says Widtsoe (sounding almost like Bruce McConkie here), "held the accepted doctrine of the Church, that God, the Father, and not Adam, is the earthly Father of Jesus . . . . President Young merely followed the established doctrine of the Church." Once again, referencing the 1852 sermon, he complains, "nowhere can an intelligent reader confuse Adam with either member of the Godhead." [107]

An intelligent reader with an agenda, perhaps? Here we have Widtsoe (and most apologists) trying to promote the idea that Young's Adam-god “theory” alleged that Adam was Elohim. As shown in many quotes above, Young, while placing Adam in the position of the modern Mormon’s Elohim, clearly distinguished between "Father Adam" and one or two “grandfather” gods. One of the latter was Jehovah, Adam's father (thus the grandfather to Adam's descendants, including Christ); and the other was Elohim, Adam's grandfather, or the great-grandfather of Jesus Christ.

This obvious ploy by Widtsoe and many apologists may work for those who have little knowledge of Young’s teachings, but in the light of all the evidence here presented, one can see this ploy for what it is: a convenient way of changing the ‘doctrine’ into a ‘theory’ that the Church can call false and not actually be caught in a lie.

Moving along, we come to another Church Historian and Church President, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was as deceptive as Widtsoe in his denials that Young ever taught Adam-god. As early as 1939, he asserted that Young's 1852 sermon was "in all probability . . . erroneously transcribed."[108] He then published an essay entitled, "Adam is Not the Father of Jesus Christ," in partial refutation of this sermon. After citing several Young statements, Smith said, "It is very clear from these expressions that President Brigham Young did not believe and did not teach, that Jesus Christ was begotten by Adam. He taught that Adam DIED and that Jesus Christ redeemed him." [original emphasis] [109]

This is so thoroughly refuted by Young’s teachings, that it stretches one’s credulity that this man could write this and still be a Church Historian, let alone a prophet with all that title implies. Once again, we see partial truth in these statements, for Fielding Smith does not touch on the part of the doctrine which states that Adam had the power to resurrect himself:

“FATHER ADAM’S OLDEST SON, (Jesus the Saviour) who is the heir of the family is FATHER ADAM’S FIRST BEGOTTEN IN THE SPIRIT WORLD, who according to the flesh is the only begotten as it is written. (In his DIVINITY he having gone back into the spirit world, and come in the spirit to Mary and she conceived, for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, THEY DID NOT LAY THEIR BODIES DOWN IN THE DUST, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.”

Mark E. Petersen was the author of a book called: Adam, Who is He? ,which was approved by the Presidency of the Church in 1976. [110] Drawing heavily from Penrose, Wistsoe & Fielding Smith, he writes this in the preface of the book:

“We accept the ancient and modern scriptures as the word of God. They are our unerring guides. But some teach doctrines contrary to the scripture. Under these circumstances it is well to remember President Joseph Fielding Smith, who said: "If I ever say anything contrary to the scriptures, the scriptures prevail." It is so with everyone. In commenting on this later in the text, he adds, "This applies to all, even to Brigham Young." Elder Petersen's main argument, however, centers on the alleged mistranscription of Brigham Young's April 1852 sermon.[111]

He also asks, of a sermon by Young in which the President separated the identities of Elohim and Adam, "Then could Adam possibly be Elohim, as some say?" Those “some” who equate Elohim with Adam were actually Mormon apologists/authorities that Peterson does not or will not connect to such statements, NOT Brigham Young, who never taught it. Peterson then continues,

“We do not know what part Michael played in the creation of this earth. President Young did not make it clear. But that he did take part, President Young declares with certainty. The very fact that he did, the very fact that Elohim and Jehovah did likewise, the three working in a "quorum capacity," as President Young explains, again clears the air so far as Michael being Deity is concerned. He was not Deity. He was the Archangel working with Deity. [112]

Like Widtsoe, Peterson tries to divert the issue, either to confuse readers, or create a false ‘theory’ that they can attribute to those they claim ‘don’t understand’ the doctrine. Young’s clear statements, and the statements of those that heard him teach, adequately refute this premise:

"I could not find any man on the 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…“We say”. . . that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? HE IS MICHAEL, a great prince, and it was said to him BY Eloheim, "Go ye and make an earth." (June 1873, Discourse)

And even more clear:

“And when this earth was organized by ELOHIM. JEHOVAH & MICHAEL, WHO IS ADAM our common Father, Adam & Eve had the privilege to continue the work of progression, consequently came to this earth and commenced the great work of forming tabernacles for those spirits to dwell in, and when Adam and those that assi[s]ted him had completed this kingdom our earth[,] he came to it, and slept and forgot all and became like an infant child” (Nuttall Diaries, 1877).

What is interesting is the double standard shown by Peterson here. Take this quote from a 1979 speech:

“These apostles and prophets, the revelators of God, were to act as a protection for the people against false prophets and false teachings. Therefore, if somebody secretly comes to you claiming to have had a secret revelation and trying to lead you astray, all you have to do is remember that this person is not an apostle. If you want to know what the word of God is, go to the Council of the Twelve or the First Presidency. They are the foundation of the Church; they will keep you on the right track so that you will not need to worry.” [113]

The most significant and recent comment given by a modern leader was given by Spencer Kimball, and it came during the October 1976 conference of the Church. Kimball addressed the priesthood session, where he stated this::

“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God THEORY. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.[114]

Notice Kimball’s careful wording, ‘alleged’ to have been taught, and the Adam-god “THEORY”. Kimball here, is denouncing a ‘theory’ as false doctrine, neatly sidestepping the real issue, that Young actually taught Adam-god and claimed it was a revelation. This brings to mind one Cully Christenson, a Mormon who in 1981 wrote ‘The Adam God Maze’, and had this to say about Kimball’s statement on the Adam-god “Theory”:

“President Kimball's remarks were to address to an "Adam-God theory" ... "which is not found in scripture." The real issue, the Adam-God DOCTRINE as taught by Joseph and Brigham which IS founded in scripture, was not a consideration in President Kimball's remarks for, according to this statement, we should reject all false teachings not founded in scripture. Indeed, this is the same teaching of Brigham and Joseph. Illusion, however, was given to those who didn't understand that the church discredits the Adam-God doctrine. He could only have meant to give the illusion of discreditation, for there is no possible way the church could repudiate the restored doctrines of Jesus Christ and maintain its favor with God.” [115]

Conclusion

It seems that this “cat” of Brigham Young’s is still causing controversy in and out of the Mormon Church. From this one doctrine has sprung many of modern Mormonism’s Apologetic tactics, and a plethora of arguments and counter-arguments that still divide those in and out of the Church. One thing is clear however, from reading the many statements of Young and those of his time: how Mormons perceive their prophets has changed. This reminds me of a statement by Orson Pratt, and brings home just how far the Latter-day Saints have fallen from those times:

“We should not get into that old sectarian notion, that we have no right to know anything about this, that or the other, and that we must not pry into this, that or the other. That is an old sectarian notion, which we have fought against all the day long, and we do not want it to creep into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is the privilege of its members to let their minds expand, and to ponder upon the things of God, and to enquire of him, and by and by, when we have prepared ourselves by getting all the knowledge we possibly can from that which is written, God will give more.” [116]

Now pair that with this statement by Dallin Oaks from 1987:

“Another strength Satan can exploit is a strong desire to understand everything about every principle of the gospel.” [117]

Could all the controversy just be the way that modern Mormons are “mainstreaming” the Church? It certainly seems that Mormon prophets have a lot less to say about what some call ‘mysteries’, and others call the ‘meat’ of the gospel, as they hide behind their army of ‘apologists’ and their most common response to important doctrinal questions is ‘we have no official position on that’. It sure is something to think about. –grindael, September 21, 2010.

[_grindael]

Notes to "Adam-god For Dummies"

1. Elder Charles L. Walker, The Diary of Charles L. Walker, Sept. 1832, p. 134

2. June 19, 1853, Journal of Discourses Vol. 1, p. 188

3. In January of 1852 Young gave an address before the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah upon the subject of slavery. Wilford Woodruff recorded these remarks made by Young about the Negro:

“Cain took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel. The Lord said I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him and it is seen IN THE FACE OF EVERY NEGRO ON THE EARTH, and it is the DECREE OF GOD that that mark SHALL REMAIN upon the seed of Cain and the curse UNTIL ALL THE SEED OF ABEL SHOULD BE REDEEMED and Cain will not receive the Priesthood or salvation until ALL the seed of Abel are redeemed. Any man having ONE DROP of the seed of Cain in him CANNOT HOLD THE PRIESTHOOD, and if no other prophet ever spake it before I will say it now IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. I know it is true and others know it. The Negro cannot hold one part of Government. But the day will come when all the seed of Cain will be redeemed and have all the blessings we have now and a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cain to all eternity. Let me consent today to mingle my seed with the seed of Cain, it would bring the same curse upon me. And it would upon any man. And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain, the only way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and HAVE HIS HEAD CUT OFF AND SPILL HIS BLOOD upon the ground. It would also take the life of his children. It is said if a man kills another, that he takes that that he cannot give. If a man's head is cut off, his life is not destroyed or his spirit that lives. His tabernacle is destroyed. But I can make as good tabernacles as I can--if you do not believe it, look at my children. Such blood was shed in ancient days both of man and beast. There is not one of the seed of old Cain THAT IS PERMITTED TO RULE OVER THE SEED OF ABEL and you nor I cannot help it.”

What is interesting is that the Mormon Hierarchy ascribe this doctrine to Young (See Note #9), yet they rescinded this ‘divine commandment’, well before ‘all the seed of Abel’ was ‘redeemed’. As with polygamy, there was massive social pressure to do so, which the Church ultimately bowed to, despite what those they still hail as ‘prophets’ said in the name of the Lord. Young also intimates here his doctrine of ‘blood atonement’, another ‘cat’ he would let out of the bag.

4. Journal of Discourses by Brigham Young, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, His Two Counsellors, the Twelve Apostles, and Others, 26 vols. (Liverpool: LDS Book Depot, 1855-86), vol. 1, pp 50-51 (hereafter cited as John Dehlin).

As to the idea of God [Adam] begetting Jesus Christ, and using the same means to have all the other ‘spirit babies’ in heaven, the following quotes make it perfectly clear what is meant by this:

"As God the Father BEGAT the fleshly body of Jesus, so He, before the world began, BEGAT HIS SPIRIT. As the body required an earthly Mother, so his spirit required a heavenly Mother. As God associated IN THE CAPACITY OF A HUSBAND with the earthly mother, so likewise he associated IN THE SAME CAPACITY with the heavenly one; EARTHLY THINGS BEING IN THE LIKES OF HEAVENLY THINGS; and that which is TEMPORAL being in the likeness of that which is ETERNAL; or, in other words, the laws of generation upon the earth are after the order of the laws of generation in heaven." (-Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 158-9; cf. B. H. Roberts, Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 2, p. 270)

"Mary told the story most beautifully when she said that an angel of the Lord came to her and told her that she had found favor in the sight of God, and had come to be worthy of the fulfilment of the promises heretofore made, to become the virgin mother of the Redeemer of the world. She afterwards, referring to the event, said: 'God hath done wonderful things unto me.' 'And the Holy Ghost came upon her,' is the story, 'and she came into the presence of the highest.' No man or woman can live in mortality and survive the presence of the Highest except by the sustaining power of the Holy Ghost. So it came upon her to prepare her for admittance into the divine presence, and the power of the Highest, who is the Father, was present, and overshadowed her, and the holy Child that was born of her was called the Son of God.

Men who deny this, or who think that it degrades our Father, have no true conception of the sacredness of the most marvelous power with which God has endowed mortal men---THE POWER OF CREATION. Even though that power MAY BE ABUSED and may become a mere HARP OF PLEASURE to the wicked, nevertheless it is the most sacred and holy and DIVINE FUNCTION with which God has ENDOWED MAN. Made holy, IT IS RETAINED BY THE FATHER OF US ALL, and in his exercise of that great and marvelous creative power and function, HE DID NOT DEBASE HIMSELF, degrade himself, nor DEBAUCH his daughter. Thus Christ became the LITERAL Son of a divine Father, and no one else was worthy to be his father." (Sermons and Missionary Services of Melvin J. Ballard, p. 167)

5. The Mormon Apologist’s at Fair sum up this ridiculous premise with the following:

“LDS researcher Elden Watson, editor of the multi-volume Brigham Young Addresses, believes that Brigham used the term "Adam" as a name-title for both God the Father ("Adam Sr.") and the man Adam ("Adam Jr."), comparable to the way "Elias" is used as a title meaning "forerunner" and applied to various people. According to Watson, the reason modern readers miss this is our failure to take into account all of Brigham's sermons in context.” ( http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_doctrin ... s/Adam-God ) This has been refuted adequately by the author of the site http://zarahemlacitylimits.com :

“Some apologists have tried to also say that Brigham Young was merely using 'Adam' as a title meaning 'father' for Elohim. Brigham Young did say that Adam was a title, in the sense that every world has an Adam, and that Adam is a resurrected god who brings his celestial wife to create physical bodies for their spiritual offspring. But it is clear from the quotes above that Brigham was talking about the Adam known to us from Genesis. Brigham Young was not saying that Elohim is Adam Sr. and Michael is Adam Jr. as one apologist has claimed - Brigham said there was one Adam for this earth, who is God, named Michael, and the father of Jesus. The biggest nail in the coffin for this argument is the first statement I quoted above: "How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me - namely that Adam is our Father and God..." Why would Brigham be worried about the Saints' not believing the fairly trivial claim that 'Adam' is also a title for Elohim, or God the Father? He would not be berating the Saints for unbelief and emphasizing that God had revealed this doctrine to him, twenty years after he first taught it, if it were just a matter of a new title for God.” http://zarahemlacitylimits.com/essays/L ... eve_6.html

Young’s own statement repudiates this idea, which a careful reading of shows that Adam, called Michael, was the father of the spirits who came to this earth:

“We say”. . . that Father Adam came here and helped to make the earth. Who is he? He is Michael, a great prince, and it was said to him BY Eloheim, "Go ye and make an earth." . . . Adam came here and got it up in a shape that would suit him to commence business . . . . Father Adam came here, and then they brought his wife. "Well," says one, "Why was Adam called Adam?" He was the first man on the earth, and its framer and maker. He with the help of his brethren, brought it into existence. Then he 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…” (Discourse, June 8, 1873)

The above shows that Young never equated Adam with Elohim, and Young’s other statements show that Young believed Elohim to be the ‘grandfather’ god. See Note #86.

6. (Thomas Bullock minutes, May 8, 1854, LDS Church Historical Department)What is interesting is that the Mormon God never ‘bound up’ Brigham Young. He continued on as prophet for another twenty-five years. Later prophets, like Wilford Woodruff, would reiterate this statement made by Joseph F. Smith and recorded in Woodruff’s Journals:

“J. F. Smith spoke upon the Priesthood and revelation. It was a very interesting discourse. He said God will not keep any man on earth to preside over the Church to lead the Church of God astray. He will take him away first and all men should sustain the authorities of the Church or Priesthood.”

Mr. Smith seems to have forgotten about those twenty five years that the Mormon God allowed Young to preach false doctrine. It is also ironic that Smith would be the one penning a statement he said came from Wilford Woodruff that said: “Anything uttered by man which is contrary to the Divine law must fall, while that only which is in harmony with it can remain or stand." Smith must have conveniently forgotten this statement made by Young and directed at Orson Pratt (who never believed Adam-God):

“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.”

Here we have a prophet telling the Church that parts of the Bible are just ‘baby stories’, and not to be believed. Young would elaborate on this when he confronted Pratt in front of the entire Church Hierarchy in 1860, where he said:

“I will tell you how I got along with Joseph. I found out that God called Joseph to be a Prophet. I did not do it. I then said I will leave the Prophet in the hands of that God who called and ordained him to be a Prophet. He is not responsible to me and it is none of my business what he does. It is for me to follow and obey him. I once was ashamed of one thing which I did while in Missouri in Zion’s Camp. I got a revelation that God accepted our offering. I had the same thing revealed to me twice and that we should not go into Jackson County. I named this to some of the brethren a day or two before Joseph got a revelation upon the same subject. I felt ashamed that I named it first. I knew where we were going and I now know that when we go to Jackson County, we shall go from the West, and I will now tell you all and you may write it down that ALL MY PREACHING BY THE HOLY GHOST IS REVELATION. I told Brother Joseph that he had given us revelation enough to last us 20 years. When that time is out, I can give as good revelation as there is in the Doctrine and Covenants. Elder Taylor said in one of his sermons that, "If we walk in the light of the Lord, we should have revelations all the time." It is the light that is within you. No man can live his religion without living in revelation, but I would never tell a revelation to the Church unless Joseph told it first. Joseph once told me to go to his own house to attend a meeting with him. He said that he would not go without me. I went and Hyrum preached upon the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants, and said we must take them as our guide alone. He preached very lengthy until he nearly wearied the people out. When he closed, Joseph told me to get up. I did so. I took the books and piled them all up on top of each other. I then said that I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for all those books for my salvation without the living oracles. I should follow and obey the living oracles for my salvation instead of anything else. When I got through, Hyrum got up and made a confession for not including the living oracles.” (Woodruff Journals, Jan. 27, 1860)

This infallibility statement by Joseph F. Smith would later be touted by almost every Mormon Authority from Wilford Woodruff on, who mentioned it in one of his last discourses. Mormons would carry it to extremes, with the 1945 Ward Teachers message, which admonished the Saints:

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.” (Ward Teachers Message, June 1945)

This message was not well received by non-Mormons like Dr. J. Raymond Cope (of the Unitarian Society), who got a hold of it, and wrote to Heber J. Grant, prompting this response:

“I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts. The Lord Himself does not attempt coercion in His desire and effort to give peace and salvation to His children. He gives the principles of life and true progress, but leaves every person free to choose or to reject His teachings. This plan the Authorities of the Church try to follow.” (First Presidency Letter to J. Raymond Cope, December 7, 1945)

But the damage had been done, and this mindset has been with the latter day Saints ever since. Here is Harold B. Lee, reiterating this message over a hundred years later:

“I bear you my solemn witness that we have a living prophet, seer, and revelator. We are NOT DEPENDANT only upon the revelations given in the past...we have a mouthpiece to whom God is revealing his mind and will. God will never permit him to lead us astray. As has been said, God would remove us out of our place if we should attempt to do it. You have not concern. Let the management and government of God, then, be with the Lord. DO NOT TRY TO FIND FAULT with the management and affairs that pertain to him alone and by revelation through his prophet.” (Harold B. Lee, “The Place of the Living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” in Charge, p. 112)

Mormons deny these claims of prophetic infallibility, but the statements by their leaders show what is really taught in the Church. That is why they say the prophet CAN’T lead the Church astray (God would step in and ‘take’ him) and so one should ALWAYS sustain the leaders…For more on Joseph F. Smith and his views on Adam-God, see Note #66

7. As to this letter supposedly dictated by Wilford Woodruff, I have doubts that it actually was. If one reads Woodruff’s Journal entry for January 27, 1860, (at a meeting of the entire hierarchy of the Church) he records:

“President Young said Michael was a resurrected being and he left Eloheim and came to this earth and with an immortal body, continued so till he partook of earthly food and begot children who were mortal (keep this to yourselves); then they died.”

This is the essence of the Adam-god Doctrine, (note Adam [Michael] & Eloheim are SEPARATE PERSONS) and later, in the same meeting Woodruff records his own words to Orson Pratt (who they were censuring for not believing Young’s Adam-god among other things), about Young and his doctrines:

“Every man in this room who has a particle of the spirit of God, knows that President Young is a Prophet of God and that God sustains him and HE HAS THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THAT HIS DOCTRINES ARE TRUE, and that he is qualified to lead the people, and he has explained everything so plainly this evening that a child can understand it, and yet it is no evidence to you.”

This statement was sustained by the entire hierarchy of the Church who were present. (Not just the Twelve). It is hard to believe Woodruff would write that Young’s doctrines were “in no sense binding upon the Church nor upon the consciences of any of the members thereof . . . It is thought, even if there is truth in it, that the bare mention made by President Young, without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth, was unfortunate to say the least”.

This statement of having the Holy Spirit would be repeated again and again in relation to Young’s doctrines. Also, Joseph F. Smith is the one who commissioned James Talmage to write Jesus the Christ, which brought into the twentieth century the new teaching that Jesus was Jehovah.


8. http://www.mormonmiscellaneous.com/radi ... g/id6.html As for what Mormon Doctrine really is, this written by my friend Bill McKeever answers it well enough:

“Page 55 of the LDS Church manual entitled Gospel Principles reads, “In addition to these four books of scripture, the inspired words of our living prophets become scripture to us. Their words come to us through conferences, Church publications, and instructions to local priesthood leaders.”

Several leaders in the Mormon Church have emphatically stated that the living oracles carry even more weight than the standard works. Speaking in conference in 1916, LDS Apostle Orson Whitney said, “No book presides over this Church, and no book lies at its foundation. You cannot pile up books enough to take the place of God’s priesthood, inspired by the power of the Holy Ghost. That is the constitution of the Church of Christ…There is no book big enough or good enough to preside over this Church.”

According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, “Neither written scripture, nor natural theology, supercedes the ‘living oracles.’” In his “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” speech given in 1980, Ezra Taft Benson insisted that the “living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.”

Sticking solely to the standard works is inconsistent for several important reasons:

1. Most revelations by LDS prophets never get into the standard works.
2. Previously canonized doctrines have been reversed. For instance, Section 101 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) outlawed the practice of polygamy. In 1876, Section 101 was dropped and Section 132, which encouraged the practice of polygamy, was added.
3. The standard works “measuring rod” was ignored on at least two occasions in order to make doctrinal course corrections. They included the abandonment of polygamy in 1890 (Section 132) and the lifting of the priesthood ban against those of African heritage in 1978 (Abraham 1:26).
4. Later leaders expunged teachings that were part of the canon. For instance, the “Lectures on Faith” were added to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. In 1921, the Lectures were deleted from the D&C.



D&C 68:2 states that in order for a speaker to give the church scripture, he must first be “moved by the Holy Ghost.” In 1954, J. Reuben Clark, a member of the LDS First Presidency, describes what this means: “We can tell when the speakers are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’ only when we ourselves are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost.’ In a way, this completely shifts the responsibility from them to us to determine when they so speak.’” You might ask your Mormon acquaintances if their feelings have ever deceived them. If so, how can this be a foolproof test? Moreover, if the average member actually has such a capability for determining truth, why are prophets even needed?

The Definers of Truth. The job of clarifying the position of the church has been entrusted to the Mormon prophet as well as to his two counselors. These three men compose the First Presidency. It is not the job of LDS lay members or employees at church-owned schools. Ezra Taft Benson stated, “Doctrinal interpretation is the province of the First Presidency. The Lord has given that stewardship to them by revelation. No [mere] teacher has the right to interpret doctrine for the members of the Church.”

When asked by Larry King to describe his role as the leader of a major religion, current LDS President Gordon Hinckley replied, “My role is to declare doctrine.” This thinking can be traced to Doctrine and Covenants 21:4. Speaking specifically of Joseph Smith, the commandment states that members are to “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me; for his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (emphasis added). President Harold B. Lee taught that this passage applied to LDS prophets in general and should not be limited to just the founder of Mormonism.

Lee also said, “We are not dependent only upon the revelations given in the past as contained in our standard works — as wonderful as they are — but we have a mouthpiece to whom God does reveal and is revealing His mind and will.” Page 21 of Teachings of the Living Prophets says, “Not every word they speak should be thought of as an official interpretation or pronouncement. However, their discourses to the Saints and their official writings should be considered products of their prophetic calling and should be heeded.”

Christians who ask Mormons to own up to what their leaders have said are often rebuffed with a comment made by Joseph Smith in 1843. Speaking to two members in a private conversation, he remarked, “A prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such.” All things being equal, however, this noncanonical comment really becomes no more authoritative than the quotes that the Mormon might be trying to sidestep. Some leaders have also insisted that it is wrong to “pit a dead prophet against a living prophet.” Common sense would dictate that if the LDS leaders were getting their truth from the same source — presumably God — this should not be a problem.

One would think that these men speak with some semblance of authority when they stand behind church pulpits or take the time to put their thoughts into writing. In light of the above quotes, it is appropriate for Christians to hold Mormons accountable for what their leaders have said. Should an individual Mormon disagree, you might politely ask why you should be compelled to trust in leaders whom even he doesn’t find to be fully reliable. (For references and more, see: http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thre ... 23&posts=1 )


9. One of the best attempted explanations for the Negro Doctrine in the Mormon Church was a letter written by the First Presidency in 1949, which states:

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is NOT A MATTER OF THE DECLARATION OF A POLICY but of DIRECT COMMANDMENT FROM THE LORD, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. THE PROPHETS OF THE LORD HAVE MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS as to the operation of the principle. President BRIGHAM YOUNG said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And WHEN ALL THE REST of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, THEN THAT CURSE WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SEED OF CAIN, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another DOCTRINE of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the CONDUCT OF SPIRITS in the premortal existence has some DETERMINING EFFECT upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood IS A HANDICAP SPIRITS ARE WILLING TO ASSUME in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is NO INJUSTICE WHATSOEVER involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency,

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark
David O. McKay

Smith himself never denied the Priesthood to the Negros, that was a DOCTRINE that originated with Brigham Young, just as Adam-god was. The Priesthood ban was a DOCTRINE originating with statements of Mormon Prophets, and like Adam-god, there was no ‘revelation’ from any prophet on this important DOCTRINE. Mormons who apply this formula (that a revelation was needed and the doctrine needed to be ‘submitted to Priesthood Councils’ and ‘ratified by the Church’) need only study the history of the Priesthood ban to know these are not necessary for a DOCTRINE to be taught and practiced in the Church. Also, they must study the history of polygamy which Smith practiced for many years without a revelation, in direct contradiction to accepted scriptures, and without the approval of the Church. Does the fact that the approval came later, make it right? Did that give Smith a license to deceive people that he was not practicing it and commit adultery? For other authoritative statements on the Priesthood Ban, see http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/ne ... m#Appendix (For what Mormon Doctrine is, see note #8)

10. Wilford Woodruff Journal (hereafter WWJ), April 9, 1852, LDS Archives. It is presently unknown what President Young may have taught privately about Adam-God at this early time, but his beliefs were apparently being embraced by other general authorities. Some of those we have access to are these: "President B. Young taught that Adam was the father of Jesus and the only God to us." Diary of Hosea Stout, vol. 2, p. 435 (April 9, 1852) “Adam brought animals and seeds to this earth from a different planet.” –Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 244 (1860) “Adam is our Father and God, ... the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord." –Franklin D. Richards, Millennial Star, vol. 16, p. 534 (1854) “Orson Spencer upholds Brigham Young teaching on Adam God.” –William Clayton, Private Journal MSS (October 3, 1852) "Adam is our Father and God. He is the God of the earth. So says Brigham Young." –William Tullidge, Women of Mormondom, p. 179 (1877) “Before Adam fell he was a resurrected man.” "Biblical Cosmogony" article, Contributor, vol. 8, p. 218 (1886)

For some to say this teaching only got ‘bare mention’ in the Church is only a ploy to downgrade the importance of this teaching by Brigham Young.

11. August 28, 1852 discourse, reported in John Dehlin 6:274-75; also found in DN, September 18, 1852.(see note #4, for more information on how God “propagates [reproduces] his species in Spirit”)

12. David John Buerger, The Adam-God Doctrine, Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 1981, page 16. Note Young’s statement on this matter: “You will see the time when you will have millions of children around you. If you are faithful to your covenants, you will be mothers of nations, you will become Eves to earths like this; and when you have assisted in peopling one earth, there are millions of earths still in the course of creation.” (John Dehlin, Vol. 8, pg. 208) I wish to here thank Mr. Buerger for this article, which gave many references for this study that have proven to be invaluable. This article may be looked at as an expansion of Mr. Buerger’s study, which I have quoted from (text & notes) extensively. His entire article may be read here: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/docume ... SHOW=19915

13. WWJ September 17, 1854

14. WWJ January 6, 1856 Woodruff would also record the following: “Then the subject was brought up concerning Adam being made of the dust of the earth and Elder Orson Pratt pursued a course of stubbornness and unbelief in what President Young said. That will destroy him if he does not repent and turn from his evil way, for when any man crosses the track of a leader in Israel and tries to lead the prophet, he is no longer led by him but is in danger of falling.” (March 11, 1856)

15. "Minutes of the Meeting of the Council of the Twelve in Historian’s Upper Room," April 5, 1860, 10 a.m.

16. Hebrews 9:27

17. John Dehlin, vol. 13, p. 264; see also: "I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom...I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. The people have the oracles of God continually." Ibid, p. 95)

Young would then take this train of thought as far as he could with the Saints, by proclaiming: "I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason." (John Dehlin, vol. 16, p. 161).

No one dared speak out against Young, for his position was secure because of the chain of priesthood authority, and even Pratt fell in line, as noted by Woodruff in his Journals:

“I presented before the meeting the case of O. Pratt who did not believe in some of the teachings of President Young and thought President Young had reproved him unjustly. The subject was discussed at length by the Twelve and President Young. Much instruction was given at the close. Orson Pratt confessed his faults and said that he would never teach these principles again or speak them to any person on the earth. We all forgave him and voted to receive him into full fellowship.” (March 24, 1858)

But Pratt did not desist, prompting this comment about him by Young, that

“if he did not take a different course in his philosophy, he would not stay long in this Church.”

After the Jan 27th,1860 meeting Pratt went before the Saints in the Tabernacle and according to Woodruff:

“arose before his brethren and made a very humble full confession before the whole assembly for his opposition to President Young and his brethren, and he said he wished all the Church was present to hear it. He quoted Joseph Smith's revelation to prove that President Brigham Young was right and that all were under obligation to follow the leader of the Church. I never heard Orson Pratt speak better or more to the satisfaction of the people, than on this occasion.” (WWJ, January 29, 1860)

Perhaps seeing the controversy of his doctrines, Young made this remark about a week later as again recorded by Woodruff:

“President Young said I corrected O. Pratt today. I did not say to him that God would increase to all eternity. But I said the moment that we say that God knows all things, COMPREHENDS ALL THINGS and has a fulness of all that he ever will attain, that moment ETERNITY CEASES. You put bounds to eternity, space and matter, and you make an end and stopping place to it. The people or many say they cannot understand the things. This is true. No man can understand the things of eternity; and Brother Pratt and all men should let the matter of the gods alone. I do not understand these things. Neither does any man in the flesh, and we should let them alone.” (March 4, 1860)

But Young would not let the matter alone, but he would thereafter be much more careful in his public statements about Adam-god, though he never stopped teaching it in private. But though Young would die before Pratt, he did have his revenge on Pratt, by reorganizing the Quorum of the Twelve and putting Pratt below John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff, thus keeping him from ever becoming President of the Church.

18. William Clayton Journal, October 3, 1852, LDS Archives. Orson Pratt's beliefs are further detailed in the Thomas Evans Jeremy Journal (LDS Archives), entry for September 30, 1852: "He also said that he believed that Jesus Christ and Adam are brothers in the Spirit, and that Adam is not the God that he is praying unto." It is interesting that this is the CURRENT DOCTRINE taught by the LDS Church, which Brigham Young called FALSE DOCTRINE.

19. Buerger, The Adam-God Doctrine, page 17.

20. See note #6.

[21]. Latter-day Saints' Millennial Star, Liverpool (hereafter cited as LDSMS), vol. XV (November 26,1853), no. 48, pp. 769-70. The caption under the title stated "(From the Journal of Discourses)." This same excerpt appeared in the Church's Australian publication, The Zion's Watchman (Sidney), vol. 1 (September 16, 1854), nos. 18-19, pp. 137-39, with a supportive discourse printed on pages 139-44 by Elder John Jones.

[22]. LDSMS, vol. XV (December 3, 1853), no. 49, p. 780.

[23]. LDSMS, vol. XV (December 10, 1853), no. 50, pp. 801-04.

[24]. LDSMS, vol. XV (December 17, 1853), no. 51, p. 825.

[25]. See Note #6. Those present at that meeting according to Woodruff: “Minutes of a meeting of the Presidency and Twelve, Presidents of Seventies and others assembled in President Young's Council Room at 6 o'clock. There were present--President Young, President Kimball, (D. H. Wells sick), all of the Twelve except A. Lyman and G. A. Smith, who were sick, the Presidency of the Seventies, Bishop Hunter and many others.” (WWJ Jan 27, 1860)

Young would say in this meeting: “Moses said to Israel, I am a god to you. Joseph said to us, I am a god to you. This was true and upon the same principles, I am a god to this people and so is any man who is appointed to lead Israel or the Kingdom of God. If the people reject him, they reject the one who sent him”

Woodruff also made these pertinent comments:

“It is our privilege so to live as to have the spirit of God to bear record of the truth of any revelation that comes from God through the mouth of his prophet who leads his people and it has ever been a key with me that when the Prophet who leads presents a doctrine or principle OR says thus saith the Lord, I make it a policy to receive it even if it comes in contact with my tradition or views, being well satisfied that the Lord would reveal the truth unto His prophet whom He has called to lead His church before He would unto me, and the word of the Lord through the prophet is the END OF THE LAW unto me.”

Woodruff also noted many who agreed with Young, Woodruff’s assessment of him, and Young’s doctrines:

“O. Hyde and Joseph Young both backed me [Woodruff] up.” Erastus Snow said President Young has put words in my mouth so that I can convey what I want. We are apt to say many things which we do not mean and we injure ourselves. I cannot see things in the same light that Orson Pratt does, but when President Young has taught doctrine, it has always tasted good to me. I do not wish to know any more than God wishes me to.” E. T. Benson said, “I know it is my duty to sustain the president of this Church. If I do not respect the President of this Church and believe his word and I set myself up against him, I am under condemnation. I would as leave cut off my right hand. If he speaks to us, we must believe him and obey him. I mean to do it.” “Elder John Taylor spoke at some length and tried to convince Orson Pratt of his error.” “A. Carrington spoke upon the subject a short time and made some useful remarks.” “President H.C. Kimball followed President Young and said Brother Orson Pratt has withstood Joseph and he has withstood Brother Brigham many times, and he has done it tonight and it made my blood chill. It is not for you to lead, but to be led by him. You have not the power to dictate but to be dictated to.” “Erastus Snow followed and backed up the testimony of those who had spoken.” “Orson Hyde spoke upon the subject and said Brother Pratt had not got the spirit of God.” ‘He was followed by C. C. Rich who backed up the testimony of the Twelve in saying that Orson Pratt was wrong.” “E. T. Benson spoke upon the same subject and said if Brother Pratt had the confidence in President Young which he ought to have, he would feel different. If he had the confidence in his brethren which he should have, I know he would feel different.”

One should here note that all the hierarchy of the Church sustained Young and ALL his doctrines in this meeting. In relation to Adam-god, this speaks volumes, because since Spencer Kimball has declared it false doctrine, then every leader in the Church in 1860 (except Orson Pratt) also believed false doctrine and blindly followed a false prophet. It is also important to note that even though Young stated he was a ‘god’ to his people and spoke for God, he, and Smith were not to be worshipped:

“I will tell you the God which you and I worship is a Being that was on an earth like this. He has been clothed in mortality the same as we have been and he has had devils to fight the same as we have had, but I do not expect they were the same devils that we have. That God says I am your God and there is none else. Let us worship Him and none else. He is the God that we have. No matter what Gods Enoch saw when the heavens were opened unto him, if the God he saw had been exalted millions of years before our God was, he also had to occupy an earth like ourselves and we shall find it out at some period and this is all the mystery there is about it. If we are faithful, we in our turn shall be exalted and become Gods and there will be no mystery about it when we understand it.”

This doctrine was again sustained in 1873. As David John Bureger states: “It was also in this meeting that Daniel Wells called for, and received the ringing endorsements of Brigham's teachings quoted above. Given this context there can be no question about what was understood to be under discussion by those in attendance.” (Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, entry for June 9, 1873.) Notably, "Prest. Young queried wither the brethren thought he was too liberal in launching out on this doctrine before the Gentiles.") - Quoted from The Adam God Doctrine, page 32 & Note #68

[26]. Discourse, February 19, 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives. Young claimed that he addressed this issue "a year ago last conference" which would have been October 1853. His recollection of the remarks given, however, are identical with those given during his April 9, 1852, discourse and are born out by Woodruff’s Journal entry for that day. Woodruff attended Young's February 9, 1854 sermon and recorded in his diary on the same date: "He [Brigham Young] said that our God was Father Adam He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ—Our God was no more or less than ADAM, Michael the Arkangel."

[27]. Discourse, February 5, 1852, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.

[28]. January 12, 1862, discourse, reported in John Dehlin 9:148; also cf. Young's remarks on February 8,
1857, reported in John Dehlin 4:215-19. In their attempt to prove that Young taught the same hierarchy of God’s that the Church teaches today, several church apologists have modified these key remarks by Young as found in John Dehlin 9:148; cf. this passage in John A. Widtsoe, comp., Discourses of Brigham Young (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1925), p. 159 [or p. 104 of the 1973 ed.]. This error was further promulgated by Joseph Fielding Smith in Answers to Gospel Questions (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1966), vol. 5, pp. 121-128, excerpted in the 1972-73 Melchizedek Priesthood manual bearing the same title (Salt Lake City: The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1972), pp. 20-22; and by Mark E. Petersen, op. cit., pp. 15-16.

[29]. Smith's most direct sermons on this subject were given just before his death on April 7,
1844 (the "King Follett Discourse") and June 16,1844 (Concerning the Plurality of Gods) See Note #30.

[30]. Some difficulty exists among Mormons in specifying the precise identity of "Elohim" when discussed by early church authorities, given that Joseph Smith (and others) identified Elohim as a title denoting "many gods" (see, Joseph Smith, Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Period I, 7 vols., B. H. Roberts (ed.), (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1973), vol. VI, pp. 475-76 (hereafter cited as HC). Smith noted the propensity of biblical scholars to identify Elohim as one god—he who created this earth, an interpretation still maintained by Christians: "Though ELOHIM is plural in form, it is understood in the singular sense." [emphasis in original] cf. Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, 1977), Micropaedia, vol. Ill, p. 863.

Smith taught that "[i]n the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation . . . . The word ELOHEIM ought to be in the plural all the way through—Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us . . . ." (HC, vol. VI, p. 47; emphasis in original) Smith also mentioned he got this idea from "the papyrus which is now in my house." This is borne out in Smith’s Book of Abraham (chapters 4 and 5) which describes the creation process as having been performed by "the gods."

A later interpretation by Young identified Adam as "the chief manager in that operation." (Discourse, April 20,1856, reported in John Dehlin 3:319; also cf. Heber C. Kimball's discourse, June 12, 1860, reported in John Dehlin 8:243-44)

This interpretation helped give credence to Young's belief of Adam's having been a god before his experiences upon this earth. If Young's belief was also held by Smith, the possibility that Smith was referring to Adam when he used the term "Elohim" is a consideration. The difficulty surrounding a precise definition for the term "Elohim" was addressed by the First Presidency in 1916 when they wrote, "'Elohim is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race." ("The Father and the Son," June 30, 1916; cited in James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971), vol. V, pp 23-24 [ hereafter cited as MFP]

When compared with Young's sermons on Adam-God, it is apparent that Brigham would probably have replaced "Elohim" in the 1916 statement with "Adam"; however, he would not have equated Adam with Elohim, for Young clearly saw them as two separate personages, as his remarks on April 9, 1852 bear out:

"It is true that the earth was organized by three distinct characters, namely Eloheim, Yahovah, and Michael, these three forming a quorum . . . perfectly represented in the Deity as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." (reported in John Dehlin 1:51)

As for Smith teaching the doctrine of God the Father being Adam, Woodruff in his Journals quotes Young as saying: “At meeting of School of the Prophets: President Young said Adam was Michael, the Archangel, and he was the Father of Jesus Christ and was our God and that Joseph taught this principle.” (WWJ, December 16, 1867)

[31]. Brigham Young, as reported in the Joseph F. Smith Journal, entry for June 17, 1871 (LDS
Archives).

[32]. Joseph F. Smith would certainly have been familiar with this quote from the Deseret News:
“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and WHICH GOD REVEALED TO ME “ namely that Adam is our father and God “ I do not know, I do not inquire, I care nothing about it.” Deseret News, Vol. 22, no. 308, June 18, 1873. Smith was a counselor to Young from 1866 until Young’s death in 1877, and as such would have been thoroughly familiar with all of Young’s teachings. Here is Woodruff’s Journal entry on this ordination:

July 1, 1866: At the close of the meeting I met at the Prayer Circle with President Young, John Taylor, W. Woodruff, G. A. Smith, G. Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith. John Taylor prayed and President Young was mouth. At the close of the prayer, President Young arose from his knees, took off his
apron with the intention of undressing. Of a sudden, he stopped and exclaimed, hold on. Shall I do as I feel led? I always felt well to do as the spirit constrains me. It is my mind to ordain Brother Joseph F. Smith to the Apostleship, and to be one of my counselors. He then called upon each one of us for an expression of our feelings, and we individually responded that it met our hearty approval. We then offered up the signs of the Priesthood, after which Brother Joseph F. Smith knelt upon the altar and taking off his cap, we laid our hands upon him, Brother Brigham being mouth, and we repeated after him in the usual form. He said, Brother Joseph F. Smith, we lay our hands upon your head in the name of Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood we
ordain you to be an Apostle in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to be a special witness to the nations of the earth. We seal upon your head all the authority, power and keys of this Holy Apostleship and we ordain you to be a counselor unto the First Presidency of the Church and\ Kingdom of God upon the earth. These blessings we seal upon you in the name of
Jesus Christ and by the authority of the Holy Priesthood, Amen. After the ordination, Brother Brigham said this is the first time that any person has been ordained in this manner, and though right, I do not wish in recording it that it should be written in a way to lead others to think that this mode is essential or the only way in which such ordination can be performed. He suggested to us that it would be wisdom for us to keep the fact of this ordination to ourselves, but to be sure to record it. * * * After we had finished upstairs, we descended to the Historian's Office and wrote this statement which we signed at 20 minutes past 6 o'clock of the afternoon of Sunday, July 1, 1866. John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, and G. Q. Cannon.

[33]. Mormon doctrine from the early Church always taught Jehovah was God the Father. See, The Times and Seasons: "We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father." (15 November 1841, page 578.) Young's declaration of "Jehovah" being the "Father" of Adam and that "Jehovah" was also the creator of Adam, contradicts today's Mormon belief that Jehovah is Jesus Christ (cf. D & C 110:1-3; also 109:34, 42, 56, 68; 128:9; and James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ: A Study of the Messiah and His Mission according to Holy Scriptures both Ancient and Modern [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1971 ed.], pp. 36-38), and that both Jesus Christ and Adam were created by Elohim, their common Father in Heaven. The doctrine of Jehovah being Jesus Christ was not introduced into the Church until after Young’s death.

In connection with these ideas, Smith began to use the title Elohim as the proper name for the head god who presided at the creation of the world. He also taught that Elohim in the creation accounts of Genesis should be understood in a plural sense as referring to the council of the gods, who, under the direction of the head god, organized the heaven and the earth. Once the earth had been organized, "the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us." From the context of Smith’s discussions of this head god, it is apparent that Smith considered this being to be a patriarchal superior to the father of Jesus.

The gods involved in the creation were designated in Joseph's temple endowment ceremony as Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. Smith had previously identified Michael as "Adam the ancient of days" (D&C 27:11) The head god [Elohim] was the Grandfather god, [Jehovah] was god the Father, & Michael was Adam. Brigham Young would expound on this further claiming Adam was the Father-god, [or Michael] & Jehovah was the grandfather god, Elohim the great-grandfather god, with Jesus the Son of Adam, (not a spirit brother) claiming Smith taught this. When one understands that Jesus was never considered to be Jehovah by the early Church, it shows how easily Young could come to the conclusion that he did. As Young would put it years later about who was the father of Jesus:

“Who did beget him? His Father; and his Father is our God, and the Father of our spirits, and he is the framer of the body, the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Who is he? He is Father Adam; Michael; the Ancient of Days." (Discourse by Brigham Young, 19 February 1854, Brigham Young Collection, Library-Archives, Historical Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

Young also taught that God the Father (Adam) was the great I Am, NOT Jesus:

“We begin with the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of our spirits-who is he?... [He is] that great and wise and glorious being that the children of Israel were afraid of, whose countenance shown so that they could not look upon him... that man [who] put his hands out before Moses in the cleft of rock until his glory passed by and would not suffer Moses to see his face but his parts only... I tell you this as my belief about the personage who is called the Ancient of Days, the Prince, and so on.” (Journal of Discourses, 9:286; 327)

Even though not all of the Church accepted Young’s doctrine of Adam as the Father of Jesus, the leadership still taught that The Father was Jehovah.

John Taylor consistently did so in numerous sermons, as well as in his book, The Mediation and Atonement, which he wrote as President of the Church. The following hymn, written by Taylor, clearly identifies Jehovah as the Father:

“As in the heavens they all agree
The record's given there by three,
Jehovah, God the Father's one,
Another His Eternal Son,
The Spirit does with them agree,
The witnesses in heaven are three.”

In some 256 references to Elohim and Jehovah and the God of the Old Testament, in the Journal of Discourses (representing sermons of many of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve), the title Jehovah is only specifically applied to Jesus once. This occurred in 1885, when the new doctrine identifying Jesus as Jehovah was just beginning to be developed.

In August of 1885, Franklin D. Richards made the leap from merely considering Jesus to be Jehovah's representative (and thus worthy of the latter's title) to the position that Jesus' premortal name was Jehovah:

"We learn that our Savior was born of a woman, and He was named Jesus the Christ. His name when He was a spiritual being, during the first half of the existence of the earth, before He was made flesh and blood, was Jehovah... He was the spirit being that directed, governed, and gave the law on Mount Sinai, where Moses was permitted to see Him in part." (Journal of Discourses, 26:300)

That this was a new idea is indicated by the fact that just four months prior to this sermon, this same Apostle spoke of Jehovah as the Father.(Journal of Discourses, 26:132)

In 1896, Edward Stevenson, one of the Seven Presidents of Seventy, had "a deep talk" with President Lorenzo Snow about the Adam-God doctrine. Afterwards, Stevenson wrote in his diary concerning the temple creation gods:

"Certainly Heloheim and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim, 2nd Jehovah, 3rd Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come.... Then Who is Jehovah? The only begotten [sic] Son of Heloheim on Jehovah's world." (Diary, 3-3-1896)

This reference clearly distinguishes between the Jehovah who presided over Michael at the creation and Jesus. Unfortunately this distinction was not clearly made by General Authorities who were publicly promoting the idea that Jesus was the Jehovah-god of the Old Testament.” (From Johnny Stephenson’s The Evolution of the Mormon Gods)

Many Mormons get confused with all the title swapping going on in relation to these gods. A careful reading of Smith & Young’s sermons is advised when dealing with these name titles.

[34]. Remarks given on June 26, 1854, reported in LDSMS, vol. XVI (August 5, 1854), no. 31, p. 482.

[35]. Remarks given on June 26, 1854, ibid., p. 483.

[36]. Remarks given on June 28, 1854, LDSMS, vol XVI (August 26, 1854), no. 34, p. 530

[37]. Remarks given on June 28, 1854, ibid., pp. 534-35.

[38]. WWJ, September 17, 1854. Young and Pratt had another discussion on October 1, 1854 where Young explained "about Adam begetting Christ after he had received his exaltation & that all have got to become Adams upon some Earth—or other." (Historian's Office Journal, same date, vol. 17, p. 148, LDS Archives) This underlying theme, that these doctrines were had by revelation, would be espoused by Young throughout his life.

[39]. DN, October 12, 1854.

[40]. WWJ, October 8, 1854. Woodruff noted that J. D. Watt and himself recorded the conference
minutes. Young's preliminary remarks suggest that this speech was given in response to Orson
Pratt's objections to the Adam-god doctrine.

[41]. Discourse, October 8, 1854, Brigham Young Papers, LDS Archives. Young followed his
"text" (paraphrased from the Bible, I Corinthians viii, 5-6) with some remarks about his disbelief in the biblical story of Adam's creation, which became clearer from some remarks made one year later when Young stated that he had "not read the Bible for many years," partly due to a professed lack of time. After citing a passage from the Bible, Young said:

"I feel inclined here to make a little scripture. . . . [W]ere I under the necessity of making scripture extensively I should get Bro. Heber C. Kimball to make it, and then I would quote it. I have seen him do this when any of the Elders have been pressed by their opponents, and were a little at a loss; he would make a scripture for them to suite the case, that never was in the Bible, though none the less true, and make their opponents swallow it as the words of an apostle, or [one] of the prophets. The Elder would then say, 'Please turn to that scripture, (gentlemen) and read it for yourselves.' No, they could not turn to it but they recollected it like the devil for fear of being caught. I will venture to make a little." (Discourse,
October 8, 1854, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives)

It is noteworthy that this sermon constituted one of Young's most forceful statements on Adam-God. As Young explained, what mattered was that his words were given by the power of Holy Ghost. Again, this was a frequent theme during his administration as president of the church.

The gist of Young's speech is also to be found in the John Pulsipher Papers, October 8, 1854, LDS Archives. Young claimed in this sermon that Adam physically died after his passage on this earth was completed (cf. D & C 107:53 and Moses 6:12); twenty-four years later he taught that Adam did not die, but that he was translated (cf. L. John Nuttall Journal, February 7, 1877, Lee Library [hereafter cited as Nuttall Journal]).

Joseph Smith though, taught that Adam was now a "just man made perfect"—i.e., a ministering servant to those previously sealed to eternal life, or a ministering SPIRIT. (HC, vol. VI, pp. 51-52; and Times & Seasons (Nauvoo, Illinois: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1839-46), vol. IV (September 15, 1843), no. 21, pp. 331-32.)

[42]. Joseph Lee Robinson Diary, entry dated "Oct. 6th." [Young's sermon was on the 8th], p.
62, Lee Library (typescript); also cf. Journal of Thomas D. Brown, Southern Indian Mission, pp.
88-89, LDS Archives. Many, like Heber C. Kimball would record in their Journals “The Lord told me that Jesus Christ was the Son of Adam.” -Journal of Heber C. Kimball, Vol.20, pg. 17 April 10, 1852 And again, “The Lord told me that Adam was my father and that he was the God and father of all of the inhabitants of this Earth.” – Journal of Heber C. Kimball [April 30, 1862] affirming that they knew the doctrine was true by direct revelation.

[43]. Samuel W. Richards Journal, March 25, 1855, pp. 7-8, Lee Library (typescript).

[44]. LDSMS, vol. XVII (March 31, 1855), no. 13, pp. 194-95; also cf. vol. XVII (December 15,
1855), no. 50, p. 787. As noted, Franklin D. Richards supported Young's Adam-God doctrine. In
1856, the British LDS hymnal (Sacred Hymns and Spiritual Songs, for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Europe [11th edition, Liverpool: F. D. Richards, 1856] contained a hymn (No. 306, p. 375) which defined the godhead as consisting of Adam, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. This hymn did not appear in later editions of the hymnal, nor does any record exist of its publication in any American LDS hymnals.

[45]. Discourse, recorded by Thomas Bullock, April 25, 1855, LDS Archives

[46]. WWJ May 6, 1855

[47]. Discourse, February 8, 1857, reported in John Dehlin 4:215-19; cf. Heber C. Kimball's approving
remarks in ibid., p. 222.

[48]. Discourse, October 7, 1857, reported in John Dehlin 5:331-32.

[49]. Buerger, The Adam-God Doctrine, page 24. His footnote reads as follows: Discourse, October 9, 1859, reported in John Dehlin 7:285-86, 290. It is perhaps significant that during this same period, the First Presidency (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball and Daniel H. Wells) issued a statement which specifically singled out Orson Pratt's teachings in The Seer (Washington, D.C.), that man was literally created out of the earth's dust (e.g., pp. 70, 275-79), stating: "With regard to the quotations and comments in the Seer as to Adam's having been formed 'out of the ground' and 'from the dust of the ground,' &c, it is deemed wisest to let that subject remain without further explanation at present; for it is written that we are to receive 'line upon line,' according to our faith and capacities, and the circumstances attending our progress." January 29, I860, cited in MFP, vol. II, p. 222)

[50]. WWJ, January 27, 1860. See Note # 24. As for Adam dying, Young made many contradictory statements about this topic. His last known reference to this was recorded by L. John Nuttall in his Diary: , “for when Adam and Eve got through with their work in this earth, THEY DID NOT LAY THEIR BODIES DOWN IN THE DUST, but returned to the spirit world from whence they came.” As for being ‘redeemed by Jesus Christ’, they would have no need of it, for Young claimed both Adam & Eve were divine in their own right and Adam had the power to resurrect (or translate) himself. (See Note #41)

[51]. Pratt's remarks of April 4 and 5, 1860 clearly have reference to D & C 29:42: "But, behold, I say unto you that I, the Lord God, gave unto Adam and unto his seed, that they should not die as to the temporal death, until I, the Lord God, should send forth angels to declare unto them repentance and redemption, through faith on the name of mine Only Begotten Son." This revelation, announced by the Prophet Joseph in September 1830, was first published in the Book of Commandments (Zion: W. W. Phelps & Co., 1833), Chapter XXIX; it was later republished in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (Kirtland, Ohio: F. G. Williams & Co.), Moses 5:4 reads: Adam and Eve "heard the voice of the Lord from the way toward the Garden of Eden, speaking unto them . . . ."

[52]. April 4, 1860, Miscellaneous Papers, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives. Young
apparently looked at himself as a protector of the Church from false doctrine, for in this same
meeting he said: "It is my duty to see that CORRECT DOCTRINE IS TAUGHT and to guard the church from ERROR, it is my calling." This was reiterated by Mark E. Peterson in a speech given in 1979. It is ironic that Peterson refutes Brigham Young’s doctrine on Adam-god. (See Note #113)

[53] The two other instances were on December 16, 1867 (WWJ, same date) and May 14, 1876
(Journal History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, same date, LDS Archives; cf. Journal of the Southern Utah Mission, same date, Lee Library.) Also cf. Brigham's discourse of September 25, 1870, reported in John Dehlin 13:249-50; and his sermon of June 8, 1873, reported in the DN, June 18, 1873, pp. 308-09

[54]. D & C 27:11. Although the preface in today's version states that this part of the revelation was received by Smith in September 1830, it did not appear in the revelation as it was first published in either the Book of Commandments (Chapter XXVIII) or in The Evening and the Morning Star, vol. I (March 1833), no. 10; both of these were dated September 4, 1830, and both had identical texts. The added text which constitutes verse 11 in today's version was first published in the 1835 D & C (Section L). Smith may not have first taught this principle until late 1833, for in a letter from Oliver Cowdery to John Whitmer, dated January 1, 1834 in Kirtland, he explained "Since I came down I have been informed from a proper source that the Angel Michael is no less than our father Adam, and Gabriel is Noah." (Oliver Cowdery Letterbook, Henry E. Huntington Library, San Marino, California); also cf. his statement in the Evening and Morning Star, vol. 2 (May 1834), no. 20, p. 308.

It is significant to note that in Smith’s 1836 "Vision of the Celestial Kingdom," he claimed to have seen "Father Adam and Abraham AND MICHAEL and my father and my mother, [and] my brother Alvin. . . ." (Joseph Smith Diary, January 21, 1836, LDS Archives.) Smith’s vision was canonized by the Church on April 3, 1976. The original "Manuscript History of the Church," Book B-l, p. 695 (LDS Archives) recorded the vision as found in Smith's diary; but they deleted the reference too Michael when they first published it in the Deseret News on September 4, 1852. The canonized version (now D & C 137) also omits the Michael reference; cf. HC, vol. II, pp. 380-81; and T. B. H. Stenhouse, The Rocky Mountain Saints (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1873), pp. 63-64.

One explanation for the 1836 account is Smith's possible role in originating the use of "Adam" (and "Eve") as a name title—in this case "Father Adam" and "Michael (Adam)" being two different personages. (Cf. Moses 1:34 and 4:26) It is significant that Brigham Young is reported to have said in 1845 in the Nauvoo Temple that "[i]n the first place the name of man is given, a new name, Adam, signifying the first man,—or Eve, the first Woman— Adam's name was more ancient than he was—It was the name of a man long before him, who enjoyed the priesthood. . . . After his fall, another name was give [sic] to Adam." (Heber C. Kimball Journal, No. 93, November 21, 1845 to January 7, 1846, entry for December 27, 1845, LDS Archives) Young would later elaborate: " . . . we are all father Adams. . . . I want to stop your calling me father Young, in the Priesthood, the term properly applies to father Adam, & to our father in heaven." (Willard Richards Journal, entry for February 16,1847, LDS Archives)

Since Smith was obviously revising his views on who Adam was, Young’s claims may be logically looked at as an extension of that revision. Both men claimed to have continuous ‘revelation’, and both had no problems revising older revelations to meet up with newer ideas and doctrine. This is a big point of contention to those who believe in an orderly God, who believe that God would have no need to revise his own revelations after the fact. Many Mormons though, take a line upon line, precept upon precept stance, and have no problem with a prophet going back and changing important revelations after the fact, or even of omitting things that are seemingly out of harmony with newer revelations. With that in mind, it makes it hard for some to accept divine inspiration in these matters; to some it reeks of deception.

[55]. . Discourse, before August 8, 1839, recorded in the Willard Richards Pocket Companion, as
cited in HC, vol. Ill, pp. 385-87. According to Orson Hyde's "A Diagram of the Kingdom of God," (LDSMS, vol. 9 [January 15, 1847], pp. 23-24) the doctrine of patriarchal order principally defined the future structural order within the highest degree of the celestial kingdom. With Adam at the head of the human family, other families would be sealed in "patriarchal order" to their priesthood leader (now understood to be the immediate father), with he being sealed to his priesthood leader in succession to Adam. Adam in turn would be sealed to Jesus Christ who would then be sealed to the Father. LDS theology maintains that all of these participating sealed priesthood leaders would, with their wives, be gods capable of their own eternal increase.

[56]. For a complete discussion on this see: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech3.htm

[57]. April 5,1860, Miscellaneous Papers, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives. On October 7, 1869, however, Pratt taught that "[s]ome angels are Gods, and still possess the lower office called angels. Adam is called Archangel, yet he is a God." (reported in John Dehlin 13:187) This may be the only instance of Pratt teaching this doctrine.

[58]. Discourse, May 20, 1860, reported in DN, June 27,1860, pp. 129-30

[59]. . Discourse, October 8, 1861, manuscript entitled "A Few Words of Doctrine," Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives.

[60]. Discourse, July 8, 1863, reported in John Dehlin:10:230-31.

[61]. Discourse, November 13, 1863, reported in John Dehlin 13:308-09

[62]. Discourse, April 17, 1870, reported in John Dehlin 13:311.

[63]. Why did Smith deny he was practicing polygamy? Here is the Illinois law that Smith was breaking by doing so:

"Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have occurred." - Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99

The fact that polygamy was illegal is the very reason Joseph Smith and his followers practiced it in secret, and steadfastly denied teaching or practicing polygamy when accused of it or when asked about it.

In fact, the 1835 edition of the "Doctrine and Covenants," which was the official edition during the Prophet Joseph Smith's church administration, specifically prohibited the practice of polygamy: Doctrine and Covenants Section 101, Verse 4 (1835 edition):

"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy; we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife; and one woman but one husband; except that in the event of death when either is at liberty to marry again." (History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247)

Joseph Smith himself affirmed monogamy to be the only form of marriage permissible in his church in the church's official 1838 publication:

"Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one? No, not at the same time. But they believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry again.” - May 1, 1838, -"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith", p. 119.

Smith had claimed Fanny Alger and Lucinda Harris as wives by that date, so he was absolutely lying. Smith was indicted on charges of polygamy and adultery on May 23, 1844: "The marriage to the Lawrence sisters became public knowledge when William Law, Joseph's second counselor in the First Presidency, became alienated from the Prophet. Law, who had known the Lawrence family since their conversion in Canada, chose the marriage of Smith and Maria Lawrence as a test case with which to prosecute Smith for adultery. On May 23 he filed suit against the Mormon leader in Hancock Count Circuit Court, at Carthage, charging that Smith had been living with Maria Lawrence 'in an open state of adultery' from October 12, 1843, to the day of the suit."

In response to these charges, on Sunday, May 26, 1844 Smith proclaimed:

“What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience…”

Smith had many more wives by this time, as many as 35. Although most Nauvoo-era polygamists were leaders, some others just happened to be in Joseph Smith's circle of people whom he thought would go along with the illegal, immoral practice. And what brought on the above lawsuit? As William Law said in his 1887 interview with Dr. W. Wyl:

"In what manner would Joseph succeed to keep you and others from knowing what was going on behind the curtain?"

"Marks, Yves, I and some others had, for a long time, no idea of the depravity that was going on. This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother." -Interview with Walmart. Law. March. 30, 1887, published in the Salt Lake Tribune

Since polygamy was illegal in Illinois, and directly contradicted LDS policy, those who accepted Smith's secret, illegal, immoral practice (such as Young and Kimball) were of an immoral or criminal bent. But Law, Marks, and others---the honest, moral men who opposed polygamy--- are ironically viewed today as "sinners" by many Mormons.

"Law, a prominent Nauvoo businessman, was solidly devoted to Smith until mid-1843. During the Bennett scandal, he quickly came to Smith's defense, reassuring the Saints that church leaders did not condone 'spiritual wifery' or any such behavior. Smith held his counselor in such high esteem that he
included him in the first small group of male initiates to the endowment ceremony in May 1842. And Law rendered much moral and financial support to a discouraged Smith when Missouri officials were attempting to extradite him on the Boggs case. "By early 1843, however, Law began to waver in his commitment to Smith. Initial difficulties between the two centered on business matters.....But a deeper source of the Laws' disaffection was their detestation of polygamy. In an 1887 interview William explained that Hyrum Smith had shown him the 'revelation on celestial marriage' in the fall of 1843. 'Hyrum gave it to me in his office,' Law said, and 'told me to take it home and read it'.....He and Jane 'were just turned upside down by it'.....William took the document directly to the prophet and commented that it was in contradiction to the Doctrine and Covenants. Smith noted that the section on marriage in the Doctrine and Covenants was 'given when the Church was in its infancy, when they were babes, and had to be fed on milk, but now they were strong and must have some meat. He seemed much disappointed in my not receiving the revelation,' William wrote. 'He was very anxious that I would accept the doctrine and sustain him in it. He used many arguments at various times in its favor." ("Mormon Polygamy: A History," Richard van Wagoner, pp. 64-65.)

Thus we see that Smith kept his own counselor in the First Presidency in the dark about polygamy, even allowing Law to naïvely file an 1842 affidavit swearing that Bennett, rather than Smith, was the originator of "spiritual wifery." And because Law opposed Smith's illegal, immoral, secret, contradictory polygamy practice, Smith assassinated his character and excommunicated him in absentia; and Law, the honest man in the case, has become the ‘bad guy’ to Mormons today.

The above passage also shows that Smith acknowledged the authority of the "Article on Marriage", as published in the 1835 D&C, but Smith treated it as "milk" doctrine that was to be replaced by the "meat" of polygamy. The fact that Smith acknowledged the efficacy of the "Article on Marriage" refutes the
fallacious assertion made by many Mormons that Smith did not approve of the "Article on Marriage," which specifically prohibited polygamy.

And that fact of history makes Smith's secret polygamy practice contradictory to "official” church doctrine. The argument that “no teaching or practice is "official" unless it is agreed on by the First Presidency and the Q12, and approved by the sustaining vote of the church members” is shown by Smith’s actions to be one of convenience. As can be read in the D&C: ".....neither shall anything be appointed unto any of this church contrary to the church covenants. For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church..." (D&C 28:12-13.) Smith's secret polygamy practice contradicted his own "revelations," and shows that using this argument in relation to Adam-god just doesn’t work.

Since neither Smith's polygamy practice, nor his "revelation on celestial marriage" were approved by the First Presidency or the Twelve, (or even known about by many of them), nor sustained by the church membership at any time during Smith's life, his secret teaching and practice of it ran directly against the principles of "common consent" that supposedly governs Mormon policy. At various times, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, and William Law were Joseph Smith's counselors in the First Presidency; and William Marks was the Nauvoo Stake and High Council President, which at that time, was the governing body of the church, rather than the Q12. Since all of those men were strongly against polygamy, Smith's secret polygamy practice ran counter to the laws and orders of the church which he himself established. Cowdery himself called Smith’s tryst with Fanny Alger ‘a dirty, nasty, filthy affair’. (Letter to Warren Cowdery, Jan 21, 1838) When Smith tried to have his "revelation on celestial marriage" sustained by the High Council on August 12, 1843, his attempt was defeated:

"In early 1843 Austin [Cowles]....played an important role when a storm of opposition confronted Joseph Smith in the summer. On July 16 Smith preached, denouncing internal traitors, and Willard Richards, writing to Brigham Young, guessed that the church president was referring to William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Parley P. Pratt. These men---the Nauvoo Stake President, his first counselor, and an eloquent apostle---would be a serious obstacle to Smith, despite his charismatic authority and ecclesiastical position, especially when one considers the dominance of central stake leadership in early Mormonism. Soon William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, would be another formidable opponent. Their opposition became public when Hyrum Smith read the revelation on polygamy, presently LDS Doctrine and Covenants 132, to the Nauvoo High Council on August 12. Three of the leading brethren opposed it: William Marks, Austin Cowles, and Leonard Soby. Considering the secrecy of polygamy, it is remarkable that Hyrum would announce it even to the high council. It is also
remarkable that Marks, Cowles, and Soby would openly reject it. This was a watershed moment in Latter-Day Saint history. "Undoubtedly Austin soon saw that he could not function as a church leader while he and Marks were opposing one of Joseph Smith's revelations so bluntly and completely. On September 12, according to the high council minutes, 'President Austin Cowles resigned his seat in the Council as Councilor to President Marks which was accepted by the Council.' Ebenezer Robinson later wrote that Austin 'was far more outspoken and energetic in his opposition to that doctrine [polygamy] than almost any other man in Nauvoo.' After resigning his presidency, he 'was looked upon as a seceder, and no longer held a prominent place in the Church, although morally and religiously speaking he was one of the best men in the place.'.....Toward the end of April 1844, the anti-polygamy dissenters began organizing a new church. William Law was appointed president and selected Austin Cowles as his first counselor. Not surprisingly, Austin was 'cut off' from the main LDS church for apostasy soon thereafter, on May 18. He then helped write the fateful first and only issue of the 'Nauvoo Expositor,' the paper which so infuriated Smith with its criticisms of him and public discussion of polygamy. It appeared on June 7, with an anti-polygamy affidavit by Cowles on the second page. The destruction of the 'Expositor' press, engineered by Smith, set off a chain of events that led to his martyrdom." ("In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith", pp. 549-550.)

The Nauvoo High Council's failure to sustain the "revelation on celestial marriage" should have brought an end to the practice, if the LDS Church operated according to its stated rules of order; but to the contrary, Smith retaliated against those who refused to sustain his heinous practice by having his pro-polygamous minions swear false accusations against them, assassinating their characters, and excommunicating them in absentia. These actions of Smith's show that the rule of "common consent" in the LDS Church is a sham, and that Joseph Smith alone held absolute power.

Perhaps these facts, undoubtedly well known to Brigham Young, were the reason for his caution about his controversial Adam-god doctrine. Concerning polygamy, many Church leaders would deny the practice and lie about it until it was formally accepted by the Church in 1852.

64. Bruce R. McConkie, Letter to B.Y.U. Professor Eugene England, February 19, 1981, Page 6.

65. Ibid, page 6. McConkie’s letter to Professor England is truly a work of great contradiction. Take the following:

“This puts me in mind of Paul's statement: "There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor. 11:19.) I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. We will be judged by what we believe among other things. If we believe false doctrine, we will be condemned. If that belief is on basic and fundamental things, it will lead us astray and we will lose our souls. This is why Nephi said: "And all those who preach false doctrines, . . . wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!: (2 Ne. 28:15.) This clearly means that 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.”

What is interesting, and so typical of Mormon ‘authorities’ is that McConkie states that ‘people who teach false doctrine in the fundamental and basic things will lose their souls.” And yet says that: “I am a great admirer of Brigham Young and a great believer in his doctrinal presentations. He was called of God. He was guided by the Holy Spirit in his teachings in general. He was a mighty prophet. He led Israel the way the Lord wanted his people led. He built on the foundation laid by the Prophet Joseph. He completed his work and has come on to eternal exaltation.”

McConkie also states, and this is still the current Mormon stance on those in authority: “It is axiomatic among us to know that God has given apostles and prophets "for the edifying of the body of Christ," and that their ministry is to see that "we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the slight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." (Eph. 4:11-16.) This means, among other things, that it is my province to teach to the Church what the doctrine is. It is your province to echo what I say or to remain silent. You do not have a divine commission to correct me or any of the Brethren. The Lord does not operate that way. If I lead the Church astray, that is my responsibility, but the fact still remains that I am the one appointed with all the rest involved so to do.” Read the whole letter here: http://mrm.org/bruce-mcconkies-rebuke-of-eugene-england

As for ‘heresies’, this is not what Paul meant. A correct reading of those verses is as follows: 17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval.” (1 Cor. 18) Paul was speaking of women who prayed with their head uncovered, a custom of that time he disapproved of; he was not speaking of false doctrine, or that it was ‘allowed’ to be taught in the Church.

[66]. December 16,1867. Young's comments were made only one week after he re-established the School's operation. Also cf. Brigham Young, discourse, November 30, 1862, Brigham Young Collection, LDS Archives; and WWJ, December 11, 1869, which reads: " ... the period will come when the people will be willing to adopt Joseph Smith as their Prophet, Seer and Revelator and God! But not the father of their spirits, for that was our father Adam" The LDS Journal History's entry (LDS Archives) for this last date is almost identical, except the words "for that was our Father Adam" have been handwritten and inserted above the typed version which omitted this phrase.

[67]. Minutes of the School of the Prophets, Provo, Utah, June 8,1868," LDS Archives (excerpted from a typescript copy located at the Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City).

[68]. Remarks given on October 15, 1870, Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, LDS
Archives. [Emphasis in original.] Apostle Orson Hyde was recorded three months later to have
taught to a Manti, Utah audience that "Adam is our God for this Planet (Earth)." (Cf. Jens Christian
Anderson Weiby Daybook, as well as his Diary entries for January 25, 1871, LDS Archives).

[69]. Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, entry for June 9, 1873, LDS Archives. These were all prominent men in the Church, and Joseph F. Smith would go on to become President of the Church in 1901. As for his remarks in the letter to A. Saxey, of 1897, it seems that Smith was not being entirely truthful. This was a great time of trial for Smith, for having gotten the public calmed down about polygamy, many were now focusing on the Adam-god teachings of Young, and the Church was desperately trying to distance itself from the implications of it, especially from the RLDS, who were attacking them at every turn. Smith, as one of Young’s counselors, absolutely knew that Young claimed Adam-god as ‘revelation’, and his comment that “the enunciation of that doctrine gave him great joy”, shows that Smith believed it, and accepted it as a revelation from God. Therefore, his letter to A. Saxey can be seen for what it is, a public response to a very controversial situation.

[70]. Remarks given on October 15, 1870, Joseph F. Smith Journal, LDS Archives.

[71]. Remarks given on June 9,1873, Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, LDS Archives.

[72]. T. B. H. Stenhouse, op. cit., p. 492. Stenhouse continued, "But of them all, one only, Orson
Pratt, has dared to make a public protest against that doctrine." The only other known statement
made by Young which suggests (but does not directly state) a tie-in of Adam-God to Joseph
Smith was made on June 8, 1873.

[73]. . Discourse, June 8, 1873, reported in DN, June 18, 1873, pp. 308-09. This is the only known
statement by Young where he directly claims that God revealed "that Adam is our father and
God" to him.

[74]. . Salt Lake School of the Prophets Minute Book, entry for June 9, 1873. Notably, "Prest. Young queried wither the brethren thought he was too liberal in launching out on this doctrine before the Gentiles.”

[75] Nuttall Journal, February 7, 1877, Nuttall was very taken with Young’s words and wrote, "I felt myself much blessed in being permitted to associate with such men and hear such instructions as they savored of life to me."

[76]. Edward Stevenson Diary, March 7,1880, LDS Archives. "Bp. Hess," in attendance, "said that he could endorse all that had been said although he did not understand all yet it made him feel good & like liveing his religion."

[77]. Stevenson Diary, March 4, 1882.

[78]. Abraham H. Cannon Journal, February 22, 1888, vol. 10, pp. 178-79, Lee Library. On Sunday, June 23, 1889, George Q. Cannon reitterated his beliefs to his son, Abraham, who recorded: "He believes that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and that Adam is His Father and our God[.]" (Abraham H. Cannon Journal, same date) Also cf. George Q. Cannon's speech published in May 1889, LDSMS, vol. 51, p. 278; as well as "The Origin of Man," LDSMS, vol. 23 (October 1861), no. 41,p. 654.

[79]. Edward Tullidge, Women of Mormondom, pg. 179-180

[80]. The talk was read in the Logan temple on June 2, 1888, and published in the Deseret News Weekly, December 29, 1888, pp. 19-27. See also Collected Discourses, Vol. 1, June 2, 1888

[81]. Brigham Young, Jr. Journal, entry for October 12,1897 (LDS Archives); also cf. his entry for
December 16, 1897 (cited below); Edward Stephenson Diary, entries for July 22, 1892, February 28, 1896 and March 3, 1896; Anthon H. Lund Journal, entry for October 13, 1897 (LDS Archives); and John Henry Smith Journal, entry for January 11, 1899 (University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah).

[82]. Thomas W. Brookbank, Contributor, Vol. 8, pg. 218 (1886) Thomas Brookbank was the author of numerous books and articles for Church publications, including Hebraisms in the Book of.Mormon.

[83]. Samuel O. Bennion, Liahona, The Elders Journal, Vol. 6, pg. 33 (June 27, 1908)

[84]. George Q. Cannon Journal, entry for January 17,1878, as cited in Joseph J. Cannon, "George Q. Cannon—Relations With Brigham Young," The Instructor, vol. 80 (June 1945), no. 6, p. 259; Cannon's journal entry was written just a few months after Brigham's death. A similar point was made in an 1892 meeting of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, this time with specific reference to the question of "whether Adam is our God or not." (Cf. Abraham H. Cannon Journal, entry for May 26, 1892) I find this fascinating, in the light of Cannon’s comments in a September 4, 1860 meeting as recorded by Wilford Woodruff in his Journal:

“Brother Cannon said there was a learned doctor that wanted to be baptized; he believed in this work but wanted to close up his business in New York City first. Said when he was baptized that he should lay aside his practice of medicine, as he believed the Lord had provided means for the healing of his Saints without the practice of medicine. He is satisfied that the doctrine of the plurality of God and that Adam is our Father IS A TRUE DOCTRINE REVEALED FROM GOD TO JOSEPH AND BRIGHAM; for this same doctrine is taught in some of the old Jewish records which have never been in print and I know Joseph Smith nor Brigham Young have had access to, AND THE LORD HAS REVEALED THIS DOCTRINE UNTO THEM or they COULD NOT HAVE TAUGHT IT. President Young said if all that God had revealed was in fine print, it would more than fill this room, but very little is written or printed which the Lord has revealed.”

[85]. Journal of Abraham H. Cannon, Vol. 11, pg. 39, Sunday, June 23, 1889

[86]. Discourse, April 7, 1895, reprinted in LDSMS, vol. 57, p. 355. Woodruff’s counsel apparently
did not extend to the private councils of the Church. Edward Stevenson wrote the following in March, 1896, that he had "more pleasure than usual with a deep talk with Pres. L. Snow on the subject"; others had discussions in October 1897 and January 1899, in addition to the December 1897 deliberations mentioned in the text. Stevenson’s observations on these discussion, which he wrote in his diary for February 28, 1896 are interesting: "Certainly Heloheim, and Jehovah stands before Adam, or else I am very much mistaken. Then 1st Heloheim 2d Jehovah, 3d Michael-Adam, 4th Jesus Christ, Our Elder Brother, in the other World from whence our spirits come. . . . Then Who is Jehovah? The only begoton Son of Heloheim on Jehovahs world." This idea of Adam being a Savior on HIS world also, was also advocated by Joseph E. Taylor, quoted in the text above. For the attacks on the Church during this period, see The True Latter-day Saints' Herald, vol. 1 (November I860), pp. 259-65; and vol. 1 (December 1860), pp. 269-73, 280-85. A few other anti-Mormon writings from this period are briefly examined in Rodney Turner, “The Doctrine of Godhood in the New Testament,” Principles of the Gospel in Practice (SLC: Randall Book Co., 1985).pp. 71-74.

[87]. Wilford Woodruff, John Dehlin:13:165

[88]. Buerger, op. cited, pg. 36-37. [Notes]: Also, Brigham Young, Jr. Journal, April 4, 1897-February 2, 1899, Vol 30:107, See also, Fresno Morning Republican, December 3, 1897; also cf. the following numbers of the Republican: October 30, 1897; November 10, 1897; November 12, 1897; November 16, 1897; November 19, 1897; and December 5, 1897. Also, Ephraim H. Nye to Franklin D. Richards, December 4, 1897, E. H. Nye Papers, Mission Letter Book, Lee Library. Also, Brigham Young, Jr. Journal, December 16, 1897, LDS Archives, and also: Franklin D. Richards to Ephraim H. Nye, December 18, 1897, Franklin D. Richards Letterbook, pp. 363-64, Richards Family Collection, LDS Archives. On March 8, 1898, Richards wrote Nye indicating that he and Joseph F. Smith had tried to get Nye's article reprinted in the Deseret News, but the News declined their request.

[89]. Discourse, November 28,1898, reported in Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1899), pp. 87-88. Cannon’s reference to ‘two personages’ in the godhead, can be found in the Lectures on Faith, written by Joseph Smith and still a part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921, when they were removed without a Church Vote.

[90]. Buerger, op. cited, page 38.

[91]. Charles W. Penrose to Quincy Anderson, February 17, 1900, published in the Deseret Evening News, March 21, 1900, p. 4.

[92]. Ibid.

[93]. Buerger, op. cited, page 39

[94]. "Our Father Adam," Improvement Era, vol. 5 (September 1902), no. 11, p. 873.

[95]. Edward Bunker, Jr. to Joseph F. Smith, Febuary 9, 1902, LDS Archives. Bunker was the son of Edward Bunker, Sr., who was rebuked by church presidents Woodruff and Cannon a decade earlier.

[96]. Joseph F. Smith to Edward Bunker, Jr., February 27, 1902, Joseph F. Smith Letter Books, pp. 26-27, LDS Archives

[97]. B. H. Roberts, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1903), pp. 42-43. On pp. 243-49, Notice Roberts careful crafted wording here. Roberts (correctly) cites a sermon by Joseph Smith which discussed Adam's stewardship UNDER Christ's; he also cited one sermon by Brigham Young which mentions Adam-God concepts (pp. 259-65). Roberts' comments in 1908 suggest that he did not believe Adam-god. (see his 70's course in Theology, vol. II, Salt Lake City: Skelton Publishing Co., 1908, pp. 230-32). Also, compare Roberts' 1902 comments with these made by Anthon H. Lund, then a member of the First Presidency: "Men had ridiculed the elders for believing that Adam was A God. We are not ashamed of this doctrine. Jesus said in speaking to the Jews in relation to Abraham, that they were Gods unto whom the word of God comes. But though we look upon Adam as A God, we worship the same God that Adam worshipped in the Garden of Eden." (LDSMS, vol. 64, [1902], p. 742) Once again, notice the carefully chosen words and how they subtlety CHANGE the position of Adam to A GOD. Roberts comments quoted here, (attributed to Young) that “Adam will THUS BE THE GOD of this world”, are total deception and clearly NOT what Young taught. Adam worshiped the ‘grandfather god’ Jehovah, who was not equated with Jesus until well after the time of Brigham Young. Though Adam-god does not fit in with Smith’s teachings as correctly postulated by Roberts, that is not the issue here. What is the issue, is that Young taught Adam was the God of this earth and that he was the father of all the spirits born here INCLUDING Jesus Christ. These men would become expert at denying Young taught this (or that he taught false doctrine), and would hand this rhetoric down to modern Mormon Apologists.

[98]. First Presidency Statement, Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anthon H. Lund, Improvement Era, vol. 13 (November 1909), no. 1, pp. 75-81 [esp. p. 80]. This statement was actually composed by Orson F. Whitney who wrote it at the request of the First Presidency.

[99]. Improvement Era, vol. 13 (April 1910), p. 570. Although not mentioned explicitly in this article, Smith apparently believed that Adam was BORN on this earth. On December 7, 1913, he testified to an audience of Church members at a Stake Conference held in Mesa, Arizona: "The Son, Jesus Christ, grew and developed into manhood the same as you or I, as likewise did God, his father grow and develop to the Supreme Being that he now is. Man was born of woman, Christ the Savior, was born of woman. Adam, our earthly parent, was also born of woman into this world, the same as Jesus and you and I." (reported in DN, December 27, 1913, Section 3, p. 7) This testimony was later printed during Heber J. Grant's presidency in DN, Church Section, September 19, 1936, pp. 2, 8. Young’s statements on this matter of ‘transplantation’, are perfectly clear, and one wonders why Smith did not acknowledge Young’s claim of ‘revelation’ on the matter, unless he just did not want to leave the door ajar in any way for Adam-god. The Scriptures were just as ‘unclear’ on the Priesthood Ban, supported only by statements of Young, and Smith had no problems with that doctrine. As F.W. Richards so aptly said in the Millennial Star fifty years earlier:” If we feel ourselves, or teach the Saints or the people generally, that we are only to believe that which can be PROVED FROM THE SCRIPTURES, WE SHALL NEVER KNOW MUCH OF THE LORD ourselves, no be able to teach the children of men to any very considerable extent.” This is exactly how the modern church is run today, in total contradiction to this statement.

[100]. First Presidency Statement, Joseph F. Smith, Anthon H. Lund and Charles W. Penrose,
January 31, 1912, Improvement Era, vol. 15 (March 1912), pp. 417-18; Also see. a frequently circulated letter from the First Presidency to President Samuel O. Bennion (president of the Central States mission for the church – remember his response in the Liahona from 1908?), February 20,1912, LDS Archives; cited in ‘Messages of the First Presidency’, vol. IV, pp. 266-67. The Bennion letter specifically addressed the question of Young's teaching in John Dehlin 1:50-51 (April 9, 1852) that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ; the argument given to negate this belief (obviously written by Penrose) implied that Young's statement had been misinterpreted. Once again, the First Presidency is strangely silent on any other sermons given by Young on Adam-god. Here is the letter in it’s entirety, showing the massive deception on the part of Penrose:

“Dear Brother:

Your question concerning Adam has not been answered before because of pressure of important business. We now respond briefly, but, we hope, plainly. You speak of "the assertion made by Brigham Young that Jesus was begotten of the Father in the flesh by our father Adam, and that Adam is the father of Jesus Christ and not the Holy Ghost," and you say that Elders are challenged by certain critics to prove this.

If you will carefully examine the sermon to which you refer, in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, you will discover that, while President Young denied that Jesus was "begotten of the Holy Ghost," he did not affirm, in so many words, that "Adam is the father of Jesus Christ in the flesh." He said, "Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden and who is our Father in Heaven. Who is our "Father in Heaven"? Here is what President Young said about him; "Our Father in heaven begat all the spirits that ever were or ever will be upon this earth and they were born spirits in the eternal world. Then the Lord by his power and wisdom organized the mortal tabernacle of man." Was He in the Garden of Eden? Surely He gave commandments to Adam and Eve; He was their Father in Heaven; they worshiped Him and taught their children after the fall to worship and obey Him in the name of the Son who was to come.

But President Young went on to show that our father Adam,-that is, our earthly father,-the progenitor of the race of man, stands at our head, being "Michael the Archangel, the Ancient of Days," and that he was not fashioned from earth like an adobe, but "begotten by his Father in Heaven." Adam is called in the Bible "the son of God" (Luke 3:38). It was our Father in Heaven who begat the spirit of him who was "the Firstborn" of all the spirits that come to this earth, and who was, also his Father by the Virgin Mary, making him "the only begotten in the flesh." Read Luke 1:26-35. Where is Jesus called "the only begotten of the Holy Ghost?" He is always singled out as "the only begotten of the Father." (John 1:14; 3:16, 18&c) The Holy Ghost came upon Mary, and her conception was under that influence, even of the spirit of life; our Father in Heaven was the Father of the Son of Mary, to whom the Savior prayed, as did our earthly father Adam.

When President Young asked, "who is the Father?" he was speaking of Adam as the father of our earthly bodies, who is at our head, as revealed in Doctrine and Covenants, Section 107, verses 53-56. In that sense he is one of the gods referred to in numerous scriptures, and particularly by Christ (John 10:34-36. He is the great Patriarch, the Ancient of Days, who will stand in his place as "a prince over us forever," and with whom we shall "have to do," as each family will have to do with its head, according to the holy patriarchal order. Our father, Adam, perfected and glorified as a God, will be the being who will carry out the behests of the great Elohim in relation to his posterity. (See Daniel 7:9-14.)

While, as Paul puts it, "there be gods many and Lords many (whether in heaven or in earth), unto us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints worships Him, and Him alone, who is the Father of Jesus Christ, whom He worshiped, whom Adam worshiped, and who is God the Eternal Father of us all.

Your brethren,

JOSEPH F. SMITH,
ANTHON H. LUND,
CHARLES W. PENROSE,

First Presidency.”

Unfortunately, (and I’m sure Bennion knew this) this letter does not address all the OTHER instances where Young taught Adam-god, and where he made the points they try to refute here perfectly clear. This letter is pure deception, as those who signed it were well aware. One wonders why they would send Bennion such a letter, knowing that he was well versed in Young’s teachings, unless it was only to show to others, who were more easily deceived. Regardless, I’m sure Bennion ‘followed his file leaders’, even though they were going in the opposite direction that Young had been going.

[101]. Thomas Clawson Journal, April 8, 1912, Utah State Historical Society; also cf. Anthony W. Ivins Journal, April 8, 1912, Utah State Historical Scoiety.

[102]. Discourse, reported in Conference Report of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [CR] (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1916), April 1916, pp. 16-17

[103]. Discourse, reported in CR, April 22, 1922, p. 23

[104]. . Heber J. Grant to Bishop Joseph H. Eldredge, February 26, 1931, LDS Archives; also in
MFP, vol. V, pp. 289-90

[105]. Deseret News, July 23,1921

[106]. . Improvement Era, vol. 48 (November 1938), no. 11, pp. 652, 690; also in Evidences and
Reconciliations (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1960), pp. 67-71.

[107]. Ibid.

[108]. Deseret News, Church News Section, April 15, 1939, pp. 1-6.

[109]. Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, op. cit., vol. V, p. 125; this "answer" was a verbatim copy of a letter from Smith to James D. Bales, November 7, 1942. Smith's arguments found in his Doctrines of Salvation (Bruce R. McConkie, comp., 3 vols. [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-56]), vol. I, pp. 90-106, were also taken from a letter to Bales, October 12, 1942; Other mid-twentieth-century commentary on Adam-God includes Milton R. Hunter's disputation of the transplantation of Adam belief (Provo Daily Herald, March 22, 1949) and Joseph Fielding Smith's espousal of it (Man, His Origin and Destiny [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1954], pp. 276-77; his Doctrines of Salvation, vol. I, pp. 139-40; also cf. Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 5, pp. 170-71; Bruce R. McConkie's Mormon Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1958), pp. 17-18; and Alvin R. Dyer's The Fallacy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1964), pp. 125-137. As for Adam dying, see Note #50.

[110]. David John Buerger states: . In correspondence with Elder Petersen, I asked if "the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have approved your book, Adam, Who is He?, as the official explanation of [the Adam-God] theory." Elder Petersen replied, "The book is accepted as is also the address that I gave in the [October 1980] general conference on the same subject." (D. J. Buerger to Mark E. Petersen, January 5, 1981 and Petersen to Buerger, January 7, 1981) Elder Petersen responded to another similar inquiry by stating that his book "was approved by the First Presidency and the Twelve and is published under their authority and that these brethren agree with what is in the book." (Mark E. Petersen to Melaine N. Layton, February 13, 1980; photocopy in my possession) The First Presidency has used the book in answering queries on Adam-God since its publication in 1976. (e.g., in response to H. Michael Marquardt's letter to President Spencer W. Kimball on December 3, 1976 [the letter was actually sent over the signature of Janice Willden] asking why Brigham Young's belief was currently held invalid by the church, Francis M. Gibbons, Secretary to the First Presidency, responded, on December 7, 1976 in behalf of President Kimball saying, "[We] suggest that you obtain a copy of the book, Adam, Who is He? by Elder Mark E. Petersen, which fully discusses the questions you raise."; photocopies of this correspondence are in my possession.)

[111]. David John Buerger once again: . Adam, Who is He?, pp. 15-19; also cf. Hugh B. Brown to Morris L. Reynolds, May 13,1966 (photocopy in my possession) for a similar response. Elder Petersen's mistranscription argument was based upon a claim that Apostle Charles C. Rich heard Young's April 9, 1852 sermon and personally corrected the text to a "more accurate" rendition in his copy of the Journal of Discourses. After publication of Adam, Who is He?, however, subsequent research showed that Elder Rich was enroute from San Bernardino to Salt Lake City and could not have heard Young's sermon. The "personal" correction was actually made by Rich's son, Ben E., who was born in 1855. The actual inscription by Rich states, "as corrected above is what Prest Young said, as testified to me by my father C. C. Rich. I si Ben E. Rich" (LDS Archives). This error was corrected in the book's 1979 edition.

[112]. Adam, Who is He?, pp. 83-84.

[113]. Elder Mark E. Peterson, Speeches of the Year, 1979, p. 184, quoted in Teachings of the Living Prophets, Religion 333 Student Manual, p. 30

[114]. Discourse, reported in CR, October 2, 1976, p. 115. This citation has been reprinted in the
church's 1980-81 Melchizedek Priesthood study guide, Choose You This Day (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1979), p. 59.

[115]. Culley K. Christensen, The Adam-God Maze, pg. 185

[116]. Journal of Discourses 16:336

[117]. Dallin H. Oaks, Ensign, Feb. 1987, pg. 68

See also these documents uploaded by Perry Porter:

http://web.archive.org/web/200612311705 ... 100854.htm

[_grindael]

And now, the new evidence that Joseph taught the Adam-god Doctrine...

In the pretty recently released Council of 50 minutes, from the date of April 5, 1844 (starting pg. 83) this was taught by Joseph Smith the "Prophet" of the "Restoration":

The chairman [Joseph Smith] explained the meaning of the word “Ahman” which signifies the first man or first God, and “Ahman Christ” signifies the first mans [p. [84]] son. He then referred to the labors of the committee and said that the council could not decide as to their labors untill they had completed their work. They could only sanction what been done and the committee must continue untill they had completed the document.

In 1832 Smith taught his followers some of the "pure Adamic language" and this is the definition of the word "Ahman" and some plays on it:



In 1855 Pratt (who's notebook is above) explained the above "revelation":

There is one revelation that this people are not generally acquainted with. I think it has never been published, but probably it will be in the Church History. It is given in questions and answers. The first question is, “What is the name of God in the pure language?” The answer says, “Ahman.” “What is the name of the Son of God?” Answer, “Son Ahman—the greatest of the parts of God excepting Ahman.” “What is the name of men?” “Sons Ahman,” is the answer. What is the name of angels in the pure language?” “Anglo-man.”

This revelation goes on to say that Sons Ahman are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Son Ahman and Ahman, and that Anglo-man are the greatest of all the parts of God excepting Sons Ahman, Son Ahman, and Ahman, showing that the angels are a little lower than man. What is the conclusion to be drawn from this? It is, that these intelligent beings are all parts of God, and that those who have the most of the parts of God are the greatest, or next to God, and those who have the next greatest portions of the parts of God, are the next greatest, or nearest to the fulness of God; and so we might go on to trace the scale of intelligences from the highest to the lowest, tracing the parts and portions of God so far as we are made acquainted with them. Hence we see that wherever a great amount of this in(telligent Spirit exists, there is a great amount or proportion of God, which may grow and increase until there is a fulness of the Spirit, and then there is a fulness of God. Orson Pratt, who was there and made his own copy of the "revelation". (Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses 2:342-3).

So to recap, Joseph is teaching that the name of God is always "Ahman" or in other words, the FIRST GOD or FIRST MAN and "Ahman Christ" is always the first man's son. Notice that in 1832 it was "Son Ahman". Now it is "Ahman Christ". This is because of Joseph's new teaching that Adam was God and Jesus was his son. Brigham Young claimed over and over again that Joseph taught it, this is evidence that yes, he did.[/quote]

[_Mormonicious]

Actually of all the Dogma, Revelations, Rantings, Declarations, Speculations, Doctrine, Theories, Beliefs, etc. this is probably to most sound of all when dealing with a deity. Lends credence to the "couplet" as man is now, god once was, as god is now man may become.

STUPID [deleted] Mormons

All Hail Google GOD, her son eBay and the Holy Toaster youtube.